So what should we do?

[MinneapolisMatt]

I am from Minneapolis. I still live here.

I grew up in a family where hunting and fishing was accepted. No big deal. Shot gun, fine. Trolling about the lake for hours, cool. It was actually used for food! However, it's really not needed much anymore. We have grocery stores - although I will admit I enjoy a nice cutlet of venison every now and then.

But as our society evolves, we sometime need to change the rules. Isn't this normal?

I know my conservative relatives like having their weapons, and I don't want to change this. They are responsible good people. Instead, what can we do to strengthen laws? Is there anything? I'm open to ideas.

I feel like we are at a crisis. "Normal" people are responsible with their weapons, but what do we do when irresponsible people get them? It's so frustrating.

Thanks for hearing me out, I hope I'm making a little sense.

I'm frustrated!!! GAH!

[southernyankeebelle]

1. Being reasonable on this issue makes you out of the loop. You are either for guns

or against guns. Asking for reasonable gun restriction is a non starter when talking with people who own guns. You get called names and you are suppose to shut up and take it. So first off being reasonable is a non issue. Sorry if I come off that way because I do agree with you. I don't think you are asking to much.

[permatex]

12. And the same thing happens when pro gun supporters

point out inconsistencies to the other side. I've been told that as a gun owner, I have blood on my hands, I'm constantly called a gun nut, gun religionist, gun hoarder, etc., etc.
Here's a gem from someone that didn't like me defending my RKBA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117252888#post22

It happens on both sides of the issue, don't just vilify those of us defending our 2A right.

[southernyankeebelle]

25. I have NEVER said that to a pro gun advocate. I have in fact agreed with your

right to have a gun in your home for protection and even hunting. But having machine gun type guns stops when the safety of the public is in danger. There is no reason to have those type rifles or guns. None.

[Lifelong Protester]

2. You are expressing the same frustration a lot of us have

I live in WI. And I'm sure a lot of responsible gun owners. A lot. But probably a few not so responsible. How do we solve this problem of guns getting to the irresponsible? More intelligent persons than I need to sit down and discuss this.
I myself am a little amazed that anything like guns or ammo can be bought online. That means any kid could buy the stuff online. Anyone, treated or most scary, not treated, for a mental illness could buy stuff online. And I do not equate buying 6000 rounds of ammo online to buying the latest best-seller from Amazon (that argument was seen on this board).

And I have not heard about people using cars intentionally as weapons of mass destruction, so I do not buy the "Why don't we ban cars then? People kill people with cars!" argument.

[permatex]

13. True, you can buy a gun online

but you cannot have it shipped to your home unless you hold an FFL, it must be shipped to a gun store where you cannot pick it up before a Brady Background check is performed.
This is Federal law.

[former9thward]

26. I would not equate cars with guns but there have certainly been car bombers.

The Times Square bomber comes to mind plus McVeigh used a truck in OK which is the same principle. Also the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was carried out by car bombs.

Why this guy was buying so much online I don't know. Maybe he could get it cheaper that way. But it is very easy to buy ammo in a gun store so banning online sales would not mean anything.

[MadHound]

3. "However, it's really not needed much anymore"?

Really? Nice of you to live in that cushy little middle class bubble world of yours. But out here in the real world, there are still lots of people who shoot deer, fish and kill other animals because they have to. My brother in law wouldn't have been able to put meat on the table for his family if it wasn't for his prowess with a gun. Hell, here in Missouri there is a program where deer hunters donate the meat to the poor, a program that feeds thousands.

And with rising food prices, prices that are going to really shoot up after this summer, more people than ever simply can't afford grocery store meat prices, and figure that a bullet is cheaper than a steak.

Please, stop making these assumptions about all people.

[MinneapolisMatt]

4. OK.

First of all, did I say it's not completely needed anymore? Yes, we have more and more stores available, but I fully support people hunting for food!

Bitter much? It's people like YOU who make debates impossible because you assume I'm some sort of rich liberal in the city. Fuck off.

Do you think I live in a bubble?! Get your shit together. I fucking pick my own mushrooms for christ sakes.

[MadHound]

6. Don't want to be considered a "rich liberal in the city"?

Then don't make stupid assumptions about how people don't really need to hunt that much anymore. Because it is statements like that which show just how out of touch you really are.

I don't 'think' you live in a bubble, your own words make it apparent that you DO live in a bubble.

Ooo, you pick your own mushrooms. When was the last time you went out and hunted deer because that was the only way you were going to put food on the table for your family for an entire year?

Just because we have more stores available doesn't mean that everybody can afford to buy what is in them. In fact, if you hadn't noticed more and more people are slipping into poverty and simply can't afford to purchase what is in those grocery stores.

[99Forever]

8. Oh really?

What percentage of the millions of guns would you say are for the sole purpose of "providing food for those that would not eat without them," in the USA, today?

Well?

[MadHound]

10. Frankly, I don't know

Do you? Also, how can you predict that somebody who is not using a gun for providing food now won't use it for providing food in the future? Like I said, the rate of poverty is increasing quickly, and more people are going to be turning to the gun to provide meat for their families.

Besides, which would you rather eat, a cow raised in a feedlot, pumped with anti-biotics and steroids, or lean, organic deer meat?

[99Forever]

14. That wasn't the question.

You used a particular situation as a justification, yet you have NO idea of how common it is. That's called a canard.

[permatex]

16. The 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting

and firearms are still needed for self defense.

[99Forever]

5. It doesn't even occur to you..

... that this is the kind of kneejerk response that is going to galvanize public opinion and push harsher gun restrictions further, does it?

The gentleman speaks of reasonable limits, and you go off the deep end.

[MadHound]

7. Yeah, that's right,

An anonymous poster on DU is going to "galvanize public opinion and push harsher gun restrictions". I think that you are way overestimating the amount of influence DU has on anything, much less public opinion.

The gentleman was stating that people really don't need to hunt anymore because they can purchase their food from a grocery store. I was simply opening his eyes to the fact that there are still hundreds of thousands of people whose only way to put meat on the table is to shoot it. Poverty is increasing in this country, which means fewer and fewer people can afford what comes out of a grocery store, especially with meat prices shooting up the way they are.

[99Forever]

9. You seriously think DU...

... is the only venue this totally unnecessary, horrible massacre and how to stop the next one is being discussed in?

Really?

OK.

[MadHound]

11. No, I don't.

But you are implying that my comments, here on DU, are going to somehow influence this debate. They're not, sorry.

[99Forever]

15. Whip that strawman's ass.

[permatex]

17. It didn't after Columbine, it didn't after Tucson

and it won't this time either, most reasonable people realize that it was the young man who perpretated this tragedy, not the gun.
He just have as easily used a bomb and caused many more casualities, Hell, he almost did.
Jay Carney came out yesterday and said that the Pres. Obama wouldn't be proposing any new gun control laws, so just who is going to push for any new laws?

[99Forever]

18. Well thanks.

I haven't heard those same NRA/gun nut talking points about a thousand times before. I guess we should just surrender to the spree killers.

[permatex]

19. Right on cue

NRA/gun nut talking points. You are consistent. Now that you've gotten that out of your system, show us where I'm wrong.
I've presented facts, what do you have to bring to the table?

[99Forever]

20. Why bother?

You wouldn't listen anyway. You'd just serve another steaming pile of NRA/gun nut fertilizer.

[permatex]

21. That's the sure sign that you have nothing

Assume and then insult, and you would be wrong, I really want to know why you thing that this tragedy is going to lead to more gun control legislation when even the Pres. isn't going to propose anything, the House is controlled by the repubes, The Sen. Majority Leader is a strong proponent of the 2A, who, BTW, is my Senator.

I'm curious why you think anything will be done. If you decide to answer, please try to do so without the insults.
Thanks

[99Forever]

22. Why will it lead to more gun control?

You really need to ask that question?

Really?

You can't be serious. Either that, or you have a rather skewed view of the world.

[permatex]

23. Why can't you just answer the question

without the snarky comments?
I'll ask again, what makes you believe that things will change when nothing happened after VT Tech, Columbine, Tucson?
Jay Carney came out yesterday and pretty much said that Pres. Obama won't propose any new gun control legislation.
The House is run by the Repubes, the Sen. Majority Leader is a strong supporter of the 2A? So what leads you to believe any thing will change.
Please try to answer without the snark.
I've been civil, please try being the same.

[99Forever]

24. How about when it's..

... your spouse or your child that gets moved down in a senseless hail of gunfire? That be enough to get you angry to care that this shit DOESN'T have to happen in a civilized society? I'll give you a million to one that not one single SHOOTING victim in Aurora or their families thought it would EVER happen to them. Yet. It. Did.

And if a candidate for ANY office won't address this and at least make an effort to do something about it, I won't give them my vote.

[permatex]

28. So why were'nt more gun control laws passed after the other massacres?

They were proposed in the House and Senate, why not?
What make this shooting any different?
Oh, we'll get the usual grandstanding from the usual suspects, like Carolyn "shoulder thing that goes up" McCarthy,

or Charles Schumer, who never met a gun control law he didn't like.

[99Forever]

29. Why the fuck are you asking me?

I'll answer anyway. Because our government and it's policies have been sold to the likes of the NRA and the banksters.


Are you really that dense or is it an act? Not snark, a very real question.

[permatex]

30. I won't argue about the banksters

But to answer your question about whether I'm dense or is it an act? Neither, I live in the real world and so far you haven't made the case of why this shooting is going to change anything.

[99Forever]

32. No, bud...

... I haven't taken your NRA bait.


Bu bye, you are a waste of time

[permatex]

33. Now I know you have nothing

NRA bait? That's the best you got? No, it's not NRA bait, it's reality, you just don't seem to grasp it.
Thanks for playing.

[leveymg]

27. You can keep your bolt-action hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns. But, no more trade in semiautos.

You can even keep those - nobody will come to your house to take your legally purchased, registered AR-15 or Glock .40 away. But, going forward, if you buy or sell a semiauto rifle or pistol, you're going to federal prison for a long time. No exceptions.

That's what can and should be done.

[permatex]

31. And who are you to tell us what we can or can't have?

I will own whatever I want that is legal to own, and I don't need your permission.

[MineralMan]

34. And if what you want becomes illegal, though the legislative process?

What then? That's the thing. Nobody here can pass any law. On DU, people can only advocate that laws be passed. In some jurisdictions, such laws have already been passed. Owning any firearm is difficult in some jurisdictions already.

I live in Minnesota. I can buy any type of long gun any time I wish, and take it home with me from the store today. I don't need any more, though. If I lived in some jurisdictions, I'd find other conditions. Laws get passed all the time.

The poster you're replying to cannot take your firearms away from you or keep you from purchasing more of them. Your local legislature can, though. And they just might, depending on where you are.

If they do, what you want may not be legal to purchase. What then?

[permatex]

35. I would obey the law

How about criminals? Would they obey the law?
I live in NV which is very 2A friendly, we also have a state pre-emption law, thats why NLV and Boulder City are about to get their asses handed to them for enacting their own gun control laws that are stricter than state law.

[MineralMan]

36. Criminals don't obey laws, by definition.

They're out of the discussion, frankly.

[permatex]

37. Not out of the discussion

Why a certain firearm not be available to us when a criminal would have no problem getting the same firearm?

[MineralMan]

38. One of the reasons that criminals can get

certain firearms is because they're readily available to law-abiding citizens. That part of the equation is rarely discussed.

[Lifelong Protester]

39. That is true.

I think Minneapolis Matt was frustrated and pointing out we need dialogue. That means sustained discussion.
Reasonable discussion seems out of the question. I'm not pointing this at you MineralMan, not at all!

My mom was killed by a drunk driver. Did I go out and advocate for banning cars? No. But obviously a huge part of the accident that killed her was drunk driving on the part of the 'killer'. (I had to find it in me to forgive her, the drunk driver, as she was also killed, and left three young children behind. I, although deeply hurt and saddened, was at least an adult and hopefully better able to process it).

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups have campaigned for stricter laws concerning drunk driving (alcohol levels in your blood that are deemed legal), and for stricter penalties against drunk drivers.
Now, will those things work in the aim of restricting access to guns and ammo by the 'crazies'? I doubt it.

But jeez-o-pete, folks, we need to start something.

[MineralMan]

41. Firearms Regulations are a Hodge-Podge

Depending on the specific jurisdiction, which may be a state or even a city, there's a wide range of regulations on firearms. As a firearms owner myself, I have no interest in any sort of confiscatory regulations. However, I am not opposed in any way to regulations on things like 100-round drum magazines and other items that make it easy for a crazed individual to create mayhem like that in Aurora. Frankly, such items are useless in general in civilian hands. They're more in the category of toys for firearms aficionados than useful devices. That they are available for purchase on the Internet means that the person planning some massacre like the one in Colorado has ready access to tools that enable such activity. While some firearms owners with no such plans might want such devices to play with, their potential for destruction goes far beyond what's at all reasonable.

Other areas, I believe should also be open to discussion. Things like large quantity purchases of ammunition online, some ballistic clothing, and other items of no real use to civilians, should all be part of the conversation, I believe. In this, I take exception with the firearms culture, which sees such restrictions as violations of the 2nd Amendment.

[Lifelong Protester]

42. You make a lot of intelligent points

I agree, why do people need firearm paraphernalia that is only meant to cause huge destruction such as happened in Aurora? And why can't we reasonably expect some consistency across state lines? And the whole internet purchase of ammo? So much of it? No red flag? (someone schooled me up thread that all guns ordered online must be picked up at a store, where they run a check. I did not know that.)

But jeez, some of that ballistic clothing should not be available for civilian use.

I don't own a gun now, but I live in WI so I'm surrounded by gun culture. I did take firearm safety, so I'm not afraid of guns.

[loyalsister]

40. Both sides think they have "the truth"

The middle ground where people might be able to find logical and productive ideas\solutions that could reduce gun violence is a void is not even available because of the vitriol of the fundamentalists who think they have all the answers.