Yeah, if you allowed us lawyers to sue gun manufacturers (as was done to Tobacco companies) then, yeah, we would probably see some reduction in gun deaths. The NRA successfully lobbied to get gun manufacturers immunized from lawsuits back in 2005.

And we can't ban handguns, but it is not certain that we can't ban semi-automatic handguns. Personally, I am favor of gradual steps, which is why we start w assault weapons ( for the moment we are trying to prevent mass shootings, but clearly to get at the overall problem we would have to address handguns at some point). Don't think Americans support that, though

freeman2 wrote:And we can't ban handguns, but it is not certain that we can't ban semi-automatic handguns. Personally, I am favor of gradual steps, which is why we start w assault weapons ( for the moment we are trying to prevent mass shootings, but clearly to get at the overall problem we would have to address handguns at some point). Don't think Americans support that, though

Thank you for your honesty. Americans won't stand for the elimination of the Second Amendment, so liberals will attempt to do it a step at a time.

Step on into the pot of water ye frogs!

Sorry Freeman, it was too good to pass up.

fate

Thank you for your honesty. Americans won't stand for the elimination of the Second Amendment, so liberals will attempt to do it a step at a time.
Step on into the pot of water ye frogs

If there's popular support , and the changes are upheld after the expected court challenges..... its a reasonable course of action.
And if the NRA is seen to be unhinged and unreasonable in resisting change it may well help the political battle...
And honestly, is the loss of out sized magazines that big a sacrifice ? What percentage of the public, let alone gun owners will be affected?

Touché, Brad . Actually, I favor gradual steps both for the fact that it is easier to gain political support for them and because I think in general it is best to see what happens with limited changes rather than going too far than is necessary. I am content with an assault weapons ban and a magazine limitation. Real gun control with teeth would probably require a Constitutional Amendment at this point and a drastic change in opinion on America with regard to guns. I am not pressing for that; all I want is to limit the damage one person can do.

Freeman2,
Since you content with just a magazine limitation and assault weapons ban, is that just for now? You statement about gradual steps is giving me pause.

It is the same concern I have about the negotiations and the fiscal cliff. Negotiate one thing, and the next time the topic comes around, ask for more.

This is why I am concerned that the government will never be happy with a position that they take; i.e. only those making more than 1 million will be taxed. Now that is everybody.... I just saw the SS payroll percentages. They went up.

I just do not trust the government to stay within it's appointed "box"; the rule of law called the Constitution.

See there a liberal who tells the truth, this is not about assault weapons but rather a ban on all guns step by step by step. Frankly it was so obvious, "assault weapons" are the current buzzword, the videos and such have proven this ban will have zero effect so why the big deal? not because this will make us safer but because it's simply their first step and while I understand this, I find it repulsive to say one thing and trick the public into one thing when your real aim is something else.

and while I m,ay seem like a gun nut, If we could go back in history and keep handguns from ever being available in this country, then we kept them out, I would support that 100%. Problem is now they are just too common and easy to come by, we must allow people to defend themselves if they see any reason or desire to do so and a long rifle isn't always an option. Any sort of ban on handguns at this point is treading on peoples rights yes, but for a great many (not all of us mind you, I have no gun and feel no need for one but I know of many who do) it goes beyond ones rights that could be changed, it treads on their very real need for safety and security.

You guys are misreading me (because I wasn't clear). Because there is not support among most Americans for strict gun control laws, I don't want them. I'm not even sure of how far I would want to restrict gun ownership even if I had the power to decide. For white males the gun death is not that high, though that doesn't mean we should sweep the problems of the inner-city under the rug. I bring up that point only to note that if the high US gun death rate is being driven largely by violence in the inner-city, then the justification of taking everyone elses's guns away appears to be weak (particularly given the 2nd Anendment and American attachment to guns)

Exactly why I asked, because it could be interpreted either way.

GMTom wrote:Hand guns are the "problem" but the constitution will not allow banning them

I'll say it again, handguns are effective banned for sale or possession in New York City. You need a permit to own one that is nearly impossible to get. I agree handguns are the problem. More importantly, so does Lynyrd Skynyrd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zUGd-VC3wk

Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em, people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

More seriously, there is a huge difference at the local level on the availability of guns and ammo. Wave your hand at the Second Amendment as a universal law all you want, but we know localities have wide discretion to regulate guns as they see fit.

I lived in a very violent city where everyone had a gun (Detroit) and then moved to another city where no one had a gun (New York). In 2012 Detroit had nearly as many murders as New York City, a city more than 10-times its size. Probably the biggest (not all, but the biggest) difference between the two is the availability of guns, specifically handguns, and the biggest difference in that availability has to do with local laws, not federal laws.

And Washington DC did not allow any guns, that was found unconstitutional. Cities do have some power to regulate, but only so far! and Detroit compared to NYC? the the biggest difference is the size of the two? Detroit is a cesspool in an economic disaster area that would be the biggest difference! a whole different world between the two.

If getting a gun is so tough in New York, I wonder why New York's regulations regarding guns have not been challenged in court. Or maybe they have?

GMTom wrote:And Washington DC did not allow any guns, that was found unconstitutional. Cities do have some power to regulate, but only so far! and Detroit compared to NYC? the the biggest difference is the size of the two? Detroit is a cesspool in an economic disaster area that would be the biggest difference! a whole different world between the two.

But apparently far enough to make hand guns effectively illegal in New York City (many knives are illegal too, as some visiting eagle scouts find out when they're taken to jail on a weapons charge.)

As you probably recall, New York and Detroit weren't so different at one time. "The Bronx is burning!"

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/when-presidents-visited-the-south-bronx/

I agree, they are very different now, but weren't in 1977. How much of that divergence has to do with the prevalence of hand guns? Unknowable, but I would argue that it's at least part of it.