We should put a gun under every seat in every movie theater in America.

According to witnesses the victims could have had loaded pistols on their laps ready to fire and it wouldn't have mattered. The shooter attacked from behind in the dark. They never had a chance.

Abolish the 2nd Amendment and take things from there. Yeah I said it. I could give a sh1t less about your right to carry. Fcking rednecks.

No one, not even the craziest sonofabitch, would even think about attacking a movie theater if they knew that there is a gun under ever seat. It's all about peaceful prevention without ever needing to fire even a single shot, not about returning fire. At least that's what I keep hearing and reading.

Yeah but this guy off'd himself after he finished his rampage so I don't think he was worried about someone else shooting him.

Maybe there should be snipers at the back of every theater with shoot to kill orders if anyone stands up during the movie. Sure a few innocents might get killed but that will be offset by all the lives that would be saved. Or at least that is what someone who will remain nameless who posts here seems to believe. 😉

According to police, he planned on escaping, but when he saw that the police arrived quickly, he went back inside and killed himself. In his motel room, they found wigs and disguises. That leads police to believe that he planned on more attacks.

As many of you know, I live in Kansas, where there is essentially no gun control whatsoever. You can go to the Cabela's here and if you are 18 with a driver's license you can walk out with enough ordinance to invade Bolivia.

Is it like the Wild West there? Gunfights at the OK Corral?

Since you asked, this broke yesterday:

Man caught casing Shawnee Mission West High allegedly had piles of guns

Posted: Jul 23, 2015 6:03 PM CDT Updated: Jul 23, 2015 7:06 PM CDT

OVERLAND PARK, KS (KCTV) -
A mentally troubled former Shawnee Mission West High School student was caught casing the school and piles of shotguns and rifles were found in his bedroom, according to district officials.

Zachary Perry, 19, who graduated last year, was charged Thursday with aggravated criminal threat.

John Douglass, who leads public safety efforts for the school district and is former police chief for the Overland Park Police Department, said more than 600 students are attending summer school this week and he believes a school shooting was likely prevented.

"This was a very serious situation," Douglass said.

Two students contacted campus security Wednesday morning after the 19-year-old allegedly threatened him. Once they were on guard for him and closed off the school, authorities captured him seemingly casing the school on Wednesday. This included spotting him on surveillance video.

Police then arrested the man across from the school. Once officers went to the area home where Perry was staying, Douglass said officers found numerous rifles and shotguns piled up in his bedroom. The weapons belonged to his grandfather.

The teen is troubled and has experienced tragic situations in his life, Douglass said.

He said the district's systems to prevent violence worked this week. Parents were notified on Thursday.

"I commend the students who recognized the concern and made the report," according to a statement from Eddie LyDay, director of the summer school program. "We appreciate our police partners for their assistance in keeping our school and community safe."

The school is located at 8800 W. 85th St. in Overland Park. Perry had just returned to the area from Texas.

That high school is 15 minutes from my house. I know two sets of parents that have their kids in that summer school program. The OK Corral can emerge anywhere at anytime, this is the society we live in. Whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not is totally immaterial.

We should put a gun under every seat in every movie theater in America.

According to witnesses the victims could have had loaded pistols on their laps ready to fire and it wouldn't have mattered. The shooter attacked from behind in the dark. They never had a chance.

Abolish the 2nd Amendment and take things from there. Yeah I said it. I could give a sh1t less about your right to carry. Fcking rednecks.

No one, not even the craziest sonofabitch, would even think about attacking a movie theater if they knew that there is a gun under ever seat. It's all about peaceful prevention without ever needing to fire even a single shot, not about returning fire. At least that's what I keep hearing and reading.

Yeah but this guy off'd himself after he finished his rampage so I don't think he was worried about someone else shooting him.

Maybe there should be snipers at the back of every theater with shoot to kill orders if anyone stands up during the movie. Sure a few innocents might get killed but that will be offset by all the lives that would be saved. Or at least that is what someone who will remain nameless who posts here seems to believe. 😉

If you don't think that guns serve as a deterrent, remove them from every citizen that
doesn't live a life of crime and watch what happens. You've just made criminality an
easier occupation.

I have seen nothing other than your opinion to support this theory.

I'm not alone. Far from it.

We should put a gun under every seat in every movie theater in America.

According to witnesses the victims could have had loaded pistols on their laps ready to fire and it wouldn't have mattered. The shooter attacked from behind in the dark. They never had a chance.

Abolish the 2nd Amendment and take things from there. Yeah I said it. I could give a sh1t less about your right to carry. Fcking rednecks.

No one, not even the craziest sonofabitch, would even think about attacking a movie theater if they knew that there is a gun under ever seat. It's all about peaceful prevention without ever needing to fire even a single shot, not about returning fire. At least that's what I keep hearing and reading.

Yeah but this guy off'd himself after he finished his rampage so I don't think he was worried about someone else shooting him.

Maybe there should be snipers at the back of every theater with shoot to kill orders if anyone stands up during the movie. Sure a few innocents might get killed but that will be offset by all the lives that would be saved. Or at least that is what someone who will remain nameless who posts here seems to believe. 😉

If you don't think that guns serve as a deterrent, remove them from every citizen that
doesn't live a life of crime and watch what happens. You've just made criminality an
easier occupation.

You can use these isolated incidents to joke around and act like it proves a point, but keep
in mind that nobody ever said that more guns would stop all gun violence. Nobody ever
said that every incident would be stopped by a lawful conceal carry. THERE'S A TRADE-OFF
INVOLVED. I offered numerical evidence of this yesterday. The use of straw man arguments
over logic and data provides evidence of a shaky position.

I don't know Alloak, straw man arguments have always worked pretty well for you when you can dispute the facts.

Is that right? For example?

NOBODY has ever claimed that concealed carry and guns used for self defense will stop
every attack or that it would stop all gun violence. Nobody.

One question always comes to my mind during these gun debates. What's the impetus behind
the anti-gun fervor? What implores someone to take the anti-gun position?

We saw some stats yesterday that report 10.2 gun deaths per 100,000 in the United States.
Now, that's not a statistical impossibility but it's getting pretty close. Ten point two out of
100,000 ANYTHING is statistically insignificant.

Is it safety, the fear of getting shot?

For perspective, according to those figures, you would have
to live 5,000 years before a person faced a 50/50 chance of dying by gunshot. Even longer if you
subtract out suicide.. Five thousand years! I think I can live with those odds.

According to the CDC, a person in the US is 1,930% more likely to die of heart disease than
gunfire. Which leads to another question. If it's about safety and/or concern over people
dying, why not take up a cause against smoking, obesity, ect? Something that might have
some real impact. Instead, we have an almost obsessive hatred of an object!

On the other hand, it might not have anything to do with safety or people dying. It might be
something closer to some kind of resentment, hatred, politics, or what have you....

What exactly is the real motivation?

[Edited on 7/24/2015 by alloak41]

We should put a gun under every seat in every movie theater in America.

According to witnesses the victims could have had loaded pistols on their laps ready to fire and it wouldn't have mattered. The shooter attacked from behind in the dark. They never had a chance.

Abolish the 2nd Amendment and take things from there. Yeah I said it. I could give a sh1t less about your right to carry. Fcking rednecks.

No one, not even the craziest sonofabitch, would even think about attacking a movie theater if they knew that there is a gun under ever seat. It's all about peaceful prevention without ever needing to fire even a single shot, not about returning fire. At least that's what I keep hearing and reading.

Yeah but this guy off'd himself after he finished his rampage so I don't think he was worried about someone else shooting him.

Maybe there should be snipers at the back of every theater with shoot to kill orders if anyone stands up during the movie. Sure a few innocents might get killed but that will be offset by all the lives that would be saved. Or at least that is what someone who will remain nameless who posts here seems to believe. 😉

If you don't think that guns serve as a deterrent, remove them from every citizen that
doesn't live a life of crime and watch what happens. You've just made criminality an
easier occupation.

I have seen nothing other than your opinion to support this theory.

I'm not alone. Far from it.

I don't doubt that. I didn't say others don't share the opinion, I said I've seen nothing to support it (meaning here in this forum) other than your opinion.

You and others have the opinion more guns in more hands reduces gun violence overall because of the deterrent factor. I and others are of the opinion that theory doesn't hold water, and furthermore I am of the opinion that the vast majority of statistics and evidence support my point of view.

What exactly is the real motivation?

For starters:

You and others have the opinion more guns in more hands reduces gun violence overall because of the deterrent factor.

Can't speak for the others but I never said it. Ever. I've said more guns in the RIGHT (meaning correct or responsible) hands......After stating it, you asked me to define such a person. I complied,
and you even said it was a good definition.

What exactly is the real motivation?

For starters:

But the lower gun rate deaths in NY and Massachusetts can also be attributed to a larger police force than other states. Even just in Manhattan, for any high profile event, they put out 10,000 cops on the street, people generally don't eff with them or anybody else. Because there are guns that will be used if they do. Boston and Chicago cops don't take any crap from anybody. That's well known. So the stats may not tell the WHOLE story.

[Edited on 7/24/2015 by gina]

Another attempt...

One question always comes to my mind during these gun debates. What's the impetus behind
the anti-gun fervor? What implores someone to take the anti-gun position?

We saw some stats yesterday that report 10.2 gun deaths per 100,000 in the United States.
Now, that's not a statistical impossibility but it's getting pretty close. Ten point two out of
100,000 ANYTHING is statistically insignificant.

Is it safety, the fear of getting shot?

For perspective, according to those figures, you would have
to live 5,000 years before a person faced a 50/50 chance of dying by gunshot. Even longer if you
subtract out suicide.. Five thousand years! I think I can live with those odds.

According to the CDC, a person in the US is 1,930% more likely to die of heart disease than
gunfire. Which leads to another question. If it's about safety and/or concern over people
dying, why not take up a cause against smoking, obesity, ect? Something that might have
some real impact. Instead, we have an almost obsessive hatred of an object!

On the other hand, it might not have anything to do with safety or people dying. It might be
something closer to some kind of resentment, hatred, politics, or what have you....

What exactly is the real motivation?

 

You and others have the opinion more guns in more of the right hands reduces gun violence overall because of the deterrent factor.

Can't speak for the others but I never said it. Ever. I've said more guns in the RIGHT (meaning correct or responsible) hands......After stating it, you asked me to define such a person. I complied,
and you even said it was a good definition.

Fair enough, I fixed it. That does mean you support gun control on some level, doesn't it?

However, it is still a more guns in more hands equals less gun violence position, you are just qualifying it with more guns in the RIGHT hands. And I still question how to put more guns in more of the hands of the responsible people while keeping them away from irresponsible people with out some level of gun control laws. In other words, it was a good definition, but how does it get applied in practice?

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

People have hated guns for a long time. People that have never owned a gun simply cannot understand why in today's world another person would want to own one.

Unfortunately guns have been the common denominator in most of the recent and not so recent deranged shootings. So it is easy for an outraged person to champion the cause of more gun control.

For the record, I support nationwide background checks, excuse my ignorance, but I thought that was already the case.

I would also support the elimination of gun shows, not because I think that is where criminals are getting their guns but I suppose it is difficult to conduct the background check there, in all cases.

If you know any "gun people," particularly the ones who might rent a table at one of these shows and sell some of their collection, more times than not they are red blooded Americans who would not DREAM of selling a gun to someone with a risky background. I would not expect a non gun owner to even remotely understand this.

I have seen articles on something called a Smart Chip. Technology imbedded in the gun to only allow its owner to fire it. Sure, this sounds great, for all NEW guns. Goes without saying this will increase the price, no problem. This does not do a thing for the hundreds of millions of guns already out here, but I support that, sure, why not.

You want to talk about a nationwide gun search and seizure, I have a problem with that.

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

Thanks for posting that, but I was hoping more for "verbal" replies.

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

Thanks for posting that, but I was hoping more for "verbal" replies.

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

People have hated guns for a long time. People that have never owned a gun simply cannot understand why in today's world another person would want to own one.

Unfortunately guns have been the common denominator in most of the recent and not so recent deranged shootings. So it is easy for an outraged person to champion the cause of more gun control.

For the record, I support nationwide background checks, excuse my ignorance, but I thought that was already the case.

I would also support the elimination of gun shows, not because I think that is where criminals are getting their guns but I suppose it is difficult to conduct the background check there, in all cases.

If you know any "gun people," particularly the ones who might rent a table at one of these shows and sell some of their collection, more times than not they are red blooded Americans who would not DREAM of selling a gun to someone with a risky background. I would not expect a non gun owner to even remotely understand this.

I have seen articles on something called a Smart Chip. Technology imbedded in the gun to only allow its owner to fire it. Sure, this sounds great, for all NEW guns. Goes without saying this will increase the price, no problem. This does not do a thing for the hundreds of millions of guns already out here, but I support that, sure, why not.

You want to talk about a nationwide gun search and seizure, I have a problem with that.

Can you or someone please explain to me why the average citizen needs an assault rifle?

If you want to argue a case for owning a hand gun or shotgun for home protection I get that but and assault rifle? I have yet to see a logical argument for allowing ownership of them.

As far as smart chips in guns the hackers will always be one step ahead of technology so not sure that is a solution. I suppose it can't hurt but not sure the value added is worth it.

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

Thanks for posting that, but I was hoping more for "verbal" replies.

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

People have hated guns for a long time. People that have never owned a gun simply cannot understand why in today's world another person would want to own one.

Unfortunately guns have been the common denominator in most of the recent and not so recent deranged shootings. So it is easy for an outraged person to champion the cause of more gun control.

For the record, I support nationwide background checks, excuse my ignorance, but I thought that was already the case.

I would also support the elimination of gun shows, not because I think that is where criminals are getting their guns but I suppose it is difficult to conduct the background check there, in all cases.

If you know any "gun people," particularly the ones who might rent a table at one of these shows and sell some of their collection, more times than not they are red blooded Americans who would not DREAM of selling a gun to someone with a risky background. I would not expect a non gun owner to even remotely understand this.

I have seen articles on something called a Smart Chip. Technology imbedded in the gun to only allow its owner to fire it. Sure, this sounds great, for all NEW guns. Goes without saying this will increase the price, no problem. This does not do a thing for the hundreds of millions of guns already out here, but I support that, sure, why not.

You want to talk about a nationwide gun search and seizure, I have a problem with that.

Can you or someone please explain to me why the average citizen needs an assault rifle?

If you want to argue a case for owning a hand gun or shotgun for home protection I get that but and assault rifle? I have yet to see a logical argument for allowing ownership of them.

As far as smart chips in guns the hackers will always be one step ahead of technology so not sure that is a solution. I suppose it can't hurt but not sure the value added is worth it.

The only application for an assault rifle is during wartime. The only war people would face here is if the government fails, or there is a disaster where they want to institute martial law and there are roving bands of angry people migrating around. I won't even mention to protect ourselves from the one world govt./NWO/anti-Christ rule because a revolution would happen before that. I think people can do well enough to protect themselves with their rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Those who have semi-automatic assault type style weapons that they have had for a long time, should be grandfathered and allowed to keep them, but there should not be new sales of those to the public.

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

Thanks for posting that, but I was hoping more for "verbal" replies.

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

Hypocrite. You are ignoring the info I posted because it shows that is not false and that you are wrong.

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

Thanks for posting that, but I was hoping more for "verbal" replies.

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

Hypocrite. You are ignoring the info I posted because it shows that is not false and that you are wrong.

So the USA has more gun deaths per 100,000 than ANY other country? You stand by that?

Keep in mind there are 196 countries on Earth. The chart you posted lists 22 and ignores 174. Is your chart a hypocrite, too?

[Edited on 7/25/2015 by alloak41]

If you don't think that guns serve as a deterrent, remove them from every citizen that
doesn't live a life of crime and watch what happens. You've just made criminality an
easier occupation.

I have seen nothing other than your opinion to support this theory. I don't believe it.

Q: If guns aren't a deterrent, why not just disarm the police?

A: Because guns are a highly effective tool that can be used to prevent/stop crime,
serious injury, death. Often without even pulling the trigger.

If you don't think that guns serve as a deterrent, remove them from every citizen that
doesn't live a life of crime and watch what happens. You've just made criminality an
easier occupation.

I have seen nothing other than your opinion to support this theory. I don't believe it.

Q: If guns aren't a deterrent, why not just disarm the police?

A: Because guns are a highly effective tool that can be used to prevent/stop crime,
serious injury, death. Often without even pulling the trigger.

It couldn't be that police are armed because the bad guys are armed could it?

I am assuming you are old enough to remember when the police used to carry 6 round 38 police special pistols? They evidently went to 9mm and larger caliber semiautomatic pistols as they were being outgunned by the bad guys and needed more powerful weapons with larger capacities and were faster to reload.

It is one of the reasons we see more and more police be provided with assault rifle as well as standard issue.

http://csgv.org/resources/2013/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons/

Does the police or the average citizen being armed deter crime? possibly, but how about providing proof of your claim.

[Edited on 7/26/2015 by Bill_Graham]

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

Thanks for posting that, but I was hoping more for "verbal" replies.

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

Hypocrite. You are ignoring the info I posted because it shows that is not false and that you are wrong.

So the USA has more gun deaths per 100,000 than ANY other country? You stand by that?

Keep in mind there are 196 countries on Earth. The chart you posted lists 22 and ignores 174. Is your chart a hypocrite, too?

[Edited on 7/25/2015 by alloak41]

________________________________________________________________________

The chart de jour is using selective data and is incomplete. Complied by a left-wing gun control organization also lowers its creditability.

Not surprisingly the gun control advocates, while calling for legislation to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, never offer a draft of what they want passed into law nor have any idea or plan to take guns from the street criminals. Not one piece of gun control legislation offered has ever addressed the underground and criminal gun trade.

The FBI has admitted that the Federal gun purchase background check system does not work.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Obama went running to the TV cameras and stated that “his administration” would immediately address the mental health system failures and promptly did nothing.

American citizen have a constitutional and moral right to defend themselves and their families.

If someone has a solution to gun violence please share it.

If someone has a solution to gun violence please share it.

There is no solution to gun violence -- past history proves it as does all the discussion of it here on the boards & elsewhere

Another attempt...

What exactly is the real motivation?

No response to the data I posted in response to this?

Thanks for posting that, but I was hoping more for "verbal" replies.

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

Hypocrite. You are ignoring the info I posted because it shows that is not false and that you are wrong.

So the USA has more gun deaths per 100,000 than ANY other country? You stand by that?

Keep in mind there are 196 countries on Earth. The chart you posted lists 22 and ignores 174. Is your chart a hypocrite, too?

I have no reason NOT to stand by the info I shared. Can you try to give me one? And please stop putting words in my mouth, I never claimed the US has more gun deaths per 100,000 than ANY other country (that comment was made by someone else).

The US does have more gun deaths than other developed, i.e. "peer" countries (as one of the four charts I posted clearly points out). Way more. Of course the only thing you can seem to come up to refute this info is that the chart "only" lists 22 countries. So, which countries are missing that you think should be in the comparison? Feel free to add some, but I guarantee you'll find that out of all the countries in the world (exact number of countries differs depending on which source you go by) the USA ranks among the highest (if not THE highest) for gun ownership rates per 100,000 and also ranks among the highest 10%-15% of all countries for highest number of gun deaths per 100,000. It's just a fact.

I also posted a chart that compares the gun and non-gun homicide rate in the UK to the USA, and a chart that shows the 5 highest and 5 lowest gun death rates by state along with gun ownership rates for those states. The information presented in both of these charts directly refutes your theory.

EDIT: Of the 185 countries listed here, the USA has the highest rate of gun ownership and all but 22 have higher gun homicide rates, and of those 22 with higher rates I don't think any of them fall into the "peer" category of the USA.

Of its peer countries, the USA has the highest gun ownership rates and the highest gun death rates. That's a FACT.

[Edited on 7/27/2015 by gondicar]

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

Hypocrite. You are ignoring the info I posted because it shows that is not false and that you are wrong.

But it IS false. Blatantly false, and I am correct.

Alloak, to answer your question...

As someone who supports tougher gun control, my motivation is to keep guns out of the hands of those who are too incompetent to use one safely....those who leave it loaded and unattended, those who accidentally shoot others because they forgot the safety, those who are bipolar or schizo. I would hope we can agree that these people should not own a gun, until they can prove otherwise. We do this for driving cars for the sole reason that driving is dangerous and can kill innocent people - we have written exams to pass a drivers test, physical exams, renewals every 4 years. Clearly there is nothing inherently evil about cars, but we ensure that any driver passes those tests before they get on the road. I just want a policy comparable to the driving laws, which I think would help a lot....not solve competely, but help a lot. If these types of plans were in place, many innocent lives would be saved, and the responsible people can still own all the guns they want.

I hope to get a serious response.

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

Hypocrite. You are ignoring the info I posted because it shows that is not false and that you are wrong.

But it IS false. Blatantly false, and I am correct.

Geez, didn't I just explain this? Ok, one more time since you can't seem to follow along...I was referring to your more guns theory, which is what I was responding to when I posted the information being referenced. I was not referring to nor meaning to respond to "any other country" as those were someone else's words.

If your one and only point is that the US does not have more gun deaths per population than any other country on earth, then please consider that point conceded.

Try this instead:
America has far more gun deaths per population than any other developed country.

[img] https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src ="https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg&w=800[/img"]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Here is a verbal reply.

America has far more gun deaths per population than any other country.

Ignored the intended question, but FALSE anyway.

Hypocrite. You are ignoring the info I posted because it shows that is not false and that you are wrong.

But it IS false. Blatantly false, and I am correct.

Geez, didn't I just explain this? Ok, one more time since you can't seem to follow along...I was referring to your more guns theory, which is what I was responding to when I posted the information being referenced. I was not referring to nor meaning to respond to "any other country" as those were someone else's words.

If your one and only point is that the US does not have more gun deaths per population than any other country on earth, then please consider that point conceded.

Try this instead:
America has far more gun deaths per population than any other developed country.

[img] https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src ="https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg&w=800[/img"]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Don't waste your time Gondy as Alloak is just F'n with you now to see how high he can get you to jump.

Alloak, to answer your question...

As someone who supports tougher gun control, my motivation is to keep guns out of the hands of those who are too incompetent to use one safely....those who leave it loaded and unattended, those who accidentally shoot others because they forgot the safety, those who are bipolar or schizo. I would hope we can agree that these people should not own a gun, until they can prove otherwise. We do this for driving cars for the sole reason that driving is dangerous and can kill innocent people - we have written exams to pass a drivers test, physical exams, renewals every 4 years. Clearly there is nothing inherently evil about cars, but we ensure that any driver passes those tests before they get on the road. I just want a policy comparable to the driving laws, which I think would help a lot....not solve competely, but help a lot. If these types of plans were in place, many innocent lives would be saved, and the responsible people can still own all the guns they want.

I hope to get a serious response.

________________________________________________________________________

Your desire to keep weapons away from those too incompetent to use safely is right and just.
Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a far bigger problem that I doubt can be solved.

The mental health system in our country is seriously broken. That issue must be addressed first, as Obama said he would but of course he dropped it immediately. When it was decided years ago that “main-streaming” of the mentally ill in lieu institutionalization became “popular”, the mental health system took a serious step backwards.
The regulation, testing, exams, record keeping and system to do so would have to be run by the government which has proven to be unable to function. Politicians have also demonstrated they have no interest in gun control, only the votes from their speeches calling for it.

The only chance we have is a change in the culture and moral fiber of the people. It was not that long ago that people knew not to mouth off to a police officer and to obey their lawful order; to shoot someone was an act of last resort to defend yourself and working an actual job was everyone’s responsibility.

We are in deep trouble socially and few are willing to even speak on the matter. The usual response now is to call then a racist or otherwise attack them for have a contrary opinion.

I can recommend a good book but lately even expressing your faith will get you assaulted.

[Edited on 7/29/2015 by Muleman1994]