I might do another post on this thread or the main group, but here are some FACTS why the gun-car analogy doesn't work.

(Many can skip this paragraph) First, guns are a right and cars are not. I'm positive most of you have heard this, but it is true. Legal precedent can be a bitch and if we start mandating things BEFORE people can exercise any right then it could be a stepping stone to marginalize other rights. Who wants to mandate women do X or Y before they can qualify for an abortion? Abortion and gun rights both have restrictions, but I don't think we make eligible people check boxes before exercising any right. PLEASE think a bit before posting examples. I will happily have diplomatic and factual discussions with anyone.

Here's the meatier argument. We don't mandate people have driver's licenses, tags...for automobiles that stay on private property. Some large farms have trucks that never leave the property. Those vehicles have no licensing and underrage people frequently drive those unlicensed vehicles.

There are few legal limitations on what kinds of cars are legal. If someone wants a car that goes 300mph and they can afford it, they can buy those cars, we criminalize dangerous driving but fully allow people to own crazy dangerous vehicles... inlucding actual military grade vehicles. There are no laws restricting how many cars people can own.

If you really want guns to be treated like cars, then you should be ok with someone having hundreds of extremely dangerous, unlicensed guns that stay on private property or are only transported very safely.

Of course we have a lot of regulations for automobiles that drive on public streets, I think most of those have a direct corrolation to likely damage, but I don't think those laws actually affect safe drivers in tangible ways.

I want an effective discourse, I also want to have fewer dead people from gun violence. The types of conversations the USA has been having on gun violence for decades is NOT working.

Maybe we can have a few discussions with a different slant? I think that will lead to a different type of discussion, maybe different solutions? If not, then everyone can always go back to yelling the same talking points back and forth.

Doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanity.

As I've said several times on this site and clarified on this thread, legislation seems to be an integral part of confronting other problems but it's rarely if every the only type of intervention.

We have PSA, education initiatives from the government for almost all or all problems we choose to focus on. Private companies often have their own advertising campaigns, internal and external programs, PSAs on awareness...to confront problems.

The handful of problems we've successfully decreased over the last 30-40 years, the successful strategy seems to be enormous pushes for awareness, education...changing the culture around something like drunk driving and legislative restrictions are focused on consequences for irresponsible people or restrictions for irresponsible behavior.

Sorry, I was travelling all day yesterday and there were a few unexpected hiccups in travel. I'm hanging with my parents all week, still doing physical therapy and have 2 conferences next week. I'll check in here more consistently that I was able to yesterday, but I'll be pretty busy until August 22nd.

Sounds like a Libertarian ideology. How else are we to reduce the insane violence??

I believe the objective of restrictive legislation is to get everyone on the same page - not some of the gun owners, or most of the gun owners, but all of the gun owners. Using, as an example, the ban on assault weapons, the weapons can be purchased legally by both responsible and irresponsible owners and enter circulation from there. Problem is, who gets to determine who an irresponsible owner is? Does the risk of allowing an irresponsible owner to get his/her hands on such a weapon outweigh the dangers?
I can see a division into 2 camps - pro- and anti-gun control and how the anti gun control camp could feel attacked by the gun control camp, but what I don't see by the anti-gun control camp is a sincere effort to assuage the fears of their opposition. Instances of the good guy with a gun are simply overshadowed by instances of the bad guy with a gun. What I don't see are instances of the pro-gun lobby making even the slightest showing to police their own. When there's a Vegas or Sandy Hook incident, they see the gun control lobby cry out, but rather than recognize the pain of the victims, they claim the mantle of victim and dig into their defensive positions, making absurd claims, including teachers need to be armed. There doesn't appear to be any sense of one of their own committed the act that put them under the microscope again and that there's a clear need to do something about it because that would suggest breaking ranks and joining the opposition. So yeah, until there's a better solution, they try to implement restrictive legislation.

Gun Control Is Needed. Look What Is Happened, All These Shootings .No Citizen Needs An Assault Rifle.Guns For Hunting, Shotguns & Hunting Rifles,Bolt Action.

GO AWAY TROLL. This group is for thinking people.

I challenge your point about legislation usually aimed at mostly law abiding people, and that it is the main or only way to decrease gun issues. There are many aspects of the gun problem that are (or need) to be addressed.

My question to you is: "Is the process for getting a driver's license and owning a car too restrictive?"

Cars. Let's talk about motor vehicle deaths. Common sense legislation regarding traffic laws, vehicle inspections, and most importantly modern vehicle safety equipment has drastically reduced the incidence of death and injury in auto accidents. I think everyone can agree that putting such laws, regulations, and process in place was not "tunnel vision." Rather, it has been an evolution of common-sense things that has lessened the risk when operating a motor vehicle.

Personally, I only ask that a similar common-sense approach be applied to gun ownership. This would not prevent any law-abiding citizen from obtaining weapons, in fact, it would make them safer, more responsible gun owners.