A "pragmatic" approach to gun violence?

Sharing three links in one post here. The first is to an essay written by Jim Wright. Retired Navy vet, gun owner, gun instructor. Mr. Wright has written extensively about the issue of gun violence in his "Bang, Bang, Crazy" series. This essay is a continuation of that series:

http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html

When I read his essay, it prompted me to do a little research on organizations, most of which are pro-gun advocates, who also promote gun safety rules. A simple Google search of "Gun safety rules" yielded over 26 million results:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gun+safety+rules

The first page of this search has links to multiple more famous organizations like the NRA, the NSSF, and others. All of them tout a list of gun safety rules everyone who chooses to own or handle guns should follow. One even went so far as to label theirs the "10 Commandments of Firearm Safety" ( http://www.remington.com/10commandments ).

My question, and the basis for this OP, is along the lines of whether Mr. Wright might be onto something in his essay. After all, most, if not all, pro-gun advocacy organizations promote gun safety. Why not codify those rules of gun safety into law as Mr. Wright suggests with differing penalties and consequences for different violations of said laws?

A pragmatic approach that doesn't infringe on anyone's right to "keep and bear arms", but also recognizes that with that right also comes responsibilities?

As an aside, Mr. Wright also addresses the issue of laws and what they can and cannot do - something I've tried to explain in threads past, but he does it so much better than I ever could.

No Thanks!

Many get training needed but it doesn't necessarily stop those who intend to kill, trained/educated or not.

Thanks for the links.

The intent isn't to "stop" anyone, as mentioned by Jim Wright. Rather, it's to encourage responsible gun ownership and handling and to provide consequences for those who are not responsible and/or cause harm to themselves or to others when they do so. That's the hoped for paradigm.

Nothing has worked so far. I don't believe eliminating gun free zones or arming more citizens or forcing schools and businesses to allow open and/or concealed carry will make much, if any, difference either. There simply has to be a better way.

...and how exactly will these be enforced? The cops can't even enforce folks driving and using their cell phones which I would submit probably cause more injuries than are caused by folks who can't keep their booger hook off the bang switch.

While you're at it, let's make a law that every motorcyclist who stops at an intersection must downshift to 1st gear - a standard safety rule, you know.

Then there could be a fine for not covering your mouth when you cough/sneeze - maybe a graduated fee based upon no coverage or coverage with a hand rather than coughing/sneezing into the crook of your elbow which is now the desired method.

Yep, just one more law will solve everything...sheesh...

The people who are responsible already follow the easily available safety rules. Those who aren't are the ones who leave loaded guns around toddlers and don't use backstops.

I'm trying to think of a new and improved gun law that would prevent violent people from committing violent acts with guns... and I'm coming up with nothing. If any of your links contain such a law, perhaps we can discuss the individual laws that would change the hearts and minds of violent people. Creating more laws for non-violent and stable humans doesn't seem like a very promising way to address the problem since those people are not the problem.

Did any of you actually read what Jim Wright had to say, or are these your knee jerk reactions? Please don't take that the wrong way, either. It isn't meant to be derogatory. It's just that these are the same arguments against doing anything at all that we've seen over and over and over again. All I'm trying to do is explore the possibility this might be something to consider.

Maybe look up the definition of "pragmatic" as neither you or Jim Wright seem to have a clue as to its meaning. Then always include things like "Guns are an obsession in our country, a lunatic insanity" and "Did any of you actually read what Jim Wright had to say, or are these your knee jerk reactions?" Both statements clearly show far Leftists trying to appeal to the incapable of rational thought Left and make them think you're moderate. We see through both of your BS statements, carry on.

Why don't you enlighten me as to the definition of pragmatic as it is used in the context of the essay? And, while you're at it, why don't you offer up some proposals for successfully addressing the issue of gun violence in this country instead of going on the attack once again as you've done so many times in the past. Reality is, you and your ilk have nothing concrete to offer. That's why the status quo and rolling existing laws back that are already on the books are your only two definitive "solutions" to anything. I see through your BS statements, as well. Have a nice day.

ZHawke wrote: Why don't you enlighten me as to the definition of pragmatic as it is used in the context of the essay? And, while you're at it, why don't you offer up some proposals for successfully addressing the issue of gun violence in this country instead of going on the attack once again as you've done so many times in the past. Reality is, you and your ilk have nothing concrete to offer. That's why the status quo and rolling existing laws back that are already on the books are your only two definitive "solutions" to anything. I see through your BS statements, as well. Have a nice day.

Merriam-Webster, pragmatic, dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)
Violence can happen nearly anywhere, and at any time. People that are capable of rational thought understand, they themselves may have to react with immediate and overwhelming force to survive that situation and not wait for help.
Keep attacking everything but the criminals that perpetrate these actions and then wonder why nothing changes. Example: re-elect useless imbeciles like Hickenlooper that won't allow the death penalty to be carried out after a fair trial.