War on drunk driving a model for reducing gun violence

What practical steps, within the protections of the Second Amendment, can we take to reduce mass killings and gun violence? Can such an effort even begin to make a difference in saving lives and preventing heartbreak?

Yes, it can. And we have a model of success to draw upon.

By 1982, more than 21,000 Americans were dying each year in alcohol-related accidents. Yet somehow by 2010, the number of fatalities caused by drunk driving had fallen to 10,228, a decline of more than half. We didn’t solve the problem, but clearly we have made substantial progress. We are saving more than 10,000 lives a year and preventing tens of thousands more from being crippled or maimed. Almost as important, over the years we have prevented tens of thousands of drivers from ruining their own lives by killing people while under the influence.

We did not achieve that progress by banning automobiles. We did not ban alcohol. In fact, no single dramatic change produced the turnaround. It was achieved through a broad, concerted legal effort backed by a fundamental change in what was deemed culturally acceptable

We required automakers to make their products safer, including then-controversial steps such as requiring airbags. We mandated use of seatbelts. We increased the legal liability of bars, taverns and restaurants that over-served customers, to ensure that those making money off the problem had some “skin in the game” in reducing it.

We instituted a national drinking age of 21, which reduced the number of minors involved in alcohol-related fatalities. In Georgia alone, the rate of such alcohol-related fatalities involving drivers under 21 fell by 63.7 percent from 2000 to 2010 We increased enforcement efforts, such as DUI roadblocks. We tightened licensing requirements and also nationalized databases, so that someone stripped of his or her license in one state for drunk driving could not be licensed in another state.

So how do you apply those lessons to gun safety? As with automobiles, you improve the safety of the devices themselves, for example by requiring the installation of trigger locks. (If Nancy Lanza had installed trigger locks in guns kept in a household with an unbalanced young man, she and 26 other people today in Newtown might still be alive.) You ban the sale, use or possession of high-capacity magazines, such as the 30-round mags that Adam Lanza used. And you ban altogether the sale or transfer of assault weapons. If someone wants to sell an existing assault weapon, they can sell only to the government.

As with automobiles, you require evidence that individuals know how to operate certain weapons before they can be licensed to use or possess them. The National Rifle Association points out, correctly, that those who go through gun-safety and marksmanship courses to qualify for concealed-carry permits in many states are rarely involved in crime. Why not extend that successful model to gun ownership in general? (Georgia, by the way, requires no gun-safety training and no evidence of gun-handling ability before granting permits to carry concealed weapons.)

In addition to licensing gun owners, you register weapons. (With some 200 million guns in private hands, the fear of a government effort to go door to door confiscating registered weapons is ludicrous paranoia.) If a registered weapon is used in a crime but was not reported stolen, the person to whom it is registered can be held civilly or even criminally liable. That’s responsible gun ownership, and would curtail the black market substantially.

One of the bigger deterrents to drunk driving is the significantly increased cost of auto insurance for those convicted. Bars and liquor stores with a history of over-serving also have to worry about increased insurance costs. If you make gun owners and sellers financially liable for any damage done with their weapons, you create a market-based incentive to be responsible.

None of those steps violates the Constitution; none prevents honest citizens from obtaining firearms for personal defense, hunting and other legitimate purposes. But together, they have the potential to dramatically reduce the number of deaths caused by firearm misuse.

693 comments Add your comment

Georgia

December 19th, 2012
6:51 am

Chris Rock thinks bullets should cost Five Dollars each. That would solve it, he says.

Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!

December 19th, 2012
6:59 am

Georgia,
Yes, make guns like personal printers. Buy the gun for a hundred dollars, but the bullets are thirty bucks apiece. That’d work… :)

Jefferson

December 19th, 2012
7:07 am

Other than a bolt action rifle or a shotgun, possession of any other gun should be at

Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!

December 19th, 2012
7:14 am

Van Jones

December 19th, 2012
7:16 am

If I remember correctly, drunk driving became more culturally unacceptable. It was helped along by ad campaigns, etc., not by banning cars or charging $300/drink. I would be interested in hearing how we can do the same thing with weapons.

Georgia

December 19th, 2012
7:17 am

I’ve been busted twice for DUI. Both times in 1982. The second one got reduced to “public drunk” by a lawyer who served as my judge on the first one, which I pled guilty to, and was fined a thousand dollars. Now get this. I went back to that judge/lawyer when a Gwinnett County school bus rammed my 1981 Pinto and I sustained a soft tissue injury, like whiplash. That judge/lawyer was a Gwinnett County judge. I was a young moron who didn’t understand that represented a conflict of interest. He didn’t recuse himself from representing me to the insurance company. Isn’t that fraud?

Madmax

December 19th, 2012
7:26 am

Jay I agree with almost all of what you say but in a society where government is becoming more and more of an overlord, I do have concerns about government confiscation. We continually give up rights because they are “good” for us in general ( the right thing to do). In this step, your proposal sounds reasonable, but what about the next steps. At some point, after another tragedy, the step may be to round up all automatic rifles, and then all automatic pistols, and so on until all guns are in the hands of the state or in the hands of criminals. At the point in time, each of those “collections for our national good” will seem reasonable against the backdrop of the situation but each will tear away at a right that was clearly articulated by our founders. I don’t know what the answer is, and your analogy to drunk driving is somewhat flawwed as the laws targeted bad behavior (those that drank and drove) whereas doing this with guns targets anyone who exercises this right. By the way I haven’t owned a gun in over 50 years so I’m not a gun toting NRA member but I do have a severe distrust of our federal government. Rights given up are rarely won back and the right to bear arms in this country is not linked to hunting.

Call It Like It Is

December 19th, 2012
7:29 am

Never going to happen. Yes what happen was beyond tragic and I feel for these families and their loss. However like with all media matters you have a knee jerk reaction to a terrible situation. Is any of the above going to stop a sick individual from committing such a horrible act? No. All you are doing is putting more laws on innocent America citizens. You said it yourself, American citizens that buy guns legally, go thru background checks are rarely ever involved in criminal activity.
What we need to ask is why? Why is this happening here? Why in Switzerland were every single able body man is issued a fully “automatic” rifle is there no violent gun crime to speak of? Is it because the bad guys know there are easier targets to go after where every homeowner is not packing? Is it because they live in most homogeneous society? Is it because their mental health care system is better? I don’t know. I do know that when Clinton put in his assault rifle ban it had a completely negligible effect on crime and that is from the FBI, not me. Thus it was allowed to pass.

And Jay to set the record straight, almost every single gun manufacture now includes a gun lock with the sale of any new gun. Some are external, wire with a pad lock, others are actually part of the gun. Would either stop a deranged individual from circumventing the safety measure, No.

Hmmmmmmm

December 19th, 2012
7:29 am

Still talking about gun control….. Jeez, you people can’t chew bubble gum and walk at the same time… Good Grief.. The problem at Newton was a MENTAL HEALTH issue! NOT a GUN issue.. Are you really college educated Jay?

Van Jones

December 19th, 2012
7:32 am

Madmax, I agree with you. I would add that history tells us that it begins with registration. That’s not a big deal, right? But once weapons are registered it’s pretty easy for a govt to know where they are.

Ken

December 19th, 2012
7:33 am

Jay, Your RIGHT today.

Looney Bin

December 19th, 2012
7:35 am

Uh, Van Jones? If you’re interested Jay has a few ideas right here on this page….

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
7:37 am

Registration needs to be seriously AMPED UP.

I have to renew my drivers license on a regular basis.
Gun permits should not be FOREVER.

The permit rolls need to be run against law enforcement
and mental health reporting systems. If the gun owners name pops up a match you yank his permit and yes,,,,confiscate his guns.

Van Jones

December 19th, 2012
7:41 am

Uhh, Looney Bin, I’m talking about cultural changes like we had with with the war on drunk driving. Not how to make safer cars or Jay’s opinion of what is ludicrous paranoia.

Banner123

December 19th, 2012
7:41 am

Jay,

Just out of curiosity, how do we know his mom’s guns were not locked up. He could have found the keys or cut the locks off.

your analogy of gun locks and airbags/seatbelts is not valid. Gun locks (which i believe are a good idea) are not physically part of a gun like airbags and seatbelts are. also, airbags and seatbelts could be removed by the owner (not smart) in which the car would be very dangerous.

Also. how is banning so called “Assault Rifles” analogous to drunk driving and cars. There were no bans on either cars or alcohol.

I do think your ideas of hold gun owners civilly or criminally responsible for the misuse of their weapons is a very good idea.

Georgia

December 19th, 2012
7:44 am

You have to be careful when you link a cause and effect to drunk driving campaigns and lower fatalities. It could be that our Nascar passion has made us all better drivers, even when we’re drunk. Look at what’s been happening on our roads: We draft better. We go three wide at the connector without flinching. And thanx to the tv show, “Motorweek”, we slalom the orange cones in work zones impeccably. We can easily drive on the sidewalk around unloading school buses. Our zero to sixty times are improving by the month. Do you really believe people are drinking less? Some people are still drunk from the night before on their way to work in the morning. No, we drive better, thanx to nascar, motorweek, and our cowboy heritage.. It’s miller time, do you know where your Colt 45 (and your colt) is?

Van Jones

December 19th, 2012
7:44 am

Granny, what is this FOREVER gun permit of which you speak. Is it available in GA?

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
7:46 am

Banner123

December 19th, 2012
7:41 am

“Also. how is banning so called “Assault Rifles” analogous to drunk driving and cars. There were no bans on either cars or alcohol.”

.
.
.

See many of these on I-85?

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
7:46 am

Van Jones

Do gun permits expire?

[...] about her guns?Boston.com (blog)Controlling Gun Violence: Obstacles to an Effective PolicyABC NewsWar on drunk driving a model for reducing gun violenceAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Reuters -NECN -IrishCentralall 39,034 news [...]

Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!

December 19th, 2012
7:47 am

None of the new regulations I’ve seen talk about guns that are already owned. The regulations are for new guns being bought. That will help some, but is not the total answer….and what is it with the “Government will take your guns” thing? You act as if the Government is the enemy. That is paranoia to the nth degree. If you think that the government is the problem, then take your guns and move somewhere that there is no government. See how well you’ll do then…

Madmax

December 19th, 2012
7:48 am

Granny, that would not have prevented what happened. It was the son, not the mother that had the issue. And there is a another right you are eroding when you start invading medical records to find potential evildoers. And what “mental health issues” would you deem probable cause? Depression over the loss of a loved one? Angst over a shooting? Autism? Anxiety over your professional career? What classifies one as a potential evildoer in your world?

Van Jones

December 19th, 2012
7:49 am

Granny, the fact that you do not know but post as if you do speaks volumes.

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
7:49 am

Madmax

Correct, but it could prevent others.

Are you of the a “small amount of improvement is not worth it” crowd?

GB

December 19th, 2012
7:50 am

How can you “require” trigger locks? What possible mechanism could there be to make sure that Mrs. Lanza had kept a lock on the trigger of the gun kept at her home?

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
7:51 am

Van

Can’t you answer the question?

I can now. I admit I looked it up.

Some do after a year, some after 5.

Do you object to having those run against law enforcement and mental health database?

Van Jones

December 19th, 2012
7:53 am

Granny, yes and yes.

CFBFan

December 19th, 2012
7:53 am

2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Jay, I am neither a legal scholar nor an NRA member. With a plain reading of the 2nd amendment how do any gun laws not violate the 2nd amendment, specifically the phrase, “shall not be infringed”?

The 2nd amendment was adopted so that the people would be able to protect themselves from a repressive government “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Thomas Heyward Jr

December 19th, 2012
7:53 am

I sincerely hope that those Federalie overseer wannabes try every one of Bookman’s suggestions.
.
Bring it!

old yankee

December 19th, 2012
7:55 am

We will not prevent massacres through legislation of any sort. This is not a problem of guns or laws. It is fundamentally a cultural problem. Forget the mass attacks for a minute — look at the daily crime reports in every major city. We value property more than humanity. We think it is actually OK to kill another human being to protect the custom rims on our car. We worship violence — it really is as simple as that. Mr. Bookman’s ideas are not bad — but they are bandaids. To paraphrase Shakespeare: The problem does not lie in our stars or our guns or our laws — it lies in us.

Madmax

December 19th, 2012
7:55 am

Granny – I’ll answer your question but you did not answer mine. I am of the legislation strips us of our freedoms belief, so my answer to you is, yes, because it costs us more in freedoms than it prevents. Now could you answer my question on what “mental report” you feel is probable cause in your world?

Van Jones

December 19th, 2012
7:57 am

However, no “permit” is required to purchase a gun in GA.

Tundra Dude

December 19th, 2012
7:57 am

Do gun permits expire?

5 yrs, in Jawja

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
7:57 am

Van – accepted and why?

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
7:59 am

MadMax

I’ll answer yours.

It is not up to me or you.

Mental health professionals would establish that.

Tundra Dude

December 19th, 2012
8:00 am

Do gun permits expire?

for concealed carry, it must be renewed every 5 yrs, in Jawja

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
8:01 am

CFBFan

December 19th, 2012
7:53 am

Reading plainly, when and where does your well regulated miltia train?

When do they do their class work?

Oh and what are their regulations?

N-GA (economic base jumper)

December 19th, 2012
8:01 am

Most firearm deaths in the US involve handguns. Unfortunately a very divided Supreme Court declared a Washington D.C. law restricting handgun ownership un-Constitutional. The law had been on the books for more than 20 years. It was enacted when D.C was declared the murder capital of the US.

Regarding registration, I purchased a gun and it was registered to me at the time of purchase. I sold it to my brother who subsequently sold it to someone he worked with. I (and the government) have no idea where it is now. Private individuals as well as dealers who sell at gun shows are not required to verify firearm eligibility (convicted felons, mentally ill people, etc.). Nor is there a waiting period. The bottom line is there is little control…anyone wanting a firearm knows where to get one.

stands for decibels

December 19th, 2012
8:04 am

In fact, no single dramatic change produced the turnaround. It was achieved through a broad, concerted legal effort backed by a fundamental change in what was deemed culturally acceptable

Exactly.

Thanks for this column, Jay–it mirrors something I’d been meaning to post, about how we need to apply a holistic approach to the problem of gun violence.

For us rational people (and, alas, I’m going to have to probably exclude half of the people who’ll reply to this thread from that label)–instead of allowing ourselves to get bogged down in minutia and arguing over whether this or that measure will be the (pardon the expression) “magic bullet,” just press for everything that will apply sensible limits to arms proliferation while increasing accountability.

And if you’re told it can’t be done, just laugh and say such nonsense has never stopped civil progress before, why should it now?

(by the way, do people still say “holistic?” I was never a big fan of the word, but I think it applies perfectly, here.)

Madmax

December 19th, 2012
8:05 am

Granny, so sort of like Obamacare – we’re not sure what to do so we’ll pass some vague legislation and then we’ll turn it over to a group of mental heatl experts – sort of like a parole board and we all know how successful those have been. I’m sorry, but that’s exactly why I oppose knee jerk calls for legislation because nobody can define what it is, just that the government should do something, even if it’s stupid. Jay at least put out some ideas, not all bad, that were more specific. You are just calling for action for actions sake.

Karl Marx

December 19th, 2012
8:06 am

Speaking of making sure gun owners have skin in the game. France just convicted a psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death of manslaughter Tuesday. That sounds good so why not extend that to the news media as well. I can think of a few times where the media should be held libel for what it reported or printed. Richard Jewell is one good example.

Banner123

December 19th, 2012
8:06 am

N-GA (economic base jumper)

You could not be more wrong on gun shows. Dealers are required to accomplish background checks on ALL firearm sales at gun shows. Individual-to-individual sales do not. I do believe that should be changed to all sales of firearems require a background check.

Karl Marx

December 19th, 2012
8:09 am

You remember Richard Jewell don’t you Jay.

Steve-USA

December 19th, 2012
8:10 am

“Chris Rock thinks bullets should cost Five Dollars each. That would solve it, he says”

I believe he said $5,000

Citizen of the World

December 19th, 2012
8:10 am

Yes, there is so much more that can be done and should be done. More regulation, stiffer penalties, assault weapons bans and cultural awareness can all make a difference. You so often hear the expression “if it saves only one life, it will be worth it.” Well, these steps will save lives, and anyone who opposes any or all of these solutions … well, how would they feel if the next victim was their child, spouse, parent, friend?

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

December 19th, 2012
8:12 am

Well, I say all this is a load of hooey. The solution is to make everybody pack heat, just like the potheads’ solution to the War on Drugs is to let everybody walk around stoned. I bet that punk would of thought twice if he knew 20 kids plus a teacher was going to blast away at him the second he leveled that Bushmaster.

Not to mention it would of made the teacher alot more respectful toward her 1st graders.

Have a good Hump Day everybody.

Steve-USA

December 19th, 2012
8:13 am

War on drunk driving.
War on guns.
War on woman.
War of the classes.

We talk more about the faux wars in this country than the real wars we are actually in.

Jay

December 19th, 2012
8:13 am

“Jay, I am neither a legal scholar nor an NRA member. With a plain reading of the 2nd amendment how do any gun laws not violate the 2nd amendment, specifically the phrase, “shall not be infringed”?

So CFBF, are you saying that machine guns should be legal? Tanks? Bombs? That would seem to be the case under your apparent interpretation, in which no restrictions or regulations can be tolerated because the right “shall not be infringed.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative of our justices, disagrees with you. As he wrote in Heller, the most recent and definitive of Second Amendment cases, “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns…. Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

GT

December 19th, 2012
8:14 am

They have us practically raped going through airport security for something less dangerous than what they bring to the equation, because the breach of security of 9/11 happen on their watch. We spend billions on Homeland Security to see it fail in New Orleans, yet no vibration for assault weapons just glib responses.

stands for decibels

December 19th, 2012
8:15 am

By the way, I ctrl-F’d the words “shame” and “shaming” and they are nowhere to be found in Jay’s piece or in the comments so far. And they should be.

If you responsibly keep and bear arms for self defense purposes, there is no shame in that.

If you continually brag about your awesome treasure trove of useless-for-anything-but-slaughter assault weapons, and get all pissy any time someone suggests maybe you should find a less stupid hobby, there SHOULD be a great deal of shame in that.

If you continually post whiny-assed teaty baby rants about how any new gun reg is a step toward an Obama Fascist State and how you’re gonna double down on the survivalist gear for your bunker, there SHOULD be a great deal of shame in that.

I’ll defend your right to post such stuff, but it isn’t cute any more, it isn’t funny. It’s shameful.

Such people need to be called out early and often.

It’ll take time, but gradually more Americans will tire of suffering a tiny minority of jackasses’ unwarranted influence over public policy, and they’ll be emboldened to speak up.

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
8:15 am

Madmax

December 19th, 2012
8:05 am
Granny, so sort of like Obamacare – we’re not sure what to do so we’ll pass some vague legislation and then we’ll turn it over to a group of mental heatl experts – sort of like a parole board and we all know how successful those have been. I’m sorry, but that’s exactly why I oppose knee jerk calls for legislation because nobody can define what it is, just that the government should do something, even if it’s stupid. Jay at least put out some ideas, not all bad, that were more specific. You are just calling for action for actions sake.

.
.
.
You have a problem with science?
Especially the science of mental health?

I posit you need to be looked at.

GT

December 19th, 2012
8:16 am

Gun control is a little like global warming. The right won’t own up to the facts so you have a debate in a vacuum until it gets so bad even in the darkness these cowboys realize they are the problem.

Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!

December 19th, 2012
8:16 am

This will take a little time, but if you really want to educate yourself about gun shows and the law read this. pay attention to the sites it directs you to also. It is a good article.

http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/03/background-checks-and-gun-shows.html

dcb

December 19th, 2012
8:17 am

Seldom agree with you, Bookman. But this is an excellent article with some very, very valid points.

[...] War on drunk driving a model for reducing gun violence – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) 19 December 2012 on U.S. by admin [...]

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

December 19th, 2012
8:20 am

“We did not achieve that progress by banning automobiles. We did not ban alcohol.”

But we still have cars that go over 100 mph ! WHY ?

A simple computer chip restricting the speed to 55 mph of any new car (except emergency vehicles and mandatory jail time for modifying or removing said chip) sold in this country would over time save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Why don’t we do THAT too?

barking frog

December 19th, 2012
8:20 am

Jay,
Good luck with that. I’ll vote for it all. Until it happens,
do the children remain unprotected ?

GT

December 19th, 2012
8:21 am

You know I would take my chances on that plane. I am thinking now that we know we have an enemy no box cutters or knives are going to bring a plane down in my lifetime again. Domestic terrorism is our largest treat, we don’t define it as such, and we call it some crazy person going off their rocker, its terrorism. The Middle East recruits these guys we call crazy and turns them on us instead of going off on them. One of these days these same Middle East people are going to figure out how to find these guys before they go off in a theater or school and really make them dangerous. We better start getting to them first, and this gun fetish is a good detector or where to find them.

Citizen of the World

December 19th, 2012
8:22 am

There’s an expression — What you focus on expands. So is it any wonder we have so much gun violence and murder and mayhem in our nation?

Look at our “entertainment.” Shows like Dateline NBC and 20/20 used to be about issues – now it’s the murder mystery du jour. Prime time TV dramas feature one gruesome crime scene after another. The video games our kids play are all about killing, killing and more killing. Not just movie villains, but movie heroes leave blood running in the street. It’s truly sick that we feed ourselves a steady diet of this blood and guts. Art imitates life? Life imitates art? Either way, we need to turn away from this culture of violence.

Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!

December 19th, 2012
8:26 am

“So CFB, are you saying that machine guns should be legal? Tanks? Bombs? That would seem to be the case under your apparent interpretation, in which no restrictions or regulations can be tolerated because the right “shall not be infringed.”

Jay,
Back when JFK was assassinated, and because Oswald’s Mannlicher was a mail, order gun, a news reporter ordered an Ontos anti tank tracked vehicle and got it. Evidence like that was what stopped mail order guns.

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/716/M50_Ontos.jpg

stands for decibels

December 19th, 2012
8:26 am

Why don’t we do THAT too?

Like I told–godless heathen, I think it was?–I wouldn’t lose any sleep if that were to be imposed. (he was talking about a more pragmatic 70mph upper limit.)

There was a time when I would’ve flown my Libertarian freak flag and taken to the streets in protest, but not any more. I don’t give a sh-t if I don’t get to play NASCAR on the interstates again.

INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE by Thomas Sowell

yep, I’ve found that’s pretty much guaranteed when you read that assclown’s screechings.

Question

December 19th, 2012
8:27 am

This MAY?? impact these high profile mass-kill events. Now the ‘forest’ question — what do we do about the day-to-day gun violence events, i.e., watch any of the daily news stations in Atlanta, Chicago, DC, etc.??????

newkid

December 19th, 2012
8:28 am

Jay, you neglected to mention one of the most important aspects of our long-standing effort to address the damage that can be done to others through the abuse of autos: liability insurance. In the case of drunk driving, the ‘weapon’ is the auto. We require all autos to be insured by the owners to include other operators, then we make efforts to ‘control’ the drivers. Where is our requirement for liability insurance on guns? Instead of repeating my lengthy argument for creation of stiff liability insurance for guns here, I refer you to the details I provided in your blog on Monday. The purchasers/users of the guns must be held to account through stiff liability insurance.

"If you make gun owners and sellers financially liable for any damage done with their weapons, you create a market-based incentive to be responsible."

December 19th, 2012
8:28 am

…and on another note, if wishes and wants were berries and nuts we’d all have a Merry Christmas…

curious

December 19th, 2012
8:28 am

Jay,

You have some good suggestions and, at least, they mostly are doable.

However, you’ll have to contend with some that have no ideas other than do nothing.

I agree mental health is a factor as some say, so do they propose a mental health evaluation BEFORE being allowed to purchase a firearm and a re-exam every 4-5 years in order to retain the weapon?

We have to have our eyes checked when getting a drivers license, maybe mental health should be checked also.

The NRA will love this. Every weapon will be registered.

Glenn

December 19th, 2012
8:29 am

The state can’t bring in revenue from gun control like it can from DUI’s . Drunk driving is policed into the ground .

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

December 19th, 2012
8:29 am

“And you ban altogether the sale or transfer of assault weapons. If someone wants to sell an existing assault weapon, they can sell only to the government.”

Banning the sale of what is now a legal product would be similar if not identical to the prohibition effort. In other words, that took a Constitutional Amendment to ban a “legal product”.

Thomas Heyward Jr

December 19th, 2012
8:29 am

While the decent folks defend the progressive assault on the 2nd Amendment……..yesterday, congress effectivly killed the 5th.
.
WASHINGTON — Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.
.
When will all decent americans finally get a belly full of these corrupted tyrants?

"If you make gun owners and sellers financially liable for any damage done with their weapons, you create a market-based incentive to be responsible."

December 19th, 2012
8:29 am

…and if frogs had wings they wouldn’t womp their arse every time they jumped…

clem

December 19th, 2012
8:30 am

if i were iran, and then looked at america where many on right think more guns the answer, i would ask them why can’t i have a gun (nuclear weapon) as deterrent?

barking frog

December 19th, 2012
8:31 am

I’m awaiting the NRA ‘Guns for Teachers’ program.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

December 19th, 2012
8:31 am

Citizen of the World:

THANK YOU …………. it’s our culture that has changed.

Madmax

December 19th, 2012
8:31 am

Granny – no – but I have a problem with open ended laws that turn things over to “mental health” experts since many professionals disagree on the treatment and diagnosis and you are calling for a restriction on freedoms based on what a person might do based upon an inexact science. Mental health treatment is not an exact science – you can’t order up a blood alcohol test, blood pressure and get an answer, it is much more based on long term observations of individuals by trained professionals and still, professionals get it wrong and most would admit that they can’t define, by diagnosis alone, who poses a risk to society

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

December 19th, 2012
8:32 am

Hummmm…………………..

“Independent review of investigation into the deadly attack on US Consulate in Benghazi slams State Department, saying facility was inadequately protected and there weren’t protests.”

Tundra Dude

December 19th, 2012
8:32 am

Banner123 wrote:
You could not be more wrong on gun shows. Dealers are required to accomplish background checks on ALL firearm sales at gun shows

Depends on your state. Only 17 states regulate guns shows.
Up here, (Wisc), you can buy just about anything at gun shows, no questions, bring ca$h.

Jay

December 19th, 2012
8:32 am

Newkid, I’d recommend re-reading the piece.

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
8:33 am

Why not “ABC” type stores for guns?

F. Sinkwich

December 19th, 2012
8:33 am

I let my Concealed Carry Permit expire a couple of years ago.

I better go get another before the loons get their way. Maybe this afternoon…..

Recon 0311 2533

December 19th, 2012
8:33 am

Jay, says that the reduction in drunk driving fatalities was achieved without banning anything. It was a cultural change that contributed to the reduction. Then like a typical left winger proceeds to focus guns and banning certain guns and accessories, while completely ignoring cultural issues like violent movies, violent television programs, violent video games, gangster rap music and our mostly non-existent mental health treatment facilities. The left isn’t interested in solutions just more feel good legislation that really avoids the problem and solves nothing.

Peadawg

December 19th, 2012
8:34 am

I’m all for mandatory training classes for gun ownership…that should be nationwide.

But, the sad fact remains that if someone wants a gun to shoot up a building, they are going to get a gun. No matter how many regulations there are.

“I’m awaiting the NRA ‘Guns for Teachers’ program.” – A Congressman in Texas has already started that.

Granny Godzilla

December 19th, 2012
8:35 am

MadMax

experts don’t agree?

2 to 1?

10 to 1?

100 to 1?

You seem to harbor some personal paranoia re: mental health care professionals. Possibly authority figures as well.

Got issues?

TaxPayer

December 19th, 2012
8:35 am

Good post, Jay. Yes we can do something about these killings and we will. The heartless cons can just be dragged along, as usual, kicking and screaming.

UNCLE SAMANTHA

December 19th, 2012
8:35 am

JAY
what are the ANNUAL # deaths from MASS KILLINGS in the US per year?

what are the ANNUAL # of deaths of heart attacks, cancer, etc?

Gale

December 19th, 2012
8:36 am

Interesting piece and in line with some of my thoughts. I heard a commentary recently discussing the “cool” factor of the Bushmaster. I look at that weapon and wonder who would conceivably think of it as a sporting weapon. Another person thinks it is cool to carry. We have pushed education to remove the “cool” factor from smoking and driving drunk. It has had an effect. It is unlikely a similar program would completely remove the idea that owning a Bushmaster is necessary. But maybe it would not seem cool; it would seem anti-social.

curious

December 19th, 2012
8:36 am

Recon,

Good ideas. Ban the excessive violence in the media.

The restriction on tobacco advertising and limits on alcohol glamorization has helped.

GT

December 19th, 2012
8:38 am

“Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

These glib understatements from the right that is subject to exaggerate the smallest fact into a distortion as shown in the last election, when reality met up with manipulation, only to have a make believe fantasy of being a superhero trump the death of children is sickening. You’re right, guns don’t kill but grown men running around in camouflage with silly berets on their heads because they saw Rambo wear one do kill. And when they are asked to grow up they quote the 2nd amendment which says nothing about immature or crazy carrying guns. The sheer fact you want an assault weapon should ring a bell somewhere you may be a little off in the head.

Tundra Dude

December 19th, 2012
8:39 am

Why not “ABC” type stores for guns?

What on earth is that…?

keith

December 19th, 2012
8:39 am

Liberals like bookman including the ACLU defeated a mental health bill in CT that could have prevented this. So the same ones partially responsible are now trying to blame the gun.

Banner123

December 19th, 2012
8:39 am

Tundra Dude:

Please look a the FBI site o gun checks. ALL gun sales by a Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are required to accomplish a background check via the NICS. Individual-to-individual, NO. Dealer to Individual, YES.

It doesn’t matter what state you are in, this is a federal requirement.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Madmax

December 19th, 2012
8:40 am

Granny – I was hoping there was some thought behind your posts instead of childish responses, but I should have known better. You are of the “let the government do it crowd” w/o any ideas, just noise.

stands for decibels

December 19th, 2012
8:42 am

I better go get another before the loons get their way.

yes, do go one. Before the “loons” require you to…

perhaps, pay a bit more to cover the actual cost of your bang-shootie-carry permit?

undergo some rudimentary training to prove you know WTF you’re *doing* with the bang-shootie?

stands for decibels

December 19th, 2012
8:42 am

go GET one, I meant. The stupid is contagious in these gun thredz.

Gale

December 19th, 2012
8:44 am

I also return to the solution of forbidding sales of certain ammunition. Private citizens do not require armor piercing bullets. Do make bullets more expensive, as if they were not already expensive. If you want to shoot, load your own. The discipline has a calming effect.

Answer

December 19th, 2012
8:44 am

Question @ 8:27 (Jay and others) — The question is why does everyone not focus on the ‘forest’ issue and question, i.e., look at the following data on the Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, Black Males-United States, 2008*

Age – 15-19 Homicide 50.3%
Age – 20-24 Homicide 48.3%
Age – 25-34 Homicide 34.9%

* http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/2008/index.htm

GT

December 19th, 2012
8:44 am

Keith that mental health bill might have locked up half the Tea Party, the ACLU defends all sides, not just the gun nuts that want to be cowboys coming home from a cattle drive.

keith

December 19th, 2012
8:46 am

Dont get just one. Get 5 like I did along with cases of ammo. You will never be able to get either for what they cost now and very soon you will be able to put an ad in your local paper and sell them at tremendous profit. It will be like getting the ones you decide to keep for free.

F. Sinkwich

December 19th, 2012
8:46 am

“President Barack Obama will on Wednesday announce the first step on gun control following the Newtown school shootings: an interagency task force, led by Vice President Joe Biden, charged with guiding the administration’s continuing response.”

Biden?

Bwaahahahahahahaha

newkid

December 19th, 2012
8:47 am

Juay. touche.

appleseed

December 19th, 2012
8:47 am

Until this tragedy I did not know the definition of assault rifle.Not sure I know now.I was under the impression assault rifles were fully automatic or selective fire.

Tundra Dude

December 19th, 2012
8:47 am

It doesn’t matter what state you are in, this is a federal requirement.

That’s correct, but there’s a lot of sellers up here claiming to be non-dealers who are quite eager to sell.