Hooknswoop

Very interesting perspective. A very smart person once told me, perspective is important, and you only have one. 2 questions. I am curious if the media hype is affecting your perception of just how many people die from guns in the US. When you say; "the number of people dying from them in the states alone is crazy.". What is the number? Where id you get the number? Second question, why do you think you feel safer in the US than the UK walking around at 2AM? Derek V

I don't think I said they would violate our constitutional rights. If I did, I misspoke. They will restrict our rights. I am out of my depth, but I would think it would be unconstitutional. Same as requiring a class before you can excersie any of our other rights. Derek V

Sure, you never to 100%. Iw as just trying to keep it simple. Derek V

I am not upset at all. The 2nd amendment discussion is very interesting to me. 3 of the 4 things you listed, I can buy. Only 1, suppressors, do I have any interest in. Just extra money ($200) and a longer wait for the background check to be completed. I think the extra requirements for short barreled shot guns and machine guns is a good idea. Although I suspect if the additional requirements were eliminated, nothing would change. No need for hand grenades, even if they a blast (get it?) to use. The extra requirements for suppressors is a bit much, but I can live with it. I can buy a fully automatic rifle. They are expensive to buy and, because they go through ammunition so quickly, expansive to shoot. I've fired fully automatic firearms. I have no desire to spend the money it takes on one for myself. Derek V

No. I am looking at mass shootings because anti-gunners are using them as the catalyst for more gun laws. "We must do something". I am not saying they are a waste of time, I am saying they infringe on our constitutional right to bear arms. I am not willing to give up even a small part of any right for a small gain. This is really what the issue boils down to. How much restriction for how much gain. One end of the scale is repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all guns. No doubt about it, removing all guns from the population will 100% eliminate firearm related incidents. The other end of the scale, is own whatever you want, 0 restrictions. A balance between the two extremes is best. Where exactly is the balance point? How much freedom and how many incidents per year is a good balance? This is the issue. I believe we are at that balance point now. Looking at what few ideas for increasing restrictions to reduce incidents, it will take large restrictions for small gains. Derek V

Any laws restricting gun ownership is limiting constitutional rights. requiring a training class every 2 years places a hurdle to gun ownership that is not in place today. This limits the 2nd amendment. I am not saying it is a good idea to have gun owners that don't know that removing the magazine from a semi-auto pistol does not mean it has been cleared. I actually believe strongly in firearms training. I agree it would reduce accidents. If someone can barely afford a firearm and cannot afford the class as well, then the requirement has limited this person's right to own a firearm. Derek V

Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded room, constitutional rights are not limitless. But we must be extremely careful when placing limits on them. I use the question, "what event(s) would have be prevented", as a test. All to often, the answer is "none". In the last example, Kalends suggested 5 new laws to that, maybe, would have prevented one mass shooting a year. Too much restriction for too little gain. Anti-gunners use the emotion generated by media sensationalism to gain support for more gun laws. Often these gun laws will have little to no impact on the type of incident used to get the law passed. They just want more gun laws, even if they don't reduce mass shootings, etc. That is dishonest. "so, often". Looking at the CDC study, it doesn't happen that often. The media portrays it as happening often and creates a perception that it is a big problem. It isn't. I don't agree with the concept large limits placed on the 2nd amendment for little to no gains on reducing incidents. Derek V

You don't understand. It is not selective enforcement, the law cannot be enforced. In addition, the law has had no effect, other than to make it more expensive and more of a hassle to buy a firearm in a private sale. Derek V

We have that here in Colorado. The governor admitted they did not do enough research before passing it. It changed nothing. No one has been charged under the new law. Derek V

I'm not following what you mean by forms and databases. Please clarify. Derek V

Sure, for illegal drugs, it happens enough that sting operations are effective. How many private gun sales are there in a year in Colorado? How big of a problem is it? Is it a good use of law enforcement's time, energy, and resources to go after private gun sales in Colorado? No, it isn't. This law is a great example of restricting citizens rights for very little to no gain. What a waste of time and money. A perfect example of my point that anti-gunners want restrictive laws passed that are going to make little to no difference. Derek V

No. That is not the reason. You do not have to drive out of state to avoid it. How can law enforcement prove that the owner of a firearm that was purchased in a private sale did not have a background check performed (and passed)? They cannot. That is why the law in enforceable. Derek V

I already addressed the training class for a constitutional right. If that were true, then why has the universal background check law here in Colorado been completely ineffective? "Last month, while addressing a group of Colorado sheriffs, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper spoke on the topic of the state's 2013 measure outlawing almost all private transfers of firearms. According to the Denver Post, Hickenlooper told the sheriffs, "I think we screwed that up completely... we were forming legislation without basic facts."" Universal background check laws are ineffective and unenforceable. Derek V

1. Uniformity, so you can't avoid them simply by crossing a city boundary or state line. 2. Universality, so you can't avoid them by buying over the internet. 3. Record keeping. 4. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms. 5. Mandatory gun safety classes at regular intervals (say every 2 years, like for pilot licenses) 1. Which state's gun laws are going to made uniform? California? New York? Utah? 2. We have universal background check law here in CO. It has changed nothing and is unenforceable. 3. Record keeping. Not sure what is meant, but is sounds a lot like registration just look at how well that is working in Connecticut. 4. Not sure how reporting stolen firearms will prevent anything. 5. I'll be OK with as soon as you have to pay attend and pass a class every 2 years to exercise your right to free speech. What makes these measures draconian is the 2nd amendment. The people to do not have to justify these rights in order to keep them. Derek V

OK, fair enough. Are these 5 restrictions on every U.S. citizen worth saving 1 incident a year? Not emotionally, but logically. i am not convinced it is worth these draconian measures. I get to label them draconian because The other side gets to label them common sense laws. Derek V

Which 3? Derek V

And how would these impact the number of firearm fatalities each year? In other words, how many mass shootings would have been prevented in the last year if these 5 new restrictions were already in place? How many murders would have been prevented? Derek V

Good, you are finally playing the ball, not the player. What does effective gun laws have to involve? What do you mean by "effective"? Basically, what new restrictions for what result? Derek V

Oops. Derek V

Sure, because they are sensational. They get the ratings. They get people's attention. Again, the "We have to do something!" call to arms (see what I did there?). What do you want to do? What can be done that will reduce already smaller numbers to even smaller numbers without large impacts on the 2nd amendment? The low hanging fruit is gone. Derek V

Could be, but just calling it stupid doesn't make it so. Derek V

Again, you have nothing to offer, so you attack the poster. Derek V

I can make almost anything look evil by how I present it. Sensationalism. Swimming pools, cars, boats, white water rafting, whatever. Looking at the facts, nothing the anti-gunners have presented (when you can get them to to present anything, which is a real challenge), would make any meaningful change that doesn't infringe on our constitutional rights. My odds of even witnessing a mass shooting are extremely low. I am much more likely to die from fireworks or skydiving than a mass shooting. Know anyone that has died or has gotten injured skydiving? From a car accident? I do. I don't know anyone that was killed or injured in a mass shooting. http://gawker.com/you-will-not-die-in-a-mass-shooting-1746158444 "You Will Not Die in a Mass Shooting Hamilton Nolan 12/04/15 9:09amFiled to: PERSPECTIVE 82.1K 526 96 Some very visible bad things have happened. Dozens of people have been shot. Some people are very afraid. They don’t need to be. Let us note up front that there are two competing dynamics here: first, the widespread idea in the public imagination that something very unlikely could happen; and second, the media’s exaggeration of this dynamic for the purpose of producing trend stories. If you want to know “How have the most recent mass shootings changed the fears of Americans in their day to day lives?” you’ll need to wait for a detailed national poll or three, and we don’t have those yet, what with the latest mass shooting being so recent. Therefore it must be understood that any narrative along the lines of “Americans are now terrified of being killed in mass shootings” is, at its core, more of a story that any competent journalist can weave with a handful of interviews than it is a statistically proven fact (yet). That said, Americans are nothing if not susceptible to wild miscalculations based on what they see passingly in the news. “Fear in the Air, Americans Look Over Their Shoulders,” proclaims the New York Times today, in a story that is essentially a written-through roundup of the 5,000 voluntary responses the paper received when it asked people if they are now, you know, fearful of mass shootings. The surprising answer: people who decided to write in to the New York Times about their fear of mass shootings are, in fact, very scared of mass shootings. A mother in Tampa has a “constant, grinding anxiety” of being killed in a mass shooting. A childless woman in Massachusetts says that when she has children she will home school them in order to save them from mass shootings. A man in Virginia “now [watches] movies exclusively at home,” so as not to be killed in a movie theater shooting. A woman in Texas makes note of the location of all exits every time she goes to a shopping mall, so that she can flee an imagined mass shooter. What the New York Times is too polite to say is: this fear is delusional. Mass shootings are very scary. And very visible. But in all likelihood they are not going to happen to you. You are more likely to die in a mass shooting than to win the Powerball drawing, but the truth is that you are not going to do either. That does not stop people from buying lottery tickets, and it does not stop people from fearing being killed in spectacular acts of terrorism. It is true that guns kill tens of thousands of Americans every year—the majority of them from suicide. Of the fraction that are homicides, only a vanishingly small fraction of those are high profile mass shootings of the type that make people fear to go to office parties, or to movie theaters. If gun violence itself is what you fear, the most prudent action you can take is to not have a gun in your home. Here are the leading causes of death in America, with annual fatalities per the CDC: Heart disease: 611,105 Cancer: 584,881 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978 They are followed by Alzheimer’s, diabetes, pneumonia and flu, and kidney disease. Next is suicide, the only leading cause of death that might be considered violent. In 2013, auto accidents killed almost 33,000 Americans—about the same number of people killed in all gun deaths, and many more people than died by homicide. You are far more likely to die driving to the movie theater than you are to die by being killed by a mass shooter at the movie theater. Life, in truth, is mundane. Things become big news stories because they are extraordinary. It is a mistake to imagine that your death will make national news. It probably will not. If you fear guns, don’t kill yourself. If you fear dying, eat healthier and exercise and don’t smoke. You will not die in a tragic mass shooting. You will die of heart disease in your late 70s. Unless you keep worrying about being murdered all the time. Stress is a killer." Derek V

I suppose if the facts do not support your argument, go with the emotional argument. Cherry pick events instead of going with facts. Attack the person, not the facts. You should run for office, I hear Trump needs a VP and is taking applications. Derek V

Still playing the player and not the ball. The CDC study does not support the gun control supporters position. Derek V