Background checks ...wonderful
Reduced magazine rounds ...great
banning assault weapons ...fine
nothing here will change anything (would any of these "fixes" have changed recent happenings? ...nope), this is blustering only. Putting a band aid on a gunshot wound isn't going to help your patient now is it? You can claim it's a start but if it doesn't make a difference, is it really a start or more likely simply a way to appease the voters? Keep them happy and when something happens again, then blame the Republicans and come up with yet another band aid approach to buy more time.

Recent tragedies in Connecticut and Rochester...
Background checks:
Worked in keeping guns from the shooters!
result: Stricter laws would not have changed anything

Reduced magazine capacity:
Had no affect in Rochester, little if any affect in Connecticut, VERY easily worked around and adds seconds at best to the situation.
result: no difference (though MIGHT have made a slight difference in the Colorado theater shooting? still dubious at best)

Banning assault weapons
Made no difference in Rochester, (only a few shots were even fired), Connecticut, again, similar to the magazine problem, little if any difference.
result: negligible difference at best, likely zero difference.

Great solution!?

Blah blah blah

tom

is it really a start or more likely simply a way to appease the voters?

Well, thats the essence of a representative democracy. Responding to the wishes of the voters...

The rest of your arguement, seems to boil down to "if you can't arrive at a solution which fixes everything 100% you shouldn't attempt to make things better... " Or "abandon improvement if you can't achieve perfection."
People still drive drunk and kill people. That hasn't stopped the pursuit of drink/drive laws and regulations , Things like making bars responsible for the condition of their customers... Like strict enforcement of blood alcohol levels etc. Laws that have reduced the incidence of drunk driving and deaths from drunk driving by a third in 25 years...
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-dri ... statistics

With your reasoning the fight against drunk driving should be abandoned....
One cannot seek to make things better, just because one can't make things perfect. Because of efforts against drunk driving about 5,000 fewer Americans died in 2012 then in 1991. It didn't stop another 10,000 from dieing, but the effort saved 5,000 lives.

With the shooting in California will we now be wanting to ban shotguns, RickyP?

Actually that shooting exemplifies why a ban on assault weapons is a good idea. After shooting one student, the shooter was talked him out shooting anyone else. There was time for the situation to deescalate. Thank goodness he did not have an assault weapon where no one would have had any chance to intervene.

So one or two shot are acceptable to you? 30 is too many, so no extended magazines, but 1 or two are fine.

No need to change...

Yeah...that is what this debate is about--not taking people's guns away but limiting the ability to commit massacres.

Freeman,
Not from you, but from others have we heard that we need to stop these school shootings. I agree (and I have before) that an extended magazine would reduce the possibility of some casualties.

My (apparently too obscure jab's) intent was to show that the shootings will occur in one of the most strict gun control states in the US. It is not the law that is allowing these shootings any more than the gun committing the shooting. It is a societal issue.

There are more guns in America, and the murder rate went down. Isn't that the desired effect?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/

The murder rate has also gone down in many countries that have reduced gun ownership. Correlation is not Causation. However, the murder rate in the US is high for a developed western nation.

bbauska

So one or two shot are acceptable to you? 30 is too many, so no extended magazines, but 1 or two are fine.

To the say 30 potential victims in a school room, the difference between two rounds from a shotgun and 30 to 50 rounds from an assault weapon may well mean the difference between life and death.
The have a better chance.
And the argument is about making the situation better. Not perfect.

bbauska

There are more guns in America, and the murder rate went down. Isn't that the desired effect?

If you look at the incidence of gun deaths, they occur in greater rate per capita in states with higher gun ownership than in states with lower gun ownership.
For demographic reasons largely (older people commit far less violent crime) the rate of incident of all murder is going down, and yet states with more guns have more gun violence incidents , then you have a comprehensive picture.
If more guns meant more security, the states with the highest gun ownership would have 1) the least crime per capita 2) the least murders per capita 3) the least gun violence per capita.
None of these is true.

Let's take a look at the recommendations we have had here.

Mental health checks
Large capacity magazine illegality
Background checks
Semi-Automatic weapons banned

How effective were these when in place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Harris continued scheduled meetings with his psychologist until a few months before he and Klebold committed the Columbine High School massacre.

In one of his scheduled meetings with his psychiatrist, Eric Harris complained of depression, anger and possessing suicidal thoughts. As a result, he was prescribed the anti-depressant Zoloft. He complained of feeling restless and having trouble concentrating; in April, his doctor switched him to Luvox, a similar anti-depressant drug.[12] At the time of his death, Harris had therapeutic Luvox levels in his system. Some analysts, such as psychiatrist Peter Breggin, have argued that one or both of these medications may have contributed to Harris's actions. Breggin said that side-effects of these drugs include increased aggression, loss of remorse, depersonalization, and mania

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Their friend Robyn Anderson bought a rifle and the two shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[17] Through Philip Duran,[18] another friend, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500.

Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal.[4] They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre.
On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.
Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times.

He had semi-automatic weapons, large capacity rounds, psychological help, and violated the applicable firearms laws.

Were the laws in place effective, and what evidence can be provided showing that laws will be followed in the future?

Sadly, I would have to say no, and there is no evidence.

I get the desire to try to legislate (or by royal decree) this issue away. Really I do. I despise the evil that prompted such vile actions.

I see the laws that are being desired as not affecting the desired outcome enough to warrant the infringement upon normal citizens. That is a personal opinion. I will follow the laws, but I am afraid that the evil in the world will not.

Well, thats the essence of a representative democracy. Responding to the wishes of the voters...

and what are those wishes compared to the fixes offered? Do these fix really fix anything or are they (as I said) simply to try and buy time and allow blame to be put on the other guys?
This is not an answer, how would any of these 'fixes" have fixed any recent shootings?

and when the wishes of their voters includes not allowing Gay marriage?
how come it's ok when it suits you only?
Put it correctly and word the statement so politicians respond to the wishes of their voters when it is within the framework of the law. You can then argue gay rights, but you also need to argue constitutional rights regarding guns now don't you?

and where does this statement come from?

f you look at the incidence of gun deaths, they occur in greater rate per capita in states with higher gun ownership than in states with lower gun ownership.

That just didn't feel right so I looked and found it not to be true

Rural States have more hunters and more guns, they are more responsible
The following was a neat way of breaking things down, compare the two charts

States with the highest per capita gun ownership
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -guns.html
1. Kentucky
2. Utah
3. Montana
4. Wyoming
5. Alaska
6. West Virginia
7. South Dakota
8. North Dakota
9. Arkansas
10. Alabama
...pretty much what I would have expected

States with the highest death rates from fire arms
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mu ... er-100-000
The first chart includes suicide, chart 2 lists the murder rate
1. Louisiana
2. Maryland
3. Nevada
4. Alabama
5. South Carolina
6. Mississippi
7. Arizona
8. Arkansas
9. Michigan
10. California

Not a whole heckuva lot of overlap there to support your claim. It didn't pass the eye test and didn't make sense.
The per capita rate seems to fail, gun education/appreciation would seem to be more important and has been discussed as a real alternative but scoffed at by liberals who simply want no guns.