Gun Control thread (merged many)

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Valid point, let's face it, there are extremists on both sides, the trouble is finding a solution that makes either side feel like they've achieved something.

You totally miss the point. Regardless of what compromise is reached it will only move the goal posts to a new starting point and it won't be long before we are asked to compromise yet again and again and again. It's been that way for decades and the anti's are not going to stop because they think they have achieved something.

Ok, I speak enough of comprise so I should practice some of it. Let's take the whole gun-safe check off the table for a moment.

That's not a compromise, that's just delaying your next demand a little just like the anti's do. If it's going to be off the table then it should be off the table.

How would the pro-gun members stop or attempt to stop incidents when someone who is not supposed to have access to a firearm be it either because they are too young or have not passed the checks, from gaining access to a firearm through the insecure storage of a firearm by another, be it their parents or a friend?

There are laws that address this already just like there are laws that address traffic safety which are just as patchwork built and unevenly applied yet we don't see you in here week after week demanding that we stop all vehicle accidents which are at least 6 times as deadly.

An example of this being the incident discussed in this thread a few pages ago where an underage boy used his fathers shotgun to shoot a little girl.
Inaction really isn't a morally acceptable option, so how should it be addressed or at the very least attempted to be addressed.

Requiring guns to be locked up in all situations (which is how I guarantee such a law would be written) pretty much eliminates their use for self defense. How do you intend to balance that need with this Utopian desire for total safety? Again you talk about morally acceptable solutions but you ignore far greater dangers to children which is why I suspect your sincerity here. If 100 dead kids a year triggers such continuous moral outrage then I would expect that 650 dead kids would cause at least six times the anger but you seem perfectly willing to accept that much higher body count because "something" has been tried. Well things have been tried with guns too, 20,000 tries and nothing has worked yet so at what point do we reach the concern level you display toward vehicle deaths?