"It's a matter of regulations designed to make sure that a gun owner, like a car owner, can handle the device in question safely."

It isn't as simple as that.  No such qualification exists in the Constitution.

"It would be computerized, so the information would be limited.  Criminal background, and any history of involuntary commitment or involuntary treatment for mental illness."

It was really more of a rhetorical question to try to illustrate the idea.  :)

"What I see there would be a question on a form simply asking the reason for wanting to purchase a gun.  ...  If not; that is, if everybody gives a decent sounding answer, then I wouldn't favor asking the question."

heh heh

Quote
"So you should be in favor of labeling, right?"

Maybe.  Wink  Like I said, I probably have sentiments here that you would agree with.  But they go beyond labeling and I think would take us off the track.  It is enough to say that I think something like trans fat is definitely best left to the consumer to sort out.

"Labeling is good for stuff that isn't inherently bad but may be bad in large doses or may cause allergies in some people."

I think already they've got to alert people of this.

"I would have thought that was obvious enough by now for someone as well informed about stuff as you (no sarcasm intended)."

I can only pick so many battles.  :)

"But I bet you're not against treating water for germs."

I should have clarified.  I don't have any objections to making the water clean.  I do object to them putting things back into the water.

Nonetheless, I see no reason why we must turn to the government for this function.  I'm quite sure private enterprise could handle it just fine.

Quote
"We also rightly expect government to keep our food supply safe."

"I think I probably do have more opportunity to eat the kinds of foods I like while avoiding trans fat, than many do elsewhere."

Interesting.  I haven't shopped in a variety of places.  Here in Wisc we're doing ok, though.  :)

"You aren't suggesting that we force them to all buy local, are you?"

I'm deliberately not suggesting anything.  :)

"Certainly we should take reasonable steps to reduce deaths from all causes.  As I said, with more car usage, more deaths would be expected just given the law of averages."

I don't see why we should expect more deaths just because cars are used more.  For example, statistically (I have casually read) for every 10 miles slower you go the fewer deaths there are and the drop is significant.  So, basically what you are saying is that the price of 50,000 lives a year is worth it to you if you can arrive at your destination 5 minutes sooner. 

Surely if you are serious about this, and the three times more lives lost to cars are as valuable as those in gun deaths, you should be prepared to do what it takes to lower this number even more.  I mean, if 14,000 gun deaths is enough to get our dander up, then 50,000 should positively infuriate us.  Why not propose that we drop the speed limit to 35 mph on the free way?

And while we're at it, we can make it illegal to drink and drive. 

"You know how that works.  Bad news and sensational news is what makes the headlines."

Right.  Which is why I am concerned that the gun control lobby succeeds because people have perceptions that are born of disproportionate coverage, not because of a legitimate state of affairs.

"All of this seems to assume a position of banning firearms, which is not the position I'm taking, except with respect to criminals and dangerous mentally ill people.  You assume this slippery slope that I don't think follows."

I understand that you aren't positing the banning of firearms.  As for the slippery slope, I guess I haven't been clear.  The slippery slope only follows if the attitude behind the gun control measures is such that the constitutional right is forgotten or ignored.  You can have the exact same measure put forth in two different places in the country, but because of the prevailing attitude driving the enactment of the measures, the effect may be entirely different.

Some people are very happy to build off of existing gun control measures to continue enacting more.  I can't point to any particular case study at the moment, but I would wager if we looked at a place like DC where somehow it became illegal to have a weapon even in your home for self-defense, we'd find that it all began with some 'sensible regulations.'

For a large portion of gun control advocates out there, 'sensible regulations' are mere pretext.


"The latter is certainly bad, but are you suggesting there is some government action we can take to stop it? "

As much government action that could conceivably reduce homicides in this country, by gun or otherwise. 

"You dodged the per capita question."

I did not.  I just got lazy.    I also didn't think it was as important a point as you imply.

My impressions is that per capita it really is higher.  But I haven't researched it out.  Just because there are more people it doesn't follow at all that it is obvious there would be more gun deaths.  If there are strict gun control laws in place, then it should follow, simply, that there are fewer gun related deaths.

What you're basically saying is that if you have enough people, it doesn't matter what kind of legislation you have because there will still be lots of gun deaths.

And if that's indeed what you're saying, then you and I are saying the same thing.  :)

"Background checks could make it harder for criminals to get guns,"

Background checks already are required all over the place.  Has it succeeded in this?  I don't know.  I'm asking.  From what I can tell, criminals are having no trouble getting guns.

"and easier to catch criminals when they try to get guns."

That strikes me as highly unlikely.  If a criminal knows that he is going to be subjected to a background check when making a purchase, clearly he's not going to make the purchase in that way.  It seems more likely that background checks actually spur on more private sales among the criminally disposed.

"Cooling off periods could help ensure that some people don't become criminals in the heat of the moment."

And this happens how often?

"Licensing and safety training, and safety locks, can help cut down on accidental deaths among the law abiding."

In 2006, there were only about 650 accidental deaths due to guns.  Remember, there were some 20,000 deaths due to gravity.  I mean, sure, I suppose if we did this you might cut the number in half... but we aren't really talking about a huge number of people here.  I could just as easily say that if you drop the speed limit to 25 mph that would help cut down on accidental deaths, as well.  That would probably save 30,000 lives, easily.  Shouldn't we as a society be willing to do what it takes to save so many people?

Again, I just don't see the basis for the concern.  How many instances are we aware of where a legal gun owner was confronted by an assailant, shot, missed, and hit a bystander?  I know of none.  Let's say it was 10.  So, there are 10 instances in a year so we're going to throw regulations on an entire nation?

This makes no sense at all.

You complained about the disproportion between number of cars and number of guns.  I noticed that some 4,000 people drowned in 2006.  This is 1/3 the amount that died from guns homicides/accidents but still a sizable amount.  Do you think the proportion between guns and swimming pools is closer than guns and cars? 

4,000 people die in 'swimming accidents' whereas only 650 died in gun accidents.

So, do you think before people can own a pool they should have to get a license?  Receive training? Be forced to have gates around the pool?  Be forced to have those gates locked?

Surely if the accidental deaths of some 650 people drives you to want to regulate an entire nation of gun owners, the accidental deaths of 4,000 due to drowning should make you want to regulate an entire nation of swimmers?  As far as I know, no regulation for pools of the sort described here exists.  How can we as a society tolerate this!?!?!?

:)