Smith & Wesson is moving its headquarters to Tennessee, citing a recent MA gun manufacturing bill (Boston: law, area)

[Amontillado]

If there weren't a legal market for firearms, there wouldn't be nearly so many guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics. Very few guns start off being illegally made, but once they're stolen or traded around, they're available to pretty much anyone. There's only one way to stop this from happening--cut off the source.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Amontillado

If there weren't a legal market for firearms, there wouldn't be nearly so many guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics. Very few guns start off being illegally made, but once they're stolen or traded around, they're available to pretty much anyone. There's only one way to stop this from happening--cut off the source.

Nonsense. There is a thing called SENSIBLE firearms regulations.

[WestieWhitie]

If it wasn't for food there wouldn't be so many obese people. There's only one way to stop obesity from happening - cut off the food source.

Originally Posted by Amontillado

If there weren't a legal market for firearms, there wouldn't be nearly so many guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics. Very few guns start off being illegally made, but once they're stolen or traded around, they're available to pretty much anyone. There's only one way to stop this from happening--cut off the source.

[Amontillado]

Massnative71--nonsense yourself. There are plenty of firearm regulations around already. The problem is that lethal weapons are available to people who don't care about what the law says. Please suggest a way that regulations could be changed to prevent people from breaking regulations!

WestieWhite, quite correct. Unfortunately we have to accept that some people will abuse food if it's available, because we think more harm would be done if we banned it. (Silence on boards like this might be a benefit though.)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Amontillado

Massnative71--nonsense yourself. There are plenty of firearm regulations around already. The problem is that lethal weapons are available to people who don't care about what the law says. Please suggest a way that regulations could be changed to prevent people from breaking regulations!

For starters:


1. Some states do not require background checks for purchasing.



2. Current regulations ARE NOT ENFORCED. Law abiding people suffer, while criminals get a slap on the wrist instead of getting jail time for illegal firearms.



None of this is rocket science.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by massnative71

For starters:


1. Some states do not require background checks for purchasing.

In theory, it's not rocket science. But many view "common sense" gun laws as a direct affront to the 2nd amendment and their own personal freedoms and will fight tooth and nail against anything perceived to be a further restriction on those rights.

In reality, you're never going to fix the issue until there's some level of standardization across the country. And it's hard to imagine any level of standardization in a country that's both home to Alaska (where guns are not only useful, but often necessary for survival) and New York City (where there should be no need for a gun) and everything in between.

[WestieWhitie]

Like I said earlier, lawful gun owners are so against any new gun control measures because they don't like the idea of being punished for the actions of someone else. How would you feel about increased fines for speeding if your neighbor was the one speeding but you were the one getting the tickets?

Originally Posted by lrfox

In theory, it's not rocket science. But many view "common sense" gun laws as a direct affront to the 2nd amendment and their own personal freedoms and will fight tooth and nail against anything perceived to be a further restriction on those rights.

In reality, you're never going to fix the issue until there's some level of standardization across the country. And it's hard to imagine any level of standardization in a country that's both home to Alaska (where guns are not only useful, but often necessary for survival) and New York City (where there should be no need for a gun) and everything in between.

[mdovell]

Gun laws vary by state. Vermont has very little gun laws and also has addiction problems. Guns for drug trade exists on I91 any state cops in Vermont or western mass knows this, maybe even CT. Hillary Clinton brought it up in a debate against Sanders but it was a minor notation in their debate. When things can produce harm are loose it can be problematic. Long ago my family thought my grandmothers housekeeper was stealing her (addictive) pain meds. We found out she wasn't but they were so powerful that my grandmother OD'd accidently. She lived but it shows how powerful they are.

The other solution a bit to guns is a smart gun. Smith and Wesson was actually working on this in 1999 but the NRA boycotted them. A smart gun would enable a firearm to ONLY fire when a user had something that would activate it. The concept is still possible. I think we can all agree that criminals shouldn't have firearms. If we make the argument that most are law abiding (which they are) then going to a smart system would eliminate most looseness so to speak. We already have keyless cars so this isn't that much different.

I also have a little bit of a theory that could technically disarm guns but....basically you use nano technology to shoot into a gun and magnetize it to itself. It pretty much becomes solid piece of metal.

[WestieWhitie]

Even the worst gun nuts out there would consent to stricter gun control if we start hearing a lot more of "shooting suspect held without bail, facing mandatory 30 years if convicted" and a lot less of "shooting suspect released on $250 bail to await trial for current shooting while awaiting trial for prior shooting after being released on personal recognizance, after serving three months out of nine month sentence for prior shooting."

Originally Posted by mdovell

Gun laws vary by state. Vermont has very little gun laws and also has addiction problems. Guns for drug trade exists on I91 any state cops in Vermont or western mass knows this, maybe even CT. Hillary Clinton brought it up in a debate against Sanders but it was a minor notation in their debate. When things can produce harm are loose it can be problematic. Long ago my family thought my grandmothers housekeeper was stealing her (addictive) pain meds. We found out she wasn't but they were so powerful that my grandmother OD'd accidently. She lived but it shows how powerful they are.

The other solution a bit to guns is a smart gun. Smith and Wesson was actually working on this in 1999 but the NRA boycotted them. A smart gun would enable a firearm to ONLY fire when a user had something that would activate it. The concept is still possible. I think we can all agree that criminals shouldn't have firearms. If we make the argument that most are law abiding (which they are) then going to a smart system would eliminate most looseness so to speak. We already have keyless cars so this isn't that much different.

I also have a little bit of a theory that could technically disarm guns but....basically you use nano technology to shoot into a gun and magnetize it to itself. It pretty much becomes solid piece of metal.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by lrfox

In theory, it's not rocket science. But many view "common sense" gun laws as a direct affront to the 2nd amendment and their own personal freedoms and will fight tooth and nail against anything perceived to be a further restriction on those rights.

In reality, you're never going to fix the issue until there's some level of standardization across the country. And it's hard to imagine any level of standardization in a country that's both home to Alaska (where guns are not only useful, but often necessary for survival) and New York City (where there should be no need for a gun) and everything in between.

The poster asked what would address the problem, and that is the honest answer. Most guns used from crimes in MA, are purchased in states that do not require a background check or accountability for the sellers. This is what needs to change in addition to not letting the violators off so easy, not shutting down manufacturers.