There are countries that exists where there are tons of guns, but not so many murders. Also, the murder rate is not in proportion with the gun ownership rate. IIRC violent and gun related crime has actually decreased in the US recently, though I think the bad economy will reverse that.
If you want to eliminate violence, you have to change culture. We have a culture of violence in the US. Countries, like Switzerland, do not. Adding or subtracting guns from the situation isn't going to have any significant effect on the amount of violence and murder.
If you want to eliminate accidents, you need training. I'm not looking up the statistic for this, I'll let someone else do that. But I'll point out that stories about gun accidents are never in the house of the NRA expert marskman or the police officer. They're always in the house of some non-expert. It's the same with computers. A real computer expert never gets a virus. Only people who don't know what they are doing have problems like that. You also never hear about expert drivers getting in accidents.
In this world, there are powerful tools. Some tools are so powerful, that life is at risk whenever they are used. However, these powerful tools have very useful purposes, and to ban their use entirely would be a very large detriment to society. To limit the danger associated with such tools, we must make their use a privilege, and set very high standards of excellence for those people who are allowed to use them.
I mean, look at what happened in NY recently with all the poorly trained crane operators. Or how about all the fake doctors administering fake medicine?
Driver's licenses, gun licenses, etc. should be extremely difficult to obtain. In Germany, for example, it costs thousands upon thousands of dollars for one attempt at the driving test. You pay whether you pass or fail. The test is also extremely difficult. The benefit of this is that people take driving more seriously, and they can have something like the autobahn with very high speed limits. You can also feel more comfortable on the road knowing that all the other drivers passed this very hard test. I'm sure some Germans are going to tell me that there are still bad drivers there, and I'm sure there are. No system is perfect, but at least they make it as good as can be.
In addition to greater enforcement of existing gun laws, I think another great way to kill two birds with one stone would be mandatory firearms training for every single person, starting at a young age. A very large part of the cultural problem with guns is that because many people only see them in movies they are both afraid of them, and fascinated with them. Take some kids who aren't allowed to have toy guns over to a friend's house who has them, and those kids will do nothing but play with the toy guns the whole time. Meanwhile the kid who owns the toy guns is like "wtf is wrong with you kids? Let's play some Wii." By requiring that everyone learn how guns work, how to use them, how to respect them, how to operate them safely, etc. many many gun problems will be avoided.
There was a great video on NFL.com that I can't seem to find right now where a football player discussed the problem of players carrying guns after Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg. He talked about how when he had a gun, it weighed heavily on his mind. He was always thinking about it. This relates back to the phenomena scenario fulfillment that came up when we were discussing the prospect of autonomous military units. When you have a gun, and you think about it, you start looking for trouble where it doesn't exist.
When I went to Israel, everyone had guns. Not just handguns. M-16s, assault rifles. The fact that there are armed soldiers, and armed civilians everywhere understandably freaks out the non-natives. I'm sure most people in the US would be freaked out if they saw a hacid with an M-16 over his shoulder. The thing is, they all carry their weapons as casually as you or I carry a backpack. They'll get home and toss it in the corner like it's nothing. I spent time in someone's house and the daughter of the family had recently finished her service. Her weapon was just sitting in the corner. Nobody even paid attention to it, except me and the other guy who were guests in their home.
Even though there were incredibly dangerous weapons everywhere, the people did not shoot each other. They shot Palestinians and others in the context of war, but they didn't shoot each other. Almost every citizen is required to go through military training, and lives around guns for as long as they live there. There is no widespread cultural fear of guns, or fascination with them. There is certainly no lack of training of respect for the weapons. That is the kind of culture we need to foster in the US if we want to reduce violence, especially gun-related violence.
If she won't let you get what you want,shoot her, of course. Seems like the answer to all problems these days.
All the cool kids are doing it, but I'm not a cool kid.
You know who I would shoot if I could? Whoever decided that all DVDs have to be in letterbox format. I bought a x-inch screen TV. I don't want half of that screen to be blank when I watch Bladerunner.
There was a great video on NFL.com that I can't seem to find right now where a football player discussed the problem of players carrying guns after Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg. He talked about how when he had a gun, it weighed heavily on his mind. He was always thinking about it. This relates back to the phenomena scenario fulfillment that came up when we were discussing the prospect of autonomous military units. When you have a gun, and you think about it, you start looking for trouble where it doesn't exist.
I had some of this when I first bought my rifle. Now it just sits in my closet with a clip on the side. Ready if I should ever need, but gets little attention in my life.
There was a great video on NFL.com that I can't seem to find right now where a football player discussed the problem of players carrying guns after Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg. He talked about how when he had a gun, it weighed heavily on his mind. He was always thinking about it. This relates back to the phenomena scenario fulfillment that came up when we were discussing the prospect of autonomous military units. When you have a gun, and you think about it, you start looking for trouble where it doesn't exist.
I had some of this when I first bought my rifle. Now it just sits in my closet with a clip on the side. Ready if I should ever need, but gets little attention in my life.
There was a great video on NFL.com that I can't seem to find right now where a football player discussed the problem of players carrying guns after Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg. He talked about how when he had a gun, it weighed heavily on his mind. He was always thinking about it. This relates back to the phenomena scenario fulfillment that came up when we were discussing the prospect of autonomous military units. When you have a gun, and you think about it, you start looking for trouble where it doesn't exist.
I had some of this when I first bought my rifle. Now it just sits in my closet with a clip on the side. Ready if I should ever need, but gets little attention in my life.
If you want to eliminate violence, you have to change culture. We have a culture of violence in the US. Countries, like Switzerland, do not.
I would just like to say that switzerland has the highest amount of guns per home, yet has very little gun crime.
The U.S. is not a homogeneous culture, nor does it have as high an educational, literacy, or quality of life rating. What works in one culture, may not work in another.
One thing people always forget about gun control is bullets. An unloaded gun is a danger to no one,except as a club, but bullets make them dangerous. In some places you can buy bullets like you buy candy. Bullets without guns are still dangerous. Many people I know have friends or family that hurt themselves because they hit a bullet with a hammer. We need just as strict bullet laws as we do gun laws to keep this shit from happening.
Also, like Rym, I am completely against publically-available deathwand devices; however, I believe that it is every man's right to own Reaction Energy-based weaponry.
What other purpose does a GUN have? Really, you want to make this argument? Also the kinds of knives used as weapons and a kitchen knife are usually very different kinds of knives. All a gun can do is injure or kill. If it served another purpose, then I would be less against them.
Ma'am, I protest. I am a Gun owner myself, and I do not hunt, nor consider ever turning them on another human(who isn't shambling and rotting). I use them for shooting targets - that's all. You could argue that my ability to put a 30.08 match round into a target at 1000 yards is a deadly martial skill, that it only means that I would be a more efficient killer - or, you could argue that my rifle is naught but a tool for putting a projectile downrange, and that I'm a bloke who has put a lot of time into his hobby.
Indeed, I have the potential to set myself up in the proverbial belltower and kill as many people as I had rounds to spare. However, if we're going to talk potential, well, it's very shaky ground. The problem is that no matter how much we restrict firearms for law abiding citizens for whatever reason - there will still be a ready supply of firearms in the underground market, even if you take all the firearms away.
Now, I'm all in favor of testing owners rigorously - after all, Look at the Port Arthur Massacre. Martin bryant was not fit to posses any firearm - yet, he did. If we put such conditions - Rigorous testing, every few years or so - it Wouldn't keep firearms out of criminal hands, however, it would make great strides towards ensuring that as many gun owners as possible are stable, mentally healthy, and worthwhile members of society.
What other purpose does a GUN have? Really, you want to make this argument? Also the kinds of knives used as weapons and a kitchen knife are usually very different kinds of knives. All a gun can do is injure or kill. If it served another purpose, then I would be less against them.
Ma'am, I protest. I am a Gun owner myself, and I do not hunt, nor consider ever turning them on another human(who isn't shambling and rotting). I use them for shooting targets - that's all. You could argue that my ability to put a 30.08 match round into a target at 1000 yards is a deadly martial skill, that it only means that I would be a more efficient killer - or, you could argue that my rifle is naught but a tool for putting a projectile downrange, and that I'm a bloke who has put a lot of time into his hobby.
Indeed, I have the potential to set myself up in the proverbial belltower and kill as many people as I had rounds to spare. However, if we're going to talk potential, well, it's very shaky ground. The problem is that no matter how much we restrict firearms for law abiding citizens for whatever reason - there will still be a ready supply of firearms in the underground market, even if you take all the firearms away.
Now, I'm all in favor of testing owners rigorously - after all, Look atthe Port Arthur Massacre. Martin bryant was not fit to posses any firearm - yet, he did. If we put such conditions - Rigorous testing, every few years or so - it Wouldn't keep firearms out of criminal hands, however, it would make great strides towards ensuring that as many gun owners as possible are stable, mentally healthy, and worthwhile members of society.
Your hobby does not warrant an action that would lessen gun crime and accidental death - in my opinion. I am not naive enough to think that gun bans will entirely eliminate crime or crimes involving guns. It would lessen it, and that is the crux. Even making this a right that a State, city, or town could decide for itself would be preferable to the new ruling that lifted city gun bans. Let the people decide.
Your hobby does not warrant an action that would lessen gun crime and accidental death - in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you're saying here - this is entirely my failing, but I would appreciate if you could explain.
I am not naive enough to think that gun bans will entirely eliminate crime or crimes involving guns. It would lessen it, and that is the crux.
But you could achieve almost the same effect through lesser means - As I provided in the Martin Bryant example. Was he able to get guns legally? Of course he could, that's exactly how he obtained them. Should he have been able to obtain a firearm by legal means? Absolutely not, and every gun law in action at the time was pretty much rendered moot by the fact that he could obtain firearms legally at all.
This is my point with the "Rigorous regular testing" idea. It's not perfect, I'll be the first to admit - but as you said, and also as others have pointed out in this thread, banning firearms isn't either. The "Rigorous Regular testing" idea - well, once developed beyond a three words and a vague idea - keeps guns out of the hands of people like Martin Bryant, and other unstable people, among others. It would also cost less than Banning guns entirely, and the mechanisms are already somewhat in place - for example, the testing one has to go through before obtaining a license to carry/concealed carry on a commercial aircraft. Banning guns, however, is harder to enforce and harder to justify in the United States, and while it would achieve result in the same effect, it suffers from more critical flaws than more tightly regulating who can own firearms, though one flaw they share is that they both won't affect the underground arms trade.
Your hobby does not warrant an action that would lessen gun crime and accidental death - in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you're saying here - this is entirely my failing, but I would appreciate if you could explain.
I am not naive enough to think that gun bans will entirely eliminate crime or crimes involving guns. It would lessen it, and that is the crux.
But you could achieve almost the same effect through lesser means - As I provided in the Martin Bryant example. Was he able to get guns legally? Of course he could, that's exactly how he obtained them. Should he have been able to obtain a firearm by legal means? Absolutely not, and every gun law in action at the time was pretty much rendered moot by the fact that he could obtain firearms legally at all.
This is my point with the "Rigorous regular testing" idea. It's not perfect, I'll be the first to admit - but as you said, and also as others have pointed out in this thread, banning firearms isn't either. The "Rigorous Regular testing" idea - well, once developed beyond a three words and a vague idea - keeps guns out of the hands of people like Martin Bryant, and other unstable people, among others. It would also cost less than Banning guns entirely, and the mechanisms are already somewhat in place - for example, the testing one has to go through before obtaining a license to carry/concealed carry on a commercial aircraft.
To answer your first statement: The fact that people enjoy sport shooting isn't worth a human life to me. That doesn't make it your fault, just a weak justification.
When gun control laws are already so poorly enforced, I do not see how you think how practical rigorous and regular testing will ever happen in any meaningful way.
The fact that people enjoy sport shooting isn't worth a human life to me. That doesn't make it your fault, just a weak justification.
First, Thank you for expanding on that, and I apologize for misunderstanding you in the first place. Secondly, I'm not Trying to justify Gun ownership - I'm simply pointing out that a firearm is not a weapon unless you choose to make it so, as with any other object capable of being used as a weapon.
As for how it could or would be enforced - well, It's already in place to a certain degree. As I mentioned, this form of testing is already employed for some licenses, the one I'm most familiar with being the testing one has to go through to obtain a license to carry a firearm on an aircraft. One has to undergo thorough and deep background checks, a battery of psychological tests, and renew both of these on a rather regular basis. Long story short, It's bloody hard to get one - It's actually one of the reasons I haven't made the move over from Cabin Crew to Air Marshal. This test - Diluted somewhat, of course, to reduce the cost to the government and the license holder/hopeful - would be highly effective at keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them yet can still legally obtain them.
It will not reduce the underground market much - though this is the same with banning firearms, after all, look how well that worked for drugs - but I believe that it will reduce gun crime to some degree by taking guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, yet are allowed under the current laws.
The fact that people enjoy sport shooting isn't worth a human life to me. That doesn't make it your fault, just a weak justification.
First, Thank you for expanding on that, and I apologize for misunderstanding you in the first place. Secondly, I'm not Trying to justify Gun ownership - I'm simply pointing out that a firearm is not a weapon unless you choose to make it so, as with any other object capable of being used as a weapon.
As for how it could or would be enforced - well, It's already in place to a certain degree. As I mentioned, this form of testing is already employed for some licenses, the one I'm most familiar with being the testing one has to go through to obtain a license to carry a firearm on an aircraft. One has to undergo thorough and deep background checks, a battery of psychological tests, and renew both of these on a rather regular basis. Long story short, It's bloody hard to get one - It's actually one of the reasons I haven't made the move over from Cabin Crew to Air Marshal. This test - Diluted somewhat, of course, to reduce the cost to the government and the license holder/hopeful - would be highly effective at keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them yet can still legally obtain them.
It will not reduce the underground market much - though this is the same with banning firearms, after all, look how well that worked for drugs - but I believe that it will reduce gun crime to some degree by taking guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, yet are allowed under the current laws.
The cost for administering such tests would be astronomical and the fees that would need to go into it would guarantee that the only person that can own a gun legally was wealthy (the other, non fee based option would be a large tax burden on everyone). The rigorous training and testing would require so much time and money that it would turn a lot of law abiding people with less funds away from gun ownership. This would essentially take the right to gun ownership away from anyone except the wealthy and leisurely, creating an inequity which is arguably worse than an outright ban.
The cost for administering such tests would be astronomical and the fees that would need to go into it would guarantee that the only person that can own a gun legally was wealthy (the other, non fee based option would be a large tax burden on everyone). The rigorous training and testing would require so much time and money that it would turn a lot of law abiding people with less funds away from gun ownership. This would essentially take the right to gun ownership away from anyone except the wealthy and leisurely, creating an inequity which is arguably worse than an outright ban.
Push up the tax on Firearms and Firearm accessories to defray the cost to the government subsidizing people's tests. I should note I never mentioned training - the person would have to handle that themselves, much like your driver's test, which is hardly cut off for everyone but the rich and famous. And as for it taking away guns from those with less funds - Bollocks. A Second hand Glock 22 in .40 Caliber will run into about $530 American dollars A Second hand Mossberg 12 Gauge - about $450 A Second hand Taurus .44 Large frame Revolver - $520 A Second hand Lever action rifle - About $550
And this is all second hand, low to mid range stuff, and only the initial cost of the firearm itself - It doesn't include transfer fees, maintenance, repairs, accessories, ammo and so on. Your point of taking firearms away from law abiding people with less money is moot, because if they can't afford $200 to $300 for a licence, and semi-regular(for example, every two years) fee(about a $100 or so) for testing afterwards, how will they be able to afford a firearm?
Also, The cost of banning firearms would be vast as well - not only are you severely curtailing the business of any American firearms manufacturers, dealers, and so on, all of whom pay taxes not only on the money they make but on every sale, you also have to think - How are you going to get the guns back off the law abiding citizens? A government buyback program is the only viable option short of confiscation by the authorities, which is a massive expense, also, you'd have to find the people who weren't giving their guns up to the government, prosecute them, confiscate their firearms.
The cost for administering such tests would be astronomical and the fees that would need to go into it would guarantee that the only person that can own a gun legally was wealthy (the other, non fee based option would be a large tax burden on everyone). The rigorous training and testing would require so much time and money that it would turn a lot of law abiding people with less funds away from gun ownership. This would essentially take the right to gun ownership away from anyone except the wealthy and leisurely, creating an inequity which is arguably worse than an outright ban.
Push up the tax on Firearms and Firearm accessories to defray the cost to the government subsidizing people's tests. I should note I never mentioned training - the person would have to handle that themselves, much like your driver's test, which is hardly cut off for everyone but the rich and famous. And as for it taking away guns from those with less funds - Bollocks. A Second hand Glock 22 in .40 Caliber will run into about $530 American dollars A Second hand Mossberg 12 Gauge - about $450 A Second hand Taurus .44 Large frame Revolver - $520 A Second hand Lever action rifle - About $550
And this is all second hand, low to mid range stuff, and only the initial cost of the firearm itself - It doesn't include transfer fees, maintenance, repairs, accessories, ammo and so on. Your point of taking firearms away from law abiding people with less money is moot, because if they can't afford $200 to $300 for a licence, and semi-regular(for example, every two years) fee(about a $100 or so) for testing afterwards, how will they be able to afford a firearm?
Also, The cost of banning firearms would be vast as well - not only are you severely curtailing the business of any American firearms manufacturers, dealers, and so on, all of whom pay taxes not only on the money they make but on every sale, you also have to think - How are you going to get the guns back off the law abiding citizens? A government buyback program is the only viable option short of confiscation by the authorities, which is a massive expense, also, you'd have to find the people who weren't giving their guns up to the government, prosecute them, confiscate their firearms.
Edit - Fixed the blockquote tags.
I do not see how you could cover that intense level of psychological testing with $200.00 and only a $100.00 follow up fees. As the cost of gun ownership is already high, making it higher would certainly increase that economic inequity (not only in funds and upkeep, but in time off from work to go and get the testing and training - which makes a far bigger difference to someone making $8.00/hour and someone with a fixed salary and vacation time). The testing is useless without training (a person can be mentally sound and still lack the knowledge of handling a gun properly), and I mentioned it because others in the thread suggested it. As for the cost for prosecution, we already have a high cost for prosecuting people that commit gun crimes (not to mention the health care costs regarding gun injury). If someone is a law abiding citizen, they will bring their guns in to be brought back. If they are not law abiding, then they should be prosecuted - that is a financial investment that I believe is worthwhile. I would be happy to pay for initial sweeping prosecution and movements to get guns off the street (much like what has been done in other countries that have banned guns). The initial cost would be high, but so would the creation of an entirely new licensing and certification system. Think of all the money every year that already goes into the prosecution of gun crimes, if gun crimes could be reduced within a generation by a ban, then the social and economic payoff could be great.
The cost for administering such tests would be astronomical and the fees that would need to go into it would guarantee that the only person that can own a gun legally was wealthy (the other, non fee based option would be a large tax burden on everyone). The rigorous training and testing would require so much time and money that it would turn a lot of law abiding people with less funds away from gun ownership. This would essentially take the right to gun ownership away from anyone except the wealthy and leisurely, creating an inequity which is arguably worse than an outright ban.
If only the wealthy and the rich get guns, this will create an illegal black market for guns among the poor. If people can't afford guns, they'll resort to more underhand forms of obtaining said illegal weapons(at least some). This could make the situation even worse.
There is already an illegal black market for guns among the poor. As a generalization, excepting relatively infrequent crimes of passion, gun crime is not committed by people who legally obtain guns. Violent crime in general, including gun crime, is a crime of economics; it's perpetuated by a culture of poverty.
I know that you won't agree with me, Mrs. Macross, but as the old saying goes, guns don't kill people. Gun crime is a symptom of a sick society; ours is sicker (on paper, at least) than other Westernized post-industrial nations because we have so much wealth. Not only that, but it is distributed in such an imbalance that we have lawless neighborhood enclaves populated by the poor set aside from the skyscraper playgrounds of the rich.
Where do you see gun crime? The odd suburban shooting or romance-fueled murder makes headlines, but the truth is behind the sexy stories are thousands more shots fired in barroom brawls, or guns used in cheap one-shot convenience store robberies. These are so run-of-the-mill in urban areas that they rarely get press.
The argument shouldn't be over whether we should have guns - you might as well (as Andrew deftly pointed out) argue whether we should have automobiles. The argument should be over what to do to eliminate the culture of poverty that serves as a breeding ground for ignorance and criminality.
It's always hilarious to me how people who want to ban guns don't want to ban all the dangerous tools sold at home depot. If somehow you magically made all guns in the US disappear, it wouldn't take long for some criminals to go get some nail guns and modify them. Also, much like drugs, people will make their own. Guns are not complex pieces of technology, at least not basic ones. The popularity of the AK-47 is in large part due to its simplicity. People who want deadly weapons will always be able to acquire them. Even in prison they make shivs. Changing the law isn't going to do jack or shit. The only things we can do that will help are to change our culture of violence, and to to better enforce the laws we have.
Another reason to own a gun, if you live in Maine wolves attacking you is actually a concern, which leads a good precentage to get conceal and carry permits (I knew a girl at RIT from maine who carried a handgun when she was up in Maine to fight off wolves)
Which goes to show that what Obama said is true, policy that works in the rural areas of Iowa doesn't work the same way in Downtown Chicago.
If somehow you magically made all guns in the US disappear, it wouldn't take long for some criminals to go get some nail guns and modify them
I think "modify them" is a bit of a strong term - After all, most nail guns will fire as fast as you pull the trigger, so the only modification most would perform would be to duct-tape the saftey back, and put a new hose connector on a scuba tank(or other wearable-size pressure vessel) to connect on to the nailgun.
I think "modify them" is a bit of a strong term - After all, most nail guns will fire as fast as you pull the trigger, so the only modification most would perform would be to duct-tape the saftey back, and put a new hose connector on a scuba tank(or other wearable-size pressure vessel) to connect on to the nailgun.
Yeah, mostly what I was referring to was removal of the safety, and increasing the power.
I think "modify them" is a bit of a strong term - After all, most nail guns will fire as fast as you pull the trigger, so the only modification most would perform would be to duct-tape the saftey back, and put a new hose connector on a scuba tank(or other wearable-size pressure vessel) to connect on to the nailgun.
Yeah, mostly what I was referring to was removal of the safety, and increasing the power.
If I had my tools from back home, I could modify a boltgun - basicly a nailgun that uses adapted .22 cartridges to fire bolts into concrete to fire actual bullets in less than two hours, for a very low cost. If you just want to remove the safety and up the power of the nailgun, I could do that in less than an hour for under $20. Add another ten minutes and $2 for making it able to run off a scuba tank. It really is stupidly easy.
I never realized it before, but completely banning guns is pretty much identical to completely banning alcohol. All the same arguments apply in both cases. The lessons we learned from prohibition, and also from the war on drugs, clearly show that it is not the best course of action. Keeping things legal and regulating them works very well. Outright banning things does not.
I feel it worth noting that many, MANY types of firearms can by built with nothing but plumbing supplies, some metalworking knowledge, and an arc welder (or, for those on a low-budget, even some car batteries with a few jumper cables, a variac from ebay, a vicegrip, and some welding rods) can build even something as advanced as a select-fire submachine gun for $100 with a little bit of knowledge about mechanics and welding.
So then, should we ban the sale of plumbing supplies, welding rigs and tools, or require mechanical engineers to undergo regular checks as to the application of their knowledge, or censor any site on the internet with plans? Of course not. If you make all guns illegal, people will just build their own, which, as Scott just mentioned, is a situation JUST like Prohibition.
That's a good story for a comic book. They repeal the second amendment, and ban all guns for everybody in the US. All the criminals in the book carry home-made firearms. Totally stylin'! Could even make them steampunk guns for double awesome.
Comments
If you want to eliminate violence, you have to change culture. We have a culture of violence in the US. Countries, like Switzerland, do not. Adding or subtracting guns from the situation isn't going to have any significant effect on the amount of violence and murder.
If you want to eliminate accidents, you need training. I'm not looking up the statistic for this, I'll let someone else do that. But I'll point out that stories about gun accidents are never in the house of the NRA expert marskman or the police officer. They're always in the house of some non-expert. It's the same with computers. A real computer expert never gets a virus. Only people who don't know what they are doing have problems like that. You also never hear about expert drivers getting in accidents.
In this world, there are powerful tools. Some tools are so powerful, that life is at risk whenever they are used. However, these powerful tools have very useful purposes, and to ban their use entirely would be a very large detriment to society. To limit the danger associated with such tools, we must make their use a privilege, and set very high standards of excellence for those people who are allowed to use them.
I mean, look at what happened in NY recently with all the poorly trained crane operators. Or how about all the fake doctors administering fake medicine?
Driver's licenses, gun licenses, etc. should be extremely difficult to obtain. In Germany, for example, it costs thousands upon thousands of dollars for one attempt at the driving test. You pay whether you pass or fail. The test is also extremely difficult. The benefit of this is that people take driving more seriously, and they can have something like the autobahn with very high speed limits. You can also feel more comfortable on the road knowing that all the other drivers passed this very hard test. I'm sure some Germans are going to tell me that there are still bad drivers there, and I'm sure there are. No system is perfect, but at least they make it as good as can be.
In addition to greater enforcement of existing gun laws, I think another great way to kill two birds with one stone would be mandatory firearms training for every single person, starting at a young age. A very large part of the cultural problem with guns is that because many people only see them in movies they are both afraid of them, and fascinated with them. Take some kids who aren't allowed to have toy guns over to a friend's house who has them, and those kids will do nothing but play with the toy guns the whole time. Meanwhile the kid who owns the toy guns is like "wtf is wrong with you kids? Let's play some Wii." By requiring that everyone learn how guns work, how to use them, how to respect them, how to operate them safely, etc. many many gun problems will be avoided.
There was a great video on NFL.com that I can't seem to find right now where a football player discussed the problem of players carrying guns after Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg. He talked about how when he had a gun, it weighed heavily on his mind. He was always thinking about it. This relates back to the phenomena scenario fulfillment that came up when we were discussing the prospect of autonomous military units. When you have a gun, and you think about it, you start looking for trouble where it doesn't exist.
When I went to Israel, everyone had guns. Not just handguns. M-16s, assault rifles. The fact that there are armed soldiers, and armed civilians everywhere understandably freaks out the non-natives. I'm sure most people in the US would be freaked out if they saw a hacid with an M-16 over his shoulder. The thing is, they all carry their weapons as casually as you or I carry a backpack. They'll get home and toss it in the corner like it's nothing. I spent time in someone's house and the daughter of the family had recently finished her service. Her weapon was just sitting in the corner. Nobody even paid attention to it, except me and the other guy who were guests in their home.
Even though there were incredibly dangerous weapons everywhere, the people did not shoot each other. They shot Palestinians and others in the context of war, but they didn't shoot each other. Almost every citizen is required to go through military training, and lives around guns for as long as they live there. There is no widespread cultural fear of guns, or fascination with them. There is certainly no lack of training of respect for the weapons. That is the kind of culture we need to foster in the US if we want to reduce violence, especially gun-related violence.
You know who I would shoot if I could? Whoever decided that all DVDs have to be in letterbox format. I bought a x-inch screen TV. I don't want half of that screen to be blank when I watch Bladerunner.
Oh, and what if you ever met the man who invented voicemail? That guy deserves to die.
Also, like Rym, I am completely against publically-available deathwand devices; however, I believe that it is every man's right to own Reaction Energy-based weaponry.
Indeed, I have the potential to set myself up in the proverbial belltower and kill as many people as I had rounds to spare. However, if we're going to talk potential, well, it's very shaky ground.
The problem is that no matter how much we restrict firearms for law abiding citizens for whatever reason - there will still be a ready supply of firearms in the underground market, even if you take all the firearms away.
Now, I'm all in favor of testing owners rigorously - after all, Look at the Port Arthur Massacre. Martin bryant was not fit to posses any firearm - yet, he did. If we put such conditions - Rigorous testing, every few years or so - it Wouldn't keep firearms out of criminal hands, however, it would make great strides towards ensuring that as many gun owners as possible are stable, mentally healthy, and worthwhile members of society.
This is my point with the "Rigorous regular testing" idea. It's not perfect, I'll be the first to admit - but as you said, and also as others have pointed out in this thread, banning firearms isn't either. The "Rigorous Regular testing" idea - well, once developed beyond a three words and a vague idea - keeps guns out of the hands of people like Martin Bryant, and other unstable people, among others.
It would also cost less than Banning guns entirely, and the mechanisms are already somewhat in place - for example, the testing one has to go through before obtaining a license to carry/concealed carry on a commercial aircraft.
Banning guns, however, is harder to enforce and harder to justify in the United States, and while it would achieve result in the same effect, it suffers from more critical flaws than more tightly regulating who can own firearms, though one flaw they share is that they both won't affect the underground arms trade.
When gun control laws are already so poorly enforced, I do not see how you think how practical rigorous and regular testing will ever happen in any meaningful way.
As for how it could or would be enforced - well, It's already in place to a certain degree. As I mentioned, this form of testing is already employed for some licenses, the one I'm most familiar with being the testing one has to go through to obtain a license to carry a firearm on an aircraft. One has to undergo thorough and deep background checks, a battery of psychological tests, and renew both of these on a rather regular basis. Long story short, It's bloody hard to get one - It's actually one of the reasons I haven't made the move over from Cabin Crew to Air Marshal.
This test - Diluted somewhat, of course, to reduce the cost to the government and the license holder/hopeful - would be highly effective at keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them yet can still legally obtain them.
It will not reduce the underground market much - though this is the same with banning firearms, after all, look how well that worked for drugs - but I believe that it will reduce gun crime to some degree by taking guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, yet are allowed under the current laws.
A Second hand Glock 22 in .40 Caliber will run into about $530 American dollars
A Second hand Mossberg 12 Gauge - about $450
A Second hand Taurus .44 Large frame Revolver - $520
A Second hand Lever action rifle - About $550
And this is all second hand, low to mid range stuff, and only the initial cost of the firearm itself - It doesn't include transfer fees, maintenance, repairs, accessories, ammo and so on.
Your point of taking firearms away from law abiding people with less money is moot, because if they can't afford $200 to $300 for a licence, and semi-regular(for example, every two years) fee(about a $100 or so) for testing afterwards, how will they be able to afford a firearm?
Also, The cost of banning firearms would be vast as well - not only are you severely curtailing the business of any American firearms manufacturers, dealers, and so on, all of whom pay taxes not only on the money they make but on every sale, you also have to think - How are you going to get the guns back off the law abiding citizens? A government buyback program is the only viable option short of confiscation by the authorities, which is a massive expense, also, you'd have to find the people who weren't giving their guns up to the government, prosecute them, confiscate their firearms.
Edit - Fixed the blockquote tags.
I know that you won't agree with me, Mrs. Macross, but as the old saying goes, guns don't kill people. Gun crime is a symptom of a sick society; ours is sicker (on paper, at least) than other Westernized post-industrial nations because we have so much wealth. Not only that, but it is distributed in such an imbalance that we have lawless neighborhood enclaves populated by the poor set aside from the skyscraper playgrounds of the rich.
Where do you see gun crime? The odd suburban shooting or romance-fueled murder makes headlines, but the truth is behind the sexy stories are thousands more shots fired in barroom brawls, or guns used in cheap one-shot convenience store robberies. These are so run-of-the-mill in urban areas that they rarely get press.
The argument shouldn't be over whether we should have guns - you might as well (as Andrew deftly pointed out) argue whether we should have automobiles. The argument should be over what to do to eliminate the culture of poverty that serves as a breeding ground for ignorance and criminality.
Which goes to show that what Obama said is true, policy that works in the rural areas of Iowa doesn't work the same way in Downtown Chicago.
So then, should we ban the sale of plumbing supplies, welding rigs and tools, or require mechanical engineers to undergo regular checks as to the application of their knowledge, or censor any site on the internet with plans? Of course not. If you make all guns illegal, people will just build their own, which, as Scott just mentioned, is a situation JUST like Prohibition.