Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reduction of hunting is noted as an important reason for the reduction of ownership.

Yeah, you're going to get lots of people opting out of answering that ir simply telling the pollster "no" even if they do own firearms. I know I'd be hesitant to self identify like that. Thats said, I dont doubt the overall trend.

 sebster wrote:
Mob mentality works because of the impact of crowds when there is a short time frame for decision making. You can get a large crowd to clap by having a few strategically placed clappers placed among the audience, but you can't get someone to clap and expect that someone in another state will clap three months later.

That isn't entirely true, the time isn't a true factor nor is decision making because it isn't conscious part of the process. The trigger for a riot/mob depends on each persons individual thresholds. Everyone has certain thresholds that vary which determine what will motivate them into responding. Clapping for example is a different threshold than say throwing a rock at someone you hate.

To think that the internet can not create, have impact or cause a mob would be highly inaccurate. The Internet is a breeding ground for herd mentality. Not only is it easy for online users to find throngs of other individuals who share their brand of crazy, but it shields everyone under a cloak of anonymity, which gives people the freedom to let go of their social restraints.

Years ago before internet and social media for mass mob/riot mentality could only be generated through protesters and people congregating in an area amongst similar people with the same opinions and point of view. That crowd takes a certain amount 'pressure' before those thresholds reach critical mass. Years ago those types of gatherings would only be in a few hundred to even a thousand. Watching those events on the news or reading them in the papers wouldn't trigger future events because that emotional energy was dispelled. Also there isn't a social connecting by reading a paper or watching the news, unlike when you are instantly chatting with a "friend" on facebook where social connections are made.

For a test case if you apply the above to "Cecil the lion"; It would have taken weeks to build the "pressure", if any at all, to create the mass mob/mentality of prank calling, graffiti, property damage and death threats to not just threatening Palmer but his employees and place of business. It only took a few hours to days to breach the threshold causing thousands of outraged people rising up in a social media riot which broke thresholds creating situations of assault (rocks and other thrown things) at not just the dentist but anyone who was in the vicinity of it, people who weren't even involved. This outrage spread to people not even involved and only associated to regular working people under his employ creating a dangerous environment. Then you have the property damage, graphiti and other things all triggered through current trends from online.

That isn't the only example of such things. We see it all the time when large groups of people create sweeping changes, become judges and executioners of people who haven't been found guilty but only been accused of something. In normal mob/riots the reach of those people is only to a few hundred. Each of those people have different thresholds and triggers before they join into a traditional mob/riot. Social media and internet instead of reaching hundreds can reach a targeted millions instantly, triggering and meeting thresholds suddenly reaching critical mass at a faster rate than traditional methods.

Mass shootings isn't a person in a group of people, waiting for someone to clap. They are isolated individuals seeking a type of kinship. They find that social connection differently than those within a crowd (who would be waiting for someone to clap), these people connect differently. It is why a good portion of the profiles are quiet individuals, not necessarily shy but those that have felt they've been ignored or bullied. They all research other shootings, have a manifesto, take similar pictures posing in similar poses with guns among other similarities between them. These are how they found socially acceptance. Their thresholds and triggers are different than the normal crowd person. The threshold for mass shootings was met awhile ago, increases daily and we've reached this point of critical mass that we can never close Pandora's box again.

Increase in guns doesn't entirely correlate that it makes it the most likely to be the weapon of choice. Yes the largest portion of gun violence does happen to be suicide. Suicide is also different thing than mass shootings. If gun proliferation is the explanation then that would mean our suicide rate would be higher than any other country but it isn't, last I checked US wasn't even in the top 10.

 sebster wrote:
Similarly for spur of the moment killings (by far the most common) - consider a heated family argument, one with a gun within a few paces walking distance and one without - which is more likely to end up with someone making a very stupid decision?

It depends on the environment and by environment I mean country and background of those involved. An argument is a crime of passion that has different results than a premeditated crime.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Reduction of hunting is noted as an important reason for the reduction of ownership.

This seems at variance with firearms sales date over the last few years.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Firearms ownership in the USA has been declining for decades.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%2520Reports/GSS_Trends%2520in%2520Gun%2520Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiEp9Pp9sLLAhVDMhoKHaYOAC8QFghIMAs&usg=AFQjCNEuxc5CqRmC-ZJPNoTD2nuqbpV6aQ&sig2=3tEUvgR2e6LEvszpsyU7Aw

Gallup polling also confirms this.

Gallup relied upon a lot of self reporting so I would not be surprised if people with firearms in their home decided that it was not the business of some stranger cold calling them.

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tkzv4c1e8v/econTabReport.pdf
According to that survey almost 4/10 households have firearms.

Also the NRA have 66% more requests to teach beginners, and record sales are being reported for ladies firearm accessories. So either more people are getting involved (especially ladies) or Bubba and his buddies now want flashbang bras, garter holsters, and pink camo.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
flashbang bras,

Sir you have peeked my curiosity.

flashbang bras?

Most households include women, so more women seeking gun training or accessories doesn't automatically equal more households with guns.

Same with CC permits.

I was a gun owner for 10 years before I applied for my CC permit.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Reduction of hunting is noted as an important reason for the reduction of ownership.

This seems at variance with firearms sales date over the last few years.

What is happening is that fewer people are buying and owning guns, but the fewer people who buy and own guns are buying more guns.

As for the reporting issue, both the WORC and Gallup surveys have non-response rates of under 5%.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

As for the reporting issue, both the WORC and Gallup surveys have non-response rates of under 5%.

I don't think that addresses the reporting issue mentioned. I thought he meant folks who will say "Nope, ain't got no gunz' when in fact they do.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Firearms ownership in the USA has been declining for decades.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%2520Reports/GSS_Trends%2520in%2520Gun%2520Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiEp9Pp9sLLAhVDMhoKHaYOAC8QFghIMAs&usg=AFQjCNEuxc5CqRmC-ZJPNoTD2nuqbpV6aQ&sig2=3tEUvgR2e6LEvszpsyU7Aw

Gallup polling also confirms this.

Gallup relied upon a lot of self reporting so I would not be surprised if people with firearms in their home decided that it was not the business of some stranger cold calling them.

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tkzv4c1e8v/econTabReport.pdf
According to that survey almost 4/10 households have firearms.

Also the NRA have 66% more requests to teach beginners, and record sales are being reported for ladies firearm accessories. So either more people are getting involved (especially ladies) or Bubba and his buddies now want flashbang bras, garter holsters, and pink camo.

The survey KillKrazy posted shows the gender gap regarding firearm ownership getting reduced almost in half over the years so that trend appears to be reflected in some degree of accuracy.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that guns are as mechanically safe as they can get, they really haven't changed much in the last 50-70 years in that regard. We're not talking the same kind of advances we saw in cars. Gun deaths generally aren't due to the gun being unable to withstand something or something failing on the gun itself as you'd get with a car, it's that they're operated inappropriately. The only real solution there then is regulation of users, and thus straight into the slippery slope.

Regulation isn't a slippery slope, cars have been continually regulated since their introduction, and they are still used and enjoyed by far more people (far more often) than guns are. Unless your idea of "freedom" is an unlicensed person tearing down a busy highstreet at 80mph knocking down school children, no one's freedom to drive has been "curtailed".

Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing. A pedestrian hit by a modern car or a 1930's sedan, probably won't feel much difference. It is regulation of users and highways that has improved safety. My grandfather, who was born in the 1920s, had both his young brothers killed by cars (within a few months of each other). It wasn't uncommon, there was even talk of banning automobiles when they first arrived, because of the number of deaths they caused. Regulation is what made cars safer, and allowed the technology the prosper and become an indispensable part of modern life.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that guns are as mechanically safe as they can get, they really haven't changed much in the last 50-70 years in that regard. We're not talking the same kind of advances we saw in cars. Gun deaths generally aren't due to the gun being unable to withstand something or something failing on the gun itself as you'd get with a car, it's that they're operated inappropriately. The only real solution there then is regulation of users, and thus straight into the slippery slope.

Regulation isn't a slippery slope, cars have been continually regulated since their introduction, and they are still used and enjoyed by far more people (far more often) than guns are. Unless your idea of "freedom" is an unlicensed person tearing down a busy highstreet at 80mph knocking down school children, no one's freedom to drive has been "curtailed".

Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing. A pedestrian hit by a modern car or a 1930's sedan, probably won't feel much difference. It is regulation of users and highways that has improved safety. My grandfather, who was born in the 1920s, had both his brothers killed by cars (within a few months of each other). It wasn't uncommon, there was even talk of banning automobiles when they first arrived, because of the number of deaths they caused. Regulation is what made cars safer, and allowed the technology the prosper and become an indispensable part of modern life.

Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before. Cars also =\= guns.

Vaktathi's point stands, guns are mechanically as safe as they can be currently. The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator. Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had. Increased gun regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had. Increased gun regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.

That is only because there is a small amount of regulation at Federal level, mostly everything is done at a State level and ultimately that is a huge issue with how guns are regulated. The differences between regulations between states is more than it should be. I don't necessarily believe that regulation focused on just people is the full answer, it is more of a focus on people and how they obtain guns. I think there should be multiple levels of gun licenses much like vehicle drive licenses. My main issue is that it is harder to get a job these days than buy a gun, meaning there are credit checks, background checks, drug checks, references.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is that guns are as mechanically safe as they can get, they really haven't changed much in the last 50-70 years in that regard. We're not talking the same kind of advances we saw in cars. Gun deaths generally aren't due to the gun being unable to withstand something or something failing on the gun itself as you'd get with a car, it's that they're operated inappropriately. The only real solution there then is regulation of users, and thus straight into the slippery slope.

Regulation isn't a slippery slope, cars have been continually regulated since their introduction, and they are still used and enjoyed by far more people (far more often) than guns are. Unless your idea of "freedom" is an unlicensed person tearing down a busy highstreet at 80mph knocking down school children, no one's freedom to drive has been "curtailed".

Thats not really any different than relaitively basic ordnances that have applied to firearms for decades, like discharging a firearm inappropriately inside city limits and the like. Thats not the kind of thing people have a problem with. Cars dont have "buy/no buy" checks in them, you cant be denied a car purchase because of a conviction (you can still own a car if you have a DUI for example...just cant drive it on public roads for a while) or a restraining order, and the lack of a license only precludes certain types of use rather than purchase (say, like in Illinois or NYC). You dont have to wait X number of days to take possession of a car after buying it the way you do with guns in many states. You dont need to file an extra tax with the govt and wait 4-6 months to transfer certain vehicles the way you do with certain firearms.

And, if the polls Killkrazy posted are accurate, then firearms ownership is declining, not growing. Going back to NYC, regulation has effectively made firearms ownership almost impossible to do legally.

More to the point, there's basically zero definitive data that firearms regulation of users really does anything to affect crime rates or homicide numbers.

Regulation also works much better for cars because, my their nature, they are inherently rather restricted in terms of operation in most instances, usually confined to a storage location and publicly owned and regulated roads, they arent something that can be carried on ones person and go anywhere peoole can.

In general, there's very little regulation of ownership of cars, as opposed to guns, while both of usage restrictions, regulation of the users themselves and designsting who can or cannot own a car is practically nonexistent.

Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing. A pedestrian hit by a modern car or a 1930's sedan, probably won't feel much difference. It is regulation of users and highways that has improved safety.

there has been a massive amount of regulation and mechanical and electronic enhancement of automobiles in regards to their construction and reliability. Getting into a crash in a 1963 car vs a 2016 car makes a drastic difference in injury and fatality rates, you are way safer in the 2016 car. There has been a ton of design related regulation that simply does not translate to firearms.

Guns are different, their design has laregly plateaud over the last 60 or so years. We're seeing stuff come in a bit lighter, or with new optics, but the fundamental operating mechanisms are unchanged. A gunsmith from 1930 could pick up just about any gun today and figure it out in a few minutes. A car mechanic from 1990 would have no clue how to deal with most cars today due to the integration of electronics that just havent found any way to be meaningfully integrated into firearms.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before. Cars also =\= guns.

Vaktathi's point stands, guns are mechanically as safe as they can be currently. The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator. Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had. Increased gun regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.

It was regulation that made it illegal to manufacture cars without seatbelts.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before.

As I already said, the risk to pedestrians from cars is largely the same as it ever was, yet pedestrians are much safer now than before regulation.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Cars also =\= guns.

Which is exactly my point. If you follow the conversation, it was not me but someone arguing on behalf of gun rights, who brought up the comparison. Gun rights people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to make arguments about pros/cons and inherent risk in all things, and draw parallels. Yet when someone points out that other things are regulated to mitigate those risks, suddenly back to "guns =/= cars". Thank you for making my point for me.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had.

20,000 in each state? Or are you multiplying similar and overlapping and expired laws, to be deliberately misleading?

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator.

Agreed.

Prestor Jon wrote:
regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.

Again, that's my whole point. The 2nd amendment is a legal obstacle that prevents regulation (some types of regulation). My argument is that regulation is not a slippery slope, and can benefit everyone.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Regulation also works much better for cars because, my their nature, they are inherently rather restricted in terms of operation in most instances, usually confined to a storage location and publicly owned and regulated roads, they arent something that can be carried on ones person and go anywhere peoole can.

It is also easier to regulate cars because most cars have a unique ID that is tied typically to a driver/license and is tracked from owner to owner, etc. While some states don't require a firearm to be registered at all, it is the owners choice.

I don't believe the answer is no guns nor do I believe in taking guns away. I love guns. ^_^ I have grown up around them my whole life. However I that there are some laws that should change and help control who, what and at least identify who/what has them. I don't want to take them away, but I do think we need to adjust regulations to which help show "gun owner" = "lawful responsible gun owner". The fact that some states don't require registration for them or that I can get a concealed weapon permits in another state, without a class but that permit is recognized in other states is strange.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Talizvar wrote:
Hey! You identified my intent that it was speculation, though you label it as unhelpful.
Oh, I am sure getting that evidence will be every bit as difficult as you can probably speculate.
Though they do point to a few papers I was aware of here: https://samanthasprole.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/a-psychological-perspective-on-gun-violence-in-the-united-states/

Because taking a concept and applying it to millions of law abiding Americans on the basis of the actions of three people is not only helpful, but scientifically sound....

 Talizvar wrote:
Or this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect

So when someone is threatened and suffering pain at the hands of another their instinct is to defend themselves using the most efficient means to hand. You are trying to prove what exactly?
And yet time and time again we see nationally that increased firearm ownership, relaxed rules on the carrying of firearms does not increase violent crimes or confrontations.

 Talizvar wrote:
Though this is a bit more applicable: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0

So you are basing your opinions on law abiding gun owners based on bumper stickers, and juveniles (who are more likely than not prohibited from carrying firearms by law) who have been involved in gang activity. So that is less than worthless

 Talizvar wrote:
Which does happen to mention some 19,000 gun accidents.

Out of how many million firearms, across how many years? Statistically insignificant. Again

So your attempted an appeal to authority to perform a psychological character smear failed.

 Talizvar wrote:
All this helps paint the picture of why to feel attracted to guns and that is typically those who are aggressive, feeling impotent or powerless, you know, the more vulnerable elements of society who have some discipline issues.

Still waiting for evidence of this, because the facts and figures say you're wrong.

 Talizvar wrote:
This open letter is particularly interesting: http://www.fairwarning.org/2013/05/an-open-letter-to-gun-owners/

What did you find interesting? Other than the fact that it confirmed your biases and trotted out all the usual talking points?

If you are going to edit what I said, result to ad hominem, ignore my points, and strawman what I did say then you really are making an on going discussion difficult.

Okay, next time I will ensure it is all out of the quotes...
All I did was "Dreadclaw69 wrote" and added "Said stuff"... and put the spoiler on due to the wall of text we had going.
I know better for next time. Edit to retaliate... not my thing but thanks MOD for the note.

As to personal attacks? (ad hominem) Uh, no.
I cannot say I have been made angry or care enough to attack the person's character and am at a bit of a loss of how I had done so.

"Ignore my points." You got me on that one, since I started doing that when you ignored the contents of mine.

"Strawman" is arguing points that were not brought forward: I do not think I had done that and would hate to fabricate an imaginary discussion.

I guess if you throw enough out there, you figure you can make it stick.

I will take the hint from the MOD and let this lively discussion be. My first MOD warning! This is a fine example of group polarization.

 Talizvar wrote:
I will take the hint from the MOD and let this lively discussion be. My first MOD warning! This is a fine example of group polarization.

Or breaking Rule 1, but playing the victim is often more fun. As you are quitting the thread I don't see the need to enumerate in detail what you feign innocence over.

Pushing for the last word in that way is hardly polite, and hardly on topic. It is now dropped, and not being mentioned again unless you don't want to be posting for a while.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before.

As I already said, the risk to pedestrians from cars is largely the same as it ever was, yet pedestrians are much safer now than before regulation.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Cars also =\= guns.

Which is exactly my point. If you follow the conversation, it was not me but someone arguing on behalf of gun rights, who brought up the comparison. Gun rights people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to make arguments about pros/cons and inherent risk in all things, and draw parallels. Yet when someone points out that other things are regulated to mitigate those risks, suddenly back to "guns =/= cars". Thank you for making my point for me.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had.

20,000 in each state? Or are you multiplying similar and overlapping and expired laws, to be deliberately misleading?

Prestor Jon wrote:
The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator.

Agreed.

Prestor Jon wrote:
regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.

Again, that's my whole point. The 2nd amendment is a legal obstacle that prevents regulation (some types of regulation). My argument is that regulation is not a slippery slope, and can benefit everyone.

I didn't misconstrue or mislead, my statement is accurate. I can take my car that is legal to drive in my home state and drive it in any of the 50 states without needing to make any changes or adjustments to it or how I operate it. If I have my firearms in the car with me or on my person every time I cross state lines the legal restrictions on how I can carry and transport my firearms changes and any failure on my part to comply with the various laws that change state to state can result in criminal charges and serious lengthy prison sentences because guns are much more heavily regulated than cars.

The second amendment is not the only legal obstacle to gun control laws there are also state constitutions, state laws and Supreme Court rulings that all affirm the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
flashbang bras,

Sir you have peeked my curiosity.

flashbang bras?

It is a holster that is attached to a bra, and I am not risking breaking forum rules by posting images. I am not super keen on them because drawing from them can cause you to muzzle sweep a very blood rich and organ dense part of the body.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
flashbang bras,

Sir you have peeked my curiosity.

flashbang bras?

It is a holster that is attached to a bra, and I am not risking breaking forum rules by posting images. I am not super keen on them because drawing from them can cause you to muzzle sweep a very blood rich and organ dense part of the body.

That seems like an exceptionally stupid idea, especially when regular holsters exist.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That seems like an exceptionally stupid idea, especially when regular holsters exist.

But also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from an industry whose solution to getting more women to buy guns was to make them available in pink.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Regulation also works much better for cars because, my their nature, they are inherently rather restricted in terms of operation in most instances, usually confined to a storage location and publicly owned and regulated roads, they arent something that can be carried on ones person and go anywhere peoole can.

It is also easier to regulate cars because most cars have a unique ID that is tied typically to a driver/license and is tracked from owner to owner, etc. While some states don't require a firearm to be registered at all, it is the owners choice.

I don't believe the answer is no guns nor do I believe in taking guns away. I love guns. ^_^ I have grown up around them my whole life. However I that there are some laws that should change and help control who, what and at least identify who/what has them. I don't want to take them away, but I do think we need to adjust regulations to which help show "gun owner" = "lawful responsible gun owner". The fact that some states don't require registration for them or that I can get a concealed weapon permits in another state, without a class but that permit is recognized in other states is strange.

Everyone who buys a gun from a dealer has to pass a background check and have a clean criminal record proving themselves to be law abiding citizens. There is no way for somebody to have a criminal record and be able to buy a gun from a dealer so the vast majority of gun owners are actually law abiding citizens.

States determine for themselves if they want to grant reciprocity for other states' concealed carry permits and which states they choose. It changes over time and for a variety of reasons. Carry permits are governed by the states so their 10th amendment rights give them control over them. Likewise any registration requirement would be strictly a state matter. Most states have never had registration so it's difficult to drum up support for one. Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed. If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not and if you don't commit a crime you get to keep them and buy more whether they are registered or not. There doesn't seem to be a point to putting people on a government list just for the sake of having a list. I don't see the need for a list that does nothing for prevention and would only be useful after the fact.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Everyone who buys a gun from a dealer has to pass a background check and have a clean criminal record proving themselves to be law abiding citizens. There is no way for somebody to have a criminal record and be able to buy a gun from a dealer so the vast majority of gun owners are actually law abiding citizens.

I highlighted the one issue with the statement. I also want to point out that all "law abiding citizens" are law abiding until which time they break the law. A good portion of those involved in mass shooting were law abiding, at least until they pulled the trigger and then they were no longer law abiding. Law abiding also doesn't equal "responsible" gun owners.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Likewise any registration requirement would be strictly a state matter. Most states have never had registration so it's difficult to drum up support for one. Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed.

Part of the problem is most regulation is a state matter. I realize that they haven't required it. It is why I think to effectively implement any changes it would require to grandfather in a good portion. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen moving forward. Again everyone who has a clean record does so until they commit an illegal crime. Everyone who has ever committed an illegal crime was a legal citizen at one point. The main compelling reason though to register would be to properly link guns from buyers/owners to crimes and going over those owners that were irresponsible, sold their gun illegally, had it stolen but didn't report, careless neglect in storing them cause them to be stolen and in some case not even realizing it was gone because they had so many. It isn't so much about prevention as it is about tracking the sources more effectively.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I didn't misconstrue or mislead, my statement is accurate. I can take my car that is legal to drive in my home state and drive it in any of the 50 states without needing to make any changes or adjustments to it or how I operate it. If I have my firearms in the car with me or on my person every time I cross state lines the legal restrictions on how I can carry and transport my firearms changes and any failure on my part to comply with the various laws that change state to state can result in criminal charges and serious lengthy prison sentences because guns are much more heavily regulated than cars.

Firstly, you did mislead because there is no basis in reality for the 20,000 figure you regurgitated. Secondly, a car is a machine that is almost purpose built for making long journeys (such as across state lines), so it's hardly surprising that the law would facilitate that. Thirdly, you will still be subject to local laws, such as speed limits. An unscrupulous person could define each speed sign as a unique local regulation if they wanted (for example, if they wanted to arrive at a falsely inflated number like 20,000).

Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars, but even if they were, the numbers would be bulked out with stupid things like "you can't shoot beer cans off a donkey's ass on St Patrick's day" in Deadend, Missouri. Back in the real word, cars have just as many rules that might disqualify people from driving them. They also require a licence and registration, which in practical terms makes them more regulated than guns.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed. If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not and if you don't commit a crime you get to keep them and buy more whether they are registered or not. There doesn't seem to be a point to putting people on a government list just for the sake of having a list. I don't see the need for a list that does nothing for prevention and would only be useful after the fact.

This shows an incredible lack of foresight. The idea of a registry is not to fix gun problems overnight, it's to keep track of guns once the original law abiding owner passes them on. It's an investment in the future.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.

How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?

Very much depends on the area and state. In NY you have to get a license to own most (if not all) fire-arms.