I've seen a few PSAs on gun safety and I posted a video on FB from a veteran group on asking someone else to keep your guns if you're going through a tough time. I know my vet support group and the people at my range will keep guns or safe keys if someone is struggling. I've seen that happen and several years ago I kept a friend's gun safe key, trigger lock keys....in my gun safe.

I disagree, "there are very few responsible gun owners" and I guarantee I know more gun owners than you do or you wouldn't say that. I'm not trying to be antagonistic in any way here, you're making sweeping negative assumptions that aren't correct.

We have roughly 400 millions firearms in the USA, if a majority of gun owners are as irresponsible as you're claiming then we'd have a lot more accidental shootings, injuries and deaths than we have.

I also think we should look at more than just restrictive legislation for all issues. On safe storage of guns, I think we should push for civil damages if someone is irresponsible with their weapons. I'm house-sitting for a friend right now, but am 100% confident all my weapons will be secure when I go home tomorrow-but of course I'll put eyes on my guns within an hour of getting home too.

Then maybe the answer should be we stop fixating on a type of strategy we know has minimal efficacy, open our minds and try a new approach?

From other issues, we seem to know a mix of formal and informal interventions has the best efficacy.

I think having fewer dead innocent people is somethng we shouldn't give up on!

Thank you for an honest response. I totally agree

The lack of respect extends well beyond the firearm

@chalupacabre Totally agree!

Are you open to a factual discussion on that proposal and how Obama pushed his interventions?

Also, thanks for an honest response

@educatedredneck Lay out the facts you know. Support them with references, and links, Then I'll do the same.

I don't want to debate this; we're basically on the same side...I

agree that we as a nation are long overdue for changes in gun use strategies....

I too am tired of hearing about the accidental deaths almost ever day.

But until we get strict regulation...like car use....with guns....we won't see change.

@Robecology my first point doesn't require any citation or links. I'll do another point when I'm not at the dog park.

I think Obama was a very good president and overall a great man.

He also focused a lot of attention and talking points of gun control on Australia or somewhat the UK. Those countries enacted sweeping gun bans and confiscation.

No matter how much he said nobody would be coming for guns, his constant praise and minimal criticism for countries that banned and confiscated guns made it difficult for pro gun people to believe he didn't want to duplicate what happened in the UK and Oz.

I think this point makes sense once you think about it, but of course it's totally open to questions or criticism

@educatedredneck Well...he's gone...the NRA's allegedly losing money...so maybe the mood of the nation is slowly shifting... We have to wait until 2020 for a significant (hopefully) change in direction...

Here's a humorous approach from another "educated red neck...trey Crouder...funny but real!

@Robecology Many gun enthusiasts criticize the NRA-ILA (which is different than the NRA that pushes safety and training)

Right now the NRA still has a lock on funding from gun manufacturers. Most gun people still support from the NRA despite a lot of criticism and I think a lot of that support boils down to we're becoming a nation of false dychotomies and bullshit extremism on every political issue. I can dig into that comment as much as anyone wants. I also know there's been some push among gun people to seperate the NRA from the NRA-ILA or create a totally new gun advocacy group without the political idiocy.

My last comment on the NRA isn't an endorsement for them, merely stating an objective fact that I can prove with links to NRA trainings or advertisements. Despite some extraordinary political idiocy from the NRA-ILA and radical bias and profiteering from the regular NRA, they're still our biggest push for gun training and safety yet are thoroughly demonized by most on the political left.

@educatedredneck As a kid I loved the NRA. I used to own several rifles and worked my way up with different "titles"...before I learned about their push to welcome and fund automatic weapon development for civilian use. The biggest profit maker for the big gun companies hasn't been the handgun nor the rifles...it's been the semi-automatic war machines...which have no business being in any civilian's hands.

"Some of Midwest Tactical’s best-selling models have climbed in value by tens of thousands of dollars since Goepfert and his wife Joy, 45, started the company. According to data collected by the Machine Gun Price Guide, which uses information from dealers, auctions and gun shows, the cost of a Tommy gun (the Thompson M1) went from about $9,000 in 2004 to almost $27,000 last July—a 200 percent increase. The Heckler & Koch MP5 soared 250 percent, from almost $12,000 in 2003 to $42,000. Meanwhile, the MAC10, technically a “machine pistol,” more than doubled in price from 2011 to 2017, to more than $8,000."

So it's the "machine guns" the "rapid-fire" rifles that are creating the biggest profits for these companies....and the NRA backs them 100%.

The NRA has lost its' way.

[fortune.com]

@educatedredneck And....like I said....you call yourself an educated redneck....I thought you'd appreciate Trey Crowder's POV...did you watch the video? He aint exactly the "political left"...

@Robecology treating guns like care.... this just isn't a valid analogy. If people really wanted to treat guns like cars there would be enormous support from gun rights people but tremendous opposition from gun control.

People often think every automobile is registered in the state and every driver must be licensed, but that's inaccurat. Cars driven on public roads need to be registered and drivers operating vehicles on public roads need to be licensed. Similarly underage people or people with a suspended license can drive on private property and the law has minimal jurisdiction, although insurance companies might not cover some things. I was driving trucks and tractors on private property at the age of 8.

This point could be slightly difficult to prove bc I would be trying to prove there is not a law requiring something, while that's a lot easier than proving a negative it is difficult. I can find links if you question what I'm stating. Automobiles not driven on public roads require no registration or insurance. This includes most race cars and farm vehicles. I grew up in farm country, some large farms have a car or usually a truck that never leaves private property. Farmers don't waste time or money licensing or insuring those vehicles. Many areas already require training and licensing for conceal carry, which is akin to driving on public roads.

There's very little restriction or oversight on after-market modifications to cars. It's fully legal to put crazy a powerful engine in car, put armour on cars or heck even crazy things like a battering ram....related point I'll reference in a future post, but we tend to have a lot of restrictions for irresponsible behavior but far fewer restrictions for responsible people. You can drive a car capable of going 300mph on public roads, but driving 90mph is illegal in most areas. Most proposed gun control flips that and wants legislation and restrictions for responsible people. Again, I'm not against all legislation, it's just a relevant point for the discussion.

I'm absolutely not advocating for this standard, although I acknowledge it might sound like a point some of the most extreme 2A supporters would say, I'm just drawing the guns and cars analogy out.

If we treat guns like cars, then there would be registration and licensing for all conceal carry weapons but that license would mean a license in Alabama guarantees conceal carry in California and New York, including every major city.

Weapons that stay on private property and are only securely transported would have no registration and minimal oversight or insurance requirements. That means if someone wants to modify an AK to be belt fed, full auto the government would have minimal ways of tracking who has those weapons. Even weapons used for hunting or conceal carry on public property could have major modifications and the government would have minimal oversight of those modifications.

LOL, sorry for the long post, but the guns and cars analogy seems to fall apart once we dig into the details. Most gun control advocates don't want to treat guns like cars, they want maximum oversight and restrictions on guns but even fewer freedoms than we allow for cars. Having significantly more requirements and restrictions for a privledge v a constitutional right is inherently problematic.

I'll do one other short post and wait for your responses. I want to sincerely thank you for the honest discussion.

You stated, "But until we get strict regulation...like car use....with guns....we won't see change."

From my OP, Why is restrictive legislation pretty much our entire focus on reducing gun violence?

I can't think of any other issue where restrictive legislaiton, often restrictions aimed at everyone is nearly our entire focus for any problem. Sure we have laws against driving 100mph for everyone bc driving 100mph is inherently dangerous.

I believe a mix of informal interventions aimed at maximizing safety, prevention and education combined with legislation is a good place to start with most problems. We've had good success in reducing other issues like drunk driving using this strategy.

Drunk driving is an issue we've had significant success at changing the culture to be more responsible and safe with significantly fewer deaths.

The focus of nearly all legislation around drunk driving was harsher and more consistent consequences for actions that are inherently irresponsible. We also have had enromous publicly and privately funded PSAs on safety and to focus on irresponsibility. I know very few who would consider driving drunk and those people are consistently mocked and lambasted by all my other friends.

If we seem to know fixating on restrictive legislation failed on alcohol and drugs while a mix of harsher and more consistent consequences for irresponsible people combined with efforts for genuine prevention and to promote safety help with other issues....then I have to again ask why is restrictive legislation our focus for gun violence?

Why don't we abandon what we seem to know will have minimal efficacy and promote what seems like it could have a major impact over time???

Thanks I appreciate the compliment! Again, I have to congratulate you on the civility of this discussion!

You said, I'm not saying the car/driver model is perfect...but, as Obama suggested..."if we study the science and data, we'll learn the best way to regulate them. Right now the NRA and the congress won't even let us study the data!"

This is a common talking point from gun control advocates, but it's not entirely true. The Dickey Amendment banned federal monies to promote gun control. This goes directly back to the question I keep asking, why is restrictive legislation our go to answer on gun violence? Why was the government funding one position which led to the Dickey Amendment?

Studying gun violence is not banned, I can find the studies Obama commissioned the CDC to do if you're not familiar with them. Clearly studying gun violence isn't banned if Obama ordered the CDC to study it.

I definitely agree federal monies should not be used in a partisan manner, although I also agree the NRA has somewhat dominated this discussion as well.

It should be fairly obvious why we wouldn't want federal dollars to fund any partisan issue. The uproar from pro-choice people would be extreme if we used government resources to mostly research things pro-life people wanted. Similarly, we wouldn't tolerate a group that's stringently for or against immigration to do almost all of the research on issues around illegal immigration.

I'm totally in favor of objectively studying anything, but that means we must stop thinking of restrictive legislation as our focus for reducing gun violence and we do study and push for other ways on being safer, having fewer homicides, genuine prevention of mass shooters...

@educatedredneck I like "liberal Rednecks" take....and stand by my thoughts. It's getting late...and I'm tired of debating...we won't solve this...you and i...but let me leave you with another perspective....

One of a demographers.Those who study population trends.

When I read "Population Density and social pathology" by John B. Calhoun in '63, It had a profound affect on me.

I was nominated by the NSF and given a full room and board scholarship to study "the Population Explosion"; for 3 months....U. of Cinci, Ohio...with a lot of VIP's in the population study (demographic) world there.

Amongst the things we learned then;

...the more crowded it gets, the more psychotic and hostile we get.

I won't say much more on that; here's the link of the study I read...but basically John B. Calhoun noted as he made the rat cages smaller the rats fought more...over nothing.

They started abnormal mating behaviors....male on male, female on female.

There was more child neglect and abuse (even child-eating).

There was gang warfare.

And this was with clean cages, plenty of food and water...just more crowded cages.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I won't reply; I'm hitting the sack and fading with Rachel Maddow on TV...g'nite....but read this if you have time;

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]