Gun ownership poll

[BobbyStrawberry]

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

[G1911]

I own some guns.

Some of them are for fun sporting use.

Many of them are for historical interest + fun sporting use.

2 of them are for defensive use.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I currently own 5.

Three are Winchester Model 94s - my favorite gun of all time. It's a lever action repeating rifle that was first made nearly 130 years ago. The design hasn't changed much since then. One is a 30-30 and the other two are 44 magnums. One of the 44 magnums was my grandfather's that was passed down to me.

I own a Remington 870 Super Express 12 gauge shotgun.

I own a Glock 19 9MM (sometimes referred to as a "Baby Glock" because of it's smaller dimensions). It's small enough that it even fits in my front pocket and it's what a carry for personal protection. It's almost never more than an arm length's away.

[bnorth]

I own 6 and haven't shot any of them in many many years.

Beretta 32
Walther PPK 380
These are the same models James Bond used in the movies.

Ruger P89 9mm I have 30 round clips for this pistol and it used to be very fun to target shoot and hunt with.

Mossberg Ulti Mag shotgun 12 guage

Remington 30.06 bolt action rifle

Savage single shot 22 rifle. Got it from my great grandpa as a kid.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

thats what the water cooler section is 4!!!!

[Jim65]

I own a few guns. Nothing more to say.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

thats what the water cooler section is 4!!!!

Good to know, Pete. A little bit to add, then–

The vast majority of Americans, including me, support the right of an individual to own a gun. The second amendment isn't going anywhere, and no one is coming to take away anyone's guns anytime soon as long as they were legally obtained. That said, law enforcement, educators, and the public overall think that something, however small, should be done in order to try and make mass murders of schoolchildren less of a regular occurrence in our country. Sadly, I'm not optimistic that anything meaningful will happen at the federal level, as lawmakers (on both sides of the aisle) are far more concerned about losing their jobs than they are about preventing needless deaths.

I'm sure people have heard about what Gabe Kapler is doing (on which I have no comment), but the quotes from other managers in this article about Kapler are notable:

1) "I think he's exactly right to be concerned ... with what's happening in our country... He's right there." -Tony La Russa

2) "I think we're all frustrated, especially in this country ... Nobody's happy" -Chris Woodward

3) "I do believe that we need to figure something that's better for everybody's lives because what we have now is not working at all." -Dave Martinez

4) "I don't think any of us are happy with what's going on in our country. " -Dave Roberts

It seems the one thing most Americans do agree on these days is that our country is in bad shape and getting worse.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The aftermaths of these terrible tragedies have become even more predictable than the tragedies themselves.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

That said, law enforcement, educators, and the public overall think that something, however small, should be done in order to try and make mass murders of schoolchildren less of a regular occurrence in our country. Sadly, I'm not optimistic that anything meaningful will happen at the federal level, as lawmakers (on both sides of the aisle) are far more concerned about losing their jobs than they are about preventing needless deaths.

I am a history teacher and have to teach factors. Not being political here, but gun violence has multiple factors. Other than new gun restrictions, all the others cost money that most people don't want to pay. Cheaper college is a factor that could lead to more teachers who are people of color. It could lead to more mental health experts. It could lead to lower wealth inequality. I'm not advocating college debt forgiveness, but fixing college debt for younger generations would go a long way to solving some of our societal ills as youth see the barrier of cost to entering these fields reduced.

In Spokane, WA, we have too few mental health beds for those who need supervision. They end up in our hospital system and puts a burden on our health care system. Nurses become one-on-one baby sitters.

Another factor is social media. Every study has shown social media makes life worse for majority of citizens. In schools, social media has a toxic effect. There certainly has to be something that could be done better than Elon Musk asking for fewer free speech restrictions on Twitter's platform.

This topic is so complex. I wish lawmakers would come together to create a comprehensive bill that addresses multiple factors. But as stated above, our current political climate makes that impossible. January 6 riots caused a lot of damage that hasn't been fixed. And I have no answers about how to solve that.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agreed. The synergy of social media platforms and portable devices is a huge problem for our society.

[G1911]

Since the topic's been opened up...

It's one of those issues that usually devolves into emotional anger rapidly. I try to see the other sides view, as a gun owner I am obviously biased, but I try to understand the other view as best I can. Gun owners get angry when people try to criminalize their property, and gun banners are angry when a piece of shit conducts a massacre (actually, everyone is angry over this - one side just doesn't blame the tool). I get the emotional anger. Something tragic happens, people want an easy solution, blaming a tool is an easy solution emotionally if not logically.

Part of the problem, I think, it that it is an issue in which almost all knowledge is possessed by one side of the debate. It's often like arguing Darwin with a creationist, there is a clear information monopoly that makes it exceptionally difficult to find any grounds of basic agreement to begin. Every time I listen to a pro-ban argument on the news, or form a Senator, or from one of my neighbors that thinks "AR" stands for "Assault Rifle", it's just riddled with factual error. I do not mean errors in judgement or things I don't want to hear, I mean actual claims to fact that are simply false. For just one example, I've been told a thousand times that an AR-15 is 'high-powered', which is the opposite of true. The AR rose in prominence precisely because it is by definition low-powered (it does not even fire a full size rifle round), and it allows for a lighter, more controllable rifle and kit. Firearm parts, how they function, banners almost never have any real awareness or idea of how they work and so the words they use fail to reach anyone who has ever really used them because they are simply wrong in claim after claim. This does not make my side right, but it kills the argument being made from any chance of being effective.

I think it is pretty straightforward and obvious that firearm ownership is one of the few rights that are directly protected from being restricted by the State. Whether this is good or bad can obviously be debated, but it is singled out in the Constitution as being allowed. 'well, they didn't have AR-15's in 1789' doesn't make any logical sense to me. News television networks didn't exist in 1789, but basically no person has ever argued CNN is not protected by the freedom of the press. Do we hold that Mormons are not protected by the freedom of religion because that faith did not exist in 1789? No. It is a made up standard that is applied to nothing else in the document; an inconsistent argument dictated by the end conclusion that is desired instead of a rational process.

I think real regulation is presently illegal under the Constitution, and am personally against it for a host of reasons. There are some proposed laws that might practically help the problem, even if I don't like them, but not many. Background checks make some logical sense, a crime of momentary passion might reasonably be stopped if someone is forced to take a few days to cool down. I think it's kind of absurdism that I have to go through one and wait 10 days to receive my gun every time I buy one; I already own a ton. But for a first purchase, while this is unconstitutional, it might possibly alleviate some shootings.

Most other propositions, make no rational sense to me. Turning me into an overnight felon does not make my neighborhood safer. Restricting how many rounds I can load into a magazine (a clip is not the same thing, I have never seen a 30 round clip in my life) does not make my neighborhood safer. Scapegoating the rural population does not make my neighborhood safer. A person bent on massacring innocents will do so regardless of whether or not a particular firearm model is legal. They will get one through illegal ones, or simply make one. The types of guns people want to ban are nearing or over a century old depending on which specific one, it is not exceptionally difficult to simply make one yourself. There is no evidence that gun control laws in the US have ever worked; and much evidence that they do not.

Areas with the tightest gun control laws, most restricting there citizens from any real ability to keep and bare arms, have the highest murder rates. Chicago has gone pretty far in trying to eliminate their citizens rights to protect themselves, as the gang problem just gets worse and worse. These gun laws don't do a darn thing to stop a gang from using automatic rifles. It's just punishing the law-abiding and restricting them from protecting themselves from these criminals.

Personally, I think the problem is not guns, it is people choosing to murder. A murder is no more or less tragic because of the tool used in the crime. The Rwandan genocide, mostly conducted with cheap Chinese-made machete's in the era of the Kalashnikov is one of, if not the, most efficient mass murders in the history of the world. Solving murder is a goal as old as civilization itself, it is not a goal that is reasonable. Reducing it is a good goal. Making the ~100,000,000 Americans who responsibly own firearms criminals is a political measure, not any kind of a real solution or aid. It does nothing to actually save lives, only criminalizes people who live differently.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This wave of outrage and speechifying too shall pass. Even leaving aside the legal framework, there is no political will to do anything meaningful and at the end of the day almost no politician is genuinely willing to alienate constituents to take a stand on gun issues. So we'll have some virtue signaling for a while then go back to as we were. Meanwhile, gun company stock prices probably will go up.

[jingram058]

I don't care how many guns someone feels they need, as long as they are upstanding, law-abiding citizens. Every time one of these mass shooting events happens, after the fact we find the shooters threw out all kinds of red flags. So I ask, why is it so freaking hard to implement background checks? You got issues, you don't buy guns. Period. How does that violate the 2nd Amendment? Sure, no matter what, bad people will still find a way to get them. But I guarantee these shootings will decrease if you just make it very difficult for people with whatever bad issues to go out and buy guns.

[The-Cardfather]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

Ditto. (And I "identify" as Republican / right wing.)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

Yes, I see your first comment.

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners).

I'm sure a person reading the words can understand the disconnect between the two statements.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I see your first comment.

Correction - my second comment. My mistake. In it I write–

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

The vast majority of Americans, including me, support the right of an individual to own a gun.

If you are seriously interested in discussion, throwing around "your side" is not really conducive to that, especially when the above is the only personal statement I have posited regarding second amendment rights.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Correction - my second comment. My mistake. In it I write–



If you are seriously interested in discussion, throwing around "your side" is not really conducive to that, especially when the above is the only personal statement I have posited regarding second amendment rights.

I think there are clearly two sides in the debate, those in favor of light to no regulation and those in favor of heavy regulation or total ban. Actually, I don't think that. That's a pretty undeniable reality.

I apologize if I miscategorized you. I made the contextual assumptive leap that your post had some bearing on the topic of the thread and the present debate in it. If your criticisms are only applicable to the Mississippi decision, I'm not sure why it is here. That really should be a separate thread, if you are saying your statement has nothing to do with the topic and I am wrong to think that it did.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think there are clearly two sides in the debate, those in favor of light to no regulation and those in favor of heavy regulation or total ban. Actually, I don't think that. That's a pretty undeniable reality.

I don't see it in such broad strokes, but I can respect your view on it.

Originally Posted by G1911

I apologize if I miscategorized you. I made the contextual assumptive leap that your post had some bearing on the topic of the thread and the present debate in it. If your criticisms are only applicable to the Mississippi decision, I'm not sure why it is here. That really should be a separate thread, if you are saying your statement has nothing to do with the topic and I am wrong to think that it did.

I appreciate that–my comment was related to the aspect of interpreting the constitution, which is central to the swirling debates around these and many other issues in the US right now.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I appreciate that–my comment was related to the aspect of interpreting the constitution, which is central to the swirling debates around these and many other issues in the US right now.

So because the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, and and all court rulings, that have nothing to do with guns or the 2nd, are on topic? I am wrong to have taken your words to be applicable to the subject of the thread, and also wrong to conclude that, if this deduction was wrong, that it is not about the topic of the thread? Seems strange it's both of these at the same time.