So, my 86-year-old Mom phoned today about gun violence.

[TygrBright]

She said, "Okay, I need you to tell me why this idea is so crazy, right? I've got an idea I think will make mass shootings less common."

Sez I, "Okay, Mom, shoot. I mean, lay it on me."

"So, I know this sounds weird, right? But I was awake feeling sad about all those people killed and their families, and it just occured to me. Everybody has cars, right? Well, not everybody, but enough so it's almost the same thing."

"Sure, Mom."

"And cars can be real dangerous- people get killed in car accidents a lot, although not as much as they used to when I was a lot younger. Although with more people, the numbers look bigger, but the percentages are down, right?"

"Lemme stop ya here, Mom. I think what you're about to say is that anyone who buys a gun, or at least an automatic-type with the ability to shoot a whole lotta bullets really fast without reloading, they should have to pass a safety test, and get a license to use that gun, and then get a license for the gun itself, and they should have to have insurance, and renew their license regularly, and take ongoing safety tests as needed. Amirite? That what you're thinkin'?"

She's clearly a little miffed that I stole her thunder, but, "Well, yes. Don't you think it's a good idea? Why wouldn't it work?"

"Well, I won't tell you that, because I think it actually WOULD reduce the number of mass shootings. But I CAN tell you why it'll never happen."

"Okay, why's that?"

"Simple. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights don't guarantee any right to keep and bear cars."

Long, long silence.

"Mom? You still there?"

"THAT is just STUPID."

I can't say I disagree, actually.

wearily,
Bright

[gratuitous]

1. That seems like a reasonable regulation that wouldn't infringe on anyone's rights

After all, if a person is going to have a hand-held death machine, it's reasonable to institute regulations that they have some demonstrated proficiency with it. And, if they're going to claim membership of a well-regulated militia, how about they give two weeks per year per firearm in service to the country? After all, it's a right - not a requirement - to keep and bear arms, and it's an irresponsible citizen indeed who would claim that right without a concomitant responsibility, just like the regulation and restriction we place on every other right.

[passiveporcupine]

9. The only problem I see is that the 9/11 terrorists took the time to learn to fly planes

And we all know where that ended up.

Yes, I agree that guns should be licensed, and registered, and people should be trained in proper usage and storage, and required to properly use and store them, or they get taken away.

but I still think we need to eliminate the right to own certain kinds of weapons that are not really beneficial except as a hobby. Because hobbies should not be so dangerous to innocent people.

I strongly believe we need to eliminate the 2nd amendment. It would not eliminate all guns in the US, as hunters will always have guns and people who work in security may always have weapons, and certain lifestyles like ranching may need guns for predatory control, or euthanizing injured/sick animals.

Owning guns for personal protection is not necessary in most cases. I think they cause more problems than they help.

But a lot of the guns we have in use in the US today should not be where they are, in the hands of gang members, angry men (mostly), potential terrorists, and of course toddlers.

We need to issue gun licenses with some sense, like Australia. They didn't eliminate guns...they just made them harder to qualify for. And they don't have this ridiculous 2nd amendment to stop them from passing sensible gun laws.

[gratuitous]

12. No solution is going to be 100%

But some regulations with tough penalties might ensure some better compliance. It seems like every week (for just one example), there are half a dozen or more guys caught at airport screenings with guns in their baggage that they "forgot." If the penalty for forgetting where your guns are was, say, forfeiture of all weapons, prohibition from buying or possessing firearms for a specified period, and a hefty fine, I'll bet we'd see far fewer "forgotten" weapons turning up on x-ray scanners.

[passiveporcupine]

14. I agree that every step helps

There are too many reasons for gun deaths for one answer to fix all problems.

[Initech]

2. The comparison between guns and cars is completely insane.

These things do not equal each other and never will.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Yes. Cars are actually useful for something.

[passiveporcupine]

15. Exactly!

I was going to say this but firefox crashed on me.

[irisblue]

3. I like your mom. alot

Give her a hug & kiss from me please

[TygrBright]

4. Sure will. She's pretty great. Thanks! n/t

[hunter]

5. You have a nicer mom than I do.

As a kid I saw my mom take guns from strangers.

If she broke a fool's fingers, well good, maybe the fools would remember.

I hope my mom's fully retired from that sort of business now, but I'm afraid to ask.

My mom's mom had to be removed from her home as a danger to herself and others. She was cussing, throwing things, hitting, kicking, and biting the police and paramedics in a standoff that lasted hours.

My mom had taken all my grandma's guns years before and destroyed them, but we found another gun hidden in her house later.

I like to think my grandma had decided not to shoot anyone, but it's possible she simply hadn't remembered where she'd hid her last gun.

[AlbertCat]

7. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights don't guarantee any right to keep and bear cars.

Well, it doesn't guarantee the right to a gun either.... unless you're in a well regulated militia. There's a reason that comes 1st.

[ErikJ]

8. 2Amend. makes our Constitituion a suicide pact

but ironically mainly against those in possession of the guns. 70% of gun deaths arre suicides. As Jesus said. Live by the sword, die by the gun.

[Cassiopeia]

10. Registration of firearms would not violate

the 2nd in any way.

[TeddyR]

18. Perhaps not

But there are over 100 million guns in private hands. How do we account for those?

[Cassiopeia]

21. The same way we do everything..... Laws.

You own a gun? Great. A date gets set that you must have it registered. Do it early and avoid the last minute lines.

[TeddyR]

22. And if I don't?

Are you sending police into people's houses?

[Cassiopeia]

23. You pay the price if you fail to obey.

Obviously we aren't sending the storm troopers door to door to check for weapons. However, if you get caught carrying an unregistered weapon you face the charge.

Sure, it would take years, maybe decades even, to get the majority of weapons accounted for. All the more reason to start sooner than later.

We dont need an overnight answer, we just need a good start.

[TeddyR]

24. Ok

But what is the purpose of a registry? It doesn't stop a shooting.

[irisblue]

26. maybe not stopping a shooting just tracking the evil into a history

a mess of nasty that can be cleaned .

[Cassiopeia]

27. It leaves a trail.

It forces responsible owners to buy/sell/exchange weapons in a way that is..... Responsible.

Sell a weapon in an improper way and someone uses that weapon to kill then the original owner has some responsibility.

If I lend my car to someone I know to be unlicensed and a constant drunk, I have some responsibility there.

It's really not hard, except for the intentionally obtuse.

[Surya Gayatri]

29. "It's really not hard, except for the intentionally obtuse."

[Lonusca]

31. "Sell a weapon in an improper way and someone uses that weapon to kill then the original owner has

some responsibility".

Do you think this is not a law now? That if you make an illegal sale or straw purchase that there are no consequences?

[Cassiopeia]

32. Registration would make those laws much more effective.

What's the problem with that?

[Lonusca]

37. How would registration do that?

Virtually everyone of the spree killers purchased weapons legally.

[hack89]

34. Adam Laza's guns were registered. nt

[bigmonkey]

11. Keeping and bearing is not necessarily owning

A different interpretation would yield a different reality. And don't quibble about common sense, the dropping of the contextualizing "militia" phrase is equally arbitrary.

[NutmegYankee]

30. Keep means owning and storing with your other belongings. NT.

[Cassiopeia]

33. So if I bring a book home from the library I own it?

[ManiacJoe]

35. Only if you choose to illegally keep it.

[NutmegYankee]

38. non sequitur

You are renting or borrowing the book from the library. It's someone else's property.

[Cassiopeia]

39. So if you are part of a well regulated militia

and that militia provided the firearm for use when called up, do you own it?

[NutmegYankee]

40. No.

The militia provided their own arms.

[Cassiopeia]

41. So keep does not mean owning then.

Got it.

[NutmegYankee]

42. Again, non sequitur. nt

[TeddyR]

13. So if the terrorists had to buy insurance

They wouldn't shoot people? Sounds reasonable to me.

[passiveporcupine]

16. guns that kill people are not all in the hands of terrorists

But you knew that. You see, Adam Lanza wasn't a terrorist, just a mentally unstable person. His mom might not have bought so many guns if she had to insure them all...and if letting her son use her guns might get them taken away. She might not have gotten into the whole gun thing...which I suspect she did only because her son showed an interest in guns. I guess she found out the hard way that not everyone should have a gun in the house, even if they are mentally fit to own one.

that is something else that needs to be taken into account. Guns in the house might only be licensed to one person, but all members of the household who might have access to those guns should be checked out before a gun is issued, or the guns need to be stored in a safe "gun safe" (not the kind that can be opened by thieves) only the owner can access them. And they should require fingerprint ID or some other biological ID that only lets the licensed owner unlock them, not a key.

In Adam's case, not even fingerprint ID would have worked. He would probably just cut her finger off to get to the guns. Except that he would have had to kill her some other way because he wouldn't have had a gun to use.

[TeddyR]

17. In other words

Make guns owned for home protection completely inaccessible when needed. Violates the 2d Amendment. And how would you enforce this law? Random searches of homeowners? Do you also support stop and frisk? That catches some criminals.

[passiveporcupine]

20. As I've already mentioned.

Get rid of the 2nd amendment. It's archaic and is used incorrectly and it's deadly.

[TeddyR]

25. Fine

I disagree, but if you can get rid of the 2d then that is the law. Get 38 states and a vast majority of Congress on board and make it happen. Of course, then it will be up to the individual states.

[scscholar]

28. If the insurance is very expensive, and it should be, then yes! (ntxt)

[ManiacJoe]

36. The insurance is very cheap.

And it never covers criminal acts.

[aikoaiko]

19. LOL.