I would need to see the specific research but my guess is an assault weapons ban doesn't reduce gun violence overall by any significant amount but likely reduces the number of casualties in mass shootings. Also the definition of assault weapon is up for debate in my plan. I consider an AR-15 an assault weapon, and anything with similar design. Apparently some people consider that a defense weapon, which is humorous to me.

By definition, almost every mass shooter has open carried immediately prior to the crime. I want police to be able to pull people over and/or search their vehicles if weapons are visible. I want them to be able to arrest someone walking down the street with a gun, as opposed to barely being able to question him.

As for the GPS, it's an idea. Limiting guns to homes needs to be enforceable, that's one idea. It's not a non-issue. We have a gun violence problem and a mass shooting problem. I'm one for putting everything on the table.

I'd be content with a more rigorous set of requirements in general and even stricter if there's no need requirement. I don't mind "anybody," being able to carry, but I want it to be very hard for anyone who's only reason is that they want to.

Perhaps. In theory, anyone who is giving up their gun voluntarily is not a big threat to use it anyway, but circumstances change and every gun we can get out of circulation reduces the risk of gun violence.

Hence the requirement for acting irresponsibly versus willfully giving it to someone versus your example. The person who had it locked in a gun safe was not irresponsible so they aren't liable... But if you leave it sitting out and someone breaks in and takes it, you're responsible. The goal is to make sure everyone locks up their guns at all times, not to punish people who do that - and it would be worded as such.

I'm just proposing research into all of those examples. Decisions can be made after that based on the cost, effectiveness, etc. I'm up for any research into preventing mass shootings in any way.

Thanks... Yeah I'm assuming the care and treatment can be provided within our current healthcare system. Something could be set up for the uninsured, even just an exception to enrollment periods to let them get coverage ASAP. The key is destigmatizing it so that people are less scared of getting treatment and admitting an issue.

I haven't really looked into this, and I'm sure it hasn't been researched enough with the NRA actively blocking so much research on gun violence.

I'd file this under something we should do and THEN research, rather than the other way around.

I'd like to think that a mental health professional could detect some of the warning signs, but I'm sure it wouldn't be 100% either. We'd need people to not point to the first person who slipped through the exams regulations as evidence they were all a waste of time and rather look at it as a whole and see how many mentally ill people were blocked successfully.

Went ahead and fixed that for you.

so keeping a national database of deadly weapons and their owners could conceivably lead to the destruction of 56 million people? How so?

The government is going to take them then kill all the people that used to own guns.

56 million is the current total of deaths involving gun control/confiscation and genocide. Without a registry, how would one confiscate?

So your theory is gun owners exclusively might be targeted in America? And all they need to do to avoid this targeting is give up their guns?

you're silly

Of course not, but to say that Americans are completely immune to the same acts (gun control->confiscation->genocide) that have happened all over the globe, for as long as firearms have been around, is naive. I am thankful that we are one of a few of countries that have the right to gun ownership protected by their constitution (the other two have higher firearm related deaths per capita).

And moral choice between the deaths of thousands women, children, and men now in service of the future defence against an imaginary tyranny is made.

If you want to live in the safest place in the US, go to prison, it is statistically safer than living free.

Personally, I'll take freedom over safety any day.

Actually if he's living in Medellin it seems much more believable.
Ask them what? If they think citizens going about their day strapped would have prevented any of those?

Uhh, what? Cite please.

I'll save you some time and tell you that there aren't really reliable statistics on crime rates in prisons, but that the murder rate is likely lower and the assault rate is higher as well as the rate of rapes.

I doubt many people would agree that prison is safer than living free.

I can think of a lot of ways. Going door to door. having neighbors, kids etc inform on you. Turns out totalitarian governments are a lot more creative than you.

I doubt this.

Yea that's exactly what I said. Your choice is a moral choice that chooses a value over the lives of thousands of people, just like a faith healer that puts their faith that their child who died for a lack of medical care died for the greater good. In your case that greater good is the defence against a future tyranny.

Maybe it's so safe in prison because guns are banned!

By the way, speaking of that lower murder rate in prison... do the prisoners have guns or no? Just checking...

I wonder if they could reduce the murder rate even more by giving everyone a gun so that the less bad guys could stop the more bad guys from doing bad things?

The only way to stop a bad guy with a shiv is a less bad guy with a gun, am I right?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...than_free.html

My greater good is the freedom to do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do, unless of course it detrimentally affects someone else. You seem to be an advocate of statism, while I am on the opposite side of the spectrum, hence my recommendation for the ultimate statist paradise, prison.

Brb committing a crime.

Murder rate is not the only aspect of 'safety'.

Like the way easy access to guns detrimentally impacted a school full of kindergarten kids?

Tyranny!!!

What's funny is that these are usually the arguments made by people who think the world would be safer if the government disappeared tomorrow. This is ****ing delusional, but would actually be the dystopia of a libertarian society.

You know what would've stopped the Holocaust guys?!?

Jews with glocks!