Gun ownership poll

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

America has many problems. Mental health is one. Mass execution of schoolchildren via guns is another. These two things intersect but are not the same. If America is going to survive as a country much longer, we need to deal with both of these things–not deflect, not blame the bogeyman of "the other side", not defend our positions as "it's just common sense", and most of all, not talk about one of these intersecting issues while dancing around the other.

Show me a gun that shoots people without someone pulling the trigger, and I'll start believing that guns are the problem. Otherwise, you've identified the singular issue that is multi-faceted and nobody really wants to talk about - mental health. This encompasses how we raise our kids, how we treat others, how we deal with stress (all of which are basically accountability) and Big Pharma. In the meantime, let's put more guns in schools in the hands of trained, combat veterans, and protect our kids.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Show me a gun that shoots people without someone pulling the trigger, and I'll start believing that guns are the problem. Otherwise, you've identified the singular issue that is multi-faceted and nobody really wants to talk about - mental health. This encompasses how we raise our kids, how we treat others, how we deal with stress (all of which are basically accountability) and Big Pharma. In the meantime, let's put more guns in schools in the hands of trained, combat veterans, and protect our kids.

The argument that someone needs to pull the trigger somehow proves that guns aren't the problem, is weak. You could say the same about thing anything dangerous.

Cars don't typically run people over without someone driving them. But there are driver's tests, speed limits, etc.

Drugs don't typically snort themselves, but its probably not a great idea to make fentanyl easily accessible.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

The argument that someone needs to pull the trigger somehow proves that guns aren't the problem, is weak. You could say the same thing anything dangerous.

Cars don't typically run people over without someone driving them. But there are driver's tests, speed limits, etc.

Drugs don't typically snort themselves, but its probably not a great idea to make fentanyl easily accessible.

The argument that you think guns are evil without a whacko behind it is a talking point and straw man. It’s a silly argument. We know there are whackos out there. I’m not going to ban the sale of hammers because of that fact. Hammers are important and do a net positive, despite being used for bad purposes from time to time. A semi automatic rifle, not so sure.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Show me a gun that shoots people without someone pulling the trigger, and I'll start believing that guns are the problem.

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

Plus one emphatically. The gun side can make many good arguments but they choose some weird talking points that don’t go anywhere. Guns don’t kill people, people do bad things and break the law. Yeah, I think we’re operating at that level.

[G1911]

The proposition to criminalize half the country for possessing post civil war common-use technology or to effectively eradicate the 2nd for non-billionaires by instituting a tax 10,000 times the cost of the item, which are the last proposals presented, is extreme.

I’d still love to hear why some think criminals (I understand not all, but apparently the belief is many of them) will simply not use illegal items that are common place. There’s many magazines-over-5 for every person. They are everywhere.

What am I supposed to do if I am restricted to pre-Civil War firearms technology (or none at all, due to a 10,000x tax) if I have a home invasion, as absolutely happens, again? This ban is going to make the criminal just give up his gun and we’re back to an even footing? I sure hope the guy(s) breaking in mean no harm, as it’s going to take me a few minutes to remove my Flintlock from the safe and push a ball down the muzzle.

How does criminalizing half the country actually make anyone safer? I see the obvious political gain of doing so. Guns exist. No law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400,000,000 guns. How do we think they are going to just disappear?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

How does criminalizing half the country actually make anyone safer? I see the obvious political gain of doing so. Guns exist. No law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400,000,000 guns. How do we think they are going to just disappear?

You've repeated the claim that half the country is going to be criminalized half a dozen times. Are there actually any legislative proposals that would do this?
If you ban future 18 year-olds from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon, that does not criminalize people that already own such weapons.

While I think that having a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic weapons would help make our country safer, no one is proposing this. We are not Australia--there just isn't the political will for such a measure and I think almost everyone knows it.

You are correct that no law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400 million guns in our country. And no proposed law is attempting to. No one thinks all guns are going to disappear.

I imagine you are going to come back with the slippery slope argument, that if we given an inch, anti-gun people will take a mile. But I just don't that's politically possible or even realistic to consider.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You've repeated the claim that half the country is going to be criminalized half a dozen times. Are there actually any legislative proposals that would do this?
If you ban future 18 year-olds from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon, that does not criminalize people that already own such weapons.

While I think that having a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic weapons would help make our country safer, no one is proposing this. We are not Australia--there just isn't the political will for such a measure and I think almost everyone knows it.

You are correct that no law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400 million guns in our country. And no proposed law is attempting to. No one thinks all guns are going to disappear.

I imagine you are going to come back with the slippery slope argument, that if we given an inch, anti-gun people will take a mile. But I just don't that's politically possible or even realistic to consider.

I am speaking of your proposal you made. What do you think banning a magazine over 5 does? Basically every gun owner in America becomes a felon.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am speaking of your proposal you made. What do you think banning a magazine over 5 does? Basically every gun owner in America becomes a felon.

There is proposed legislation that is considering banning FUTURE sales of magazines with over 5 rounds.

This would not make it illegal for people that already own these guns/magazines to continue to own them. Do you actually think someone has proposed a law that requires people to give up their pistols that have 5 rounds?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You've repeated the claim that half the country is going to be criminalized half a dozen times. Are there actually any legislative proposals that would do this?
If you ban future 18 year-olds from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon, that does not criminalize people that already own such weapons.

While I think that having a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic weapons would help make our country safer, no one is proposing this. We are not Australia--there just isn't the political will for such a measure and I think almost everyone knows it.

You are correct that no law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400 million guns in our country. And no proposed law is attempting to. No one thinks all guns are going to disappear.

I imagine you are going to come back with the slippery slope argument, that if we given an inch, anti-gun people will take a mile. But I just don't that's politically possible or even realistic to consider.

I don't agree with making a buyback mandatory. As an example, I know someone who did/does target shooting. They have an M1, military surplus going back to the 40's, that the government still makes available for civilian marksmanship programs. It was his fathers, and has had some serious work done to it that makes it far more accurate than a stock example. Duplicating that would require well over a thousand dollars. (I used it once, it made a very average rifle shooter into a slightly above average one. The benefit to a competetive shooter would be substantial)

Forcing him to sell that to the government for destruction at the pittance they would offer? No, that makes no sense at all.

Add in that a huge percentage of guns used for hunting are semi automatic, including other publicly sold M1s and you've done most gun owners a disservice, as well as providing a major setback to wildlife management.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

The weapon has been discussed as nauseum in this thread. One bullet per trigger pull. That's the weapon - AR, handgun - they're all the same. You can't touch one without touching them all, and you can't touch them all without infringing upon 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens.

You can keep trying to solve the problem by fitting a square peg into a triangular hole, but it's not going to work. There is all sorts of legislation and law out there to prevent stuff that STILL HAPPENS. Drugs, for example. We have a massive drug problem in this country, despite laws that ban those drugs. Drunk Driving, despite laws that make drunk driving illegal. It's been said before, but murder is illegal, yet no matter the weapon, it's still committed - car, knife, rope, plane, firearm, fire, hands, etc.

I'm ready to have the discussion about the threat of Big Pharma, our public education system, the media, our politicians (both sides), our work life balance, our broken homes, the lack of accountability in society anymore, etc. I'm ready for that conversation. Solving those issues, figuring out how to be better people, that's the long term solution. Then, when the inevitable trigger is pulled and one bullet comes out, it'll be at a paper target like 99% of gun owners shoot at. Look at that, the weapon isn't the problem.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm ready to have the discussion about the threat of Big Pharma, our public education system, the media, our politicians (both sides), our work life balance, our broken homes, the lack of accountability in society anymore, etc. I'm ready for that conversation. Solving those issues, figuring out how to be better people, that's the long term solution.

I agree that these are conversations worth having.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

The weapon has been discussed as nauseum in this thread. One bullet per trigger pull. That's the weapon - AR, handgun - they're all the same. You can't touch one without touching them all, and you can't touch them all without infringing upon 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens.

It wasn't ad nauseam for me. You have grouped many different guns into a single category (one bullet per trigger pull) while excluding others. I'm interested to know why you draw the distinction in this way.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

There is all sorts of legislation and law out there to prevent stuff that STILL HAPPENS. Drugs, for example. We have a massive drug problem in this country, despite laws that ban those drugs. Drunk Driving, despite laws that make drunk driving illegal. It's been said before, but murder is illegal, yet no matter the weapon, it's still committed - car, knife, rope, plane, firearm, fire, hands, etc.

It sounds as if you are saying that the fact that some people break laws means that it's not worth trying to pass new laws. Is that right? Should we not revise drug and drunk driving laws to try and make them less ineffective?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I agree that these are conversations worth having.



It wasn't ad nauseam for me. You have grouped many different guns into a single category (one bullet per trigger pull) while excluding others. I'm interested to know why you draw the distinction in this way.



It sounds as if you are saying that the fact that some people break laws means that it's not worth trying to pass new laws. Is that right? Should we not revise drug and drunk driving laws to try and make them less ineffective?

- Glad we can agree on something.

- I did group many guns together because the mechanics are the same. The targeted firearms by anti-gun people are all semi-automatic firearms. One bullet per trigger pull. Simple as that. Magazine capacity is a moot point, as magazines can be changed in a matter of seconds. Again, to target one, you target them all because of the mechanics. There is literally no difference between a 9MM handgun and a 5.56 caliber AR-15. Now, revolvers and bolt action rifles are different, but those aren't targeted by the anti-gun crowd.

- I'm saying we need to stop pretending as a society that we can eradicate all crime/poor behavior with legislation. It's hilarious that one thing the majority of both sides of the political spectrum agree on is that they don't trust government, yet I often see people clambering for more laws (AKA bigger government). Again, cocaine/heroine/etc. are illegal, yet run rampant in this country. How? Schools are fun free Zones, yet we have school shootings. How? Laws are for the law-abiding. If we want to truly solve this solution, we'll all discuss what you and I agree should be discussed in the first point. Those are the topics that build the foundation for better, healthier people, and a safer society.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm saying we need to stop pretending as a society that we can eradicate all crime/poor behavior with legislation. It's hilarious that one thing the majority of both sides of the political spectrum agree on is that they don't trust government, yet I often see people clambering for more laws (AKA bigger government). Again, cocaine/heroine/etc. are illegal, yet run rampant in this country. How? Schools are fun free Zones, yet we have school shootings. How? Laws are for the law-abiding. If we want to truly solve this solution, we'll all discuss what you and I agree should be discussed in the first point. Those are the topics that build the foundation for better, healthier people, and a safer society.

I appreciate the reply, and I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. In spirit, I agree with much of this. Practically, though, I think there is a huge web of complex problems to disentangle if we're going to get there. Would enough Americans agree on ways to form such a foundation?

(And, I have many thoughts on the very important issues you mentioned regarding trust in government and illegal drugs, but I'll hold off on veering this thread into even more controversial territory...)

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I appreciate the reply, and I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. In spirit, I agree with much of this. Practically, though, I think there is a huge web of complex problems to disentangle if we're going to get there. Would enough Americans agree on ways to form such a foundation?

(And, I have many thoughts on the very important issues you mentioned regarding trust in government and illegal drugs, but I'll hold off on veering this thread into even more controversial territory...)

Responding to the bold...

- No, because there isn't enough proper education on the topics, and not enough people who care to go beyond what they're spoon fed by the media and politicians. This is why it's so important to denounce the term "assault weapons" because there is no such thing, and it's a propaganda term.

- One of my first posts questioned the OP's motives behind starting this thread, as his original post had a huge slant and the discussion is political in nature. Again, in my opinion, you cannot discuss this issue productively and work towards an actual solution without turning the focus to the other areas we've agreed upon. Until we restore decency and healthiness to the majority of society, we will continue to see criminal attempts like school shootings. The only solution in the interim is to fight fire with fire, tear down the "gun free zone" signs, and protect our children with the same level of protection as our politicians, etc.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

Of course it wouldn't.

While pool cues are readily available, as far as I know the Mk47 is not publicly available. Even if it was it would be subject to the same rules and background checks as a real machine gun.


What would have made a big difference would be if even so much as the reporting of mental health issues which the Uvalde shooter apparently had was done in a way that would turn up on a background check.

As far as I know nearly all the mass shooters have had issues with mental health and either passed background checks or been abetted by relatives. And nearly all made public statements before acting that made their intentions clear.
How to make those red flags into something that will turn up in a background check without falling foul of the first amendment, and a variety of privacy laws and protections for people with problems is another discussion that needs to be had. And one that both sides have even more difficulty approaching. Nobody wants to return to locking people with mental problems away the way we did into the early 80's. (I think, but could be wrong there)
But i believe it's also true that getting them actual help is expensive and hard to convince people to pay for.