Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Obviously a tough call because what’s already out there is out there and what’s restricted tomorrow can still be obtained. It seems like trying to restrict access, especially younger person access, to rapid fire, large count magazines would do some good.

Does this mean a ban on magazine possession of magazines holding over X number of rounds, and a ban on semi-automatic firearms for under Y age(21?)?

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think both sides want less mass shootings.

Amen.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Does this mean a ban on magazine possession of magazines holding over X number of rounds, and a ban on semi-automatic firearms for under Y age(21?)?



Amen.

Agree with the amen. As for the former, I have no clue. I think it’s responsible gun owners that will actually come up with some good ideas.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Agree with the amen. As for the former, I have no clue. I think it’s responsible gun owners that will actually come up with some good ideas.

Responsible gun owners are against these ideas though; beyond the discussions of what might be effective in controlling a small number of psycho’s or the Constitution, criminalizing ourselves or subsegments of ourselves is not very popular in the gun community, as a ban on semi-auto’s and/or magazines will do, for the obvious reasons of common sense self-interest. Their propositions are more in the mental health realm, and the view that while these events are horrible, there is no reason to think any legislation is going to get rid of homicide. Most gun owners do not see why those who have not misused it should be criminalized, particularly when other tools are used in more murders (you are more likely to be bludgeoned than to be shot with a rifle, semi-auto and scary or single shot and not scary). It is exceptionally difficult to endorse a proposition that makes some of us sudden felons for having legally purchased and owning what we have.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Responsible gun owners are against these ideas though; beyond the discussions of what might be effective in controlling a small number of psycho’s or the Constitution, criminalizing ourselves or subsegments of ourselves is not very popular in the gun community, as a ban on semi-auto’s and/or magazines will do, for the obvious reasons of common sense self-interest. Their propositions are more in the mental health realm, and the view that while these events are horrible, there is no reason to think any legislation is going to get rid of homicide. Most gun owners do not see why those who have not misused it should be criminalized, particularly when other tools are used in more murders (you are more likely to be bludgeoned than to be shot with a rifle, semi-auto and scary or single shot and not scary). It is exceptionally difficult to endorse a proposition that makes some of us sudden felons for having legally purchased and owning what we have.

There’s been no such thing as a mass bludgeoning as far as I know. I wouldn’t be scared if my fellow citizens walked around with baseball bats. Allow them to freely walk around with guns, not good as far as I’m concerned. Too many arguments result in people making poor decisions. Would rather have them make those poor decisions without a gun in hand.

[G1911]

Rhode Island's House of Representatives today passed a ban on the possession of any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, with no grandfather clause, turning thousands of citizens into felons, many of whom will probably not even be aware that legally owned items they bought years or decades ago (magazines holding more than 10 have been common items for about a century) make them a criminal once it is in effect.

This is exactly why gun owners think the gun control agenda is to ban their guns and parts and turn them into felons - because they keep writing these bills, voting for them, and sometimes get them passed which do exactly that, turning law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong into overnight felons for owning common items that they legally acquired.

I'm sure murderers, gang members, and massacre-planing psycho's will dispose of their magazines and many lives will be saved.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm sure murderers, gang members, and massacre-planing psycho's will dispose of their magazines and many lives will be saved.

Right. If passing another law will stop the bad guys, let's simplify and just make murder, regardless of method, illegal.

Oh, wait.....

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Carter08

There’s been no such thing as a mass bludgeoning as far as I know. I wouldn’t be scared if my fellow citizens walked around with baseball bats. Allow them to freely walk around with guns, not good as far as I’m concerned. Too many arguments result in people making poor decisions. Would rather have them make those poor decisions without a gun in hand.

Going by the same standards use to qualify something as a mass shooting...

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...hammer-attack/

https://www.liherald.com/hempstead/s...-mother,138650

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/09/n...buildings.html


https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...at-strip-club/

[bnorth]

Has anyone changed their opinion? If so please post what has changed.

My opinion has been the same for decades. The only change I would be open to is also one I have had for decades. Require gun safety classes to purchase your first gun. I would even be all for needing to take refresher classes every 5 years to continue to own guns.

Banning guns and more gun laws criminals don't obey are as silly to me as my baseball bat banning example.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Agree with the amen. As for the former, I have no clue. I think it’s responsible gun owners that will actually come up with some good ideas.

What if responsible gun owners told you the solution is more firearms in the hands of good guys to stop inevitable bad guys with guns? Qualified military personnel/veterans, for example, staitioned at our schools. What if they said these proposed laws only restrict law abiding citizens, considering murder is illegal already yet bad guys still commit murder with a plethora of "tools"?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What if responsible gun owners told you the solution is more firearms in the hands of good guys to stop inevitable bad guys with guns? Qualified military personnel/veterans, for example, staitioned at our schools. What if they said these proposed laws only restrict law abiding citizens, considering murder is illegal already yet bad guys still commit murder with a plethora of "tools"?

That I said before seems like a non-starter. Too many good guys make dumb decisions. If there isn’t a desire to try to restrict high capacity guns from bad guys maybe there is no way to agree on something.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That I said before seems like a non-starter. Too many good guys make dumb decisions. If there isn’t a desire to try to restrict high capacity guns from bad guys maybe there is no way to agree on something.

The problem is there is NO WAY to restrict high capacity guns or anything else from the bad guys. All these beyond silly new laws do is restrict things from the good people.

I can't think of even one single thing that a law has kept a bad person from getting or doing.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The problem is there is NO WAY to restrict high capacity guns or anything else from the bad guys. All these beyond silly new laws do is restrict things from the good people.

I can't think of even one single thing that a law has kept a bad person from getting or doing.

So should we just not bother with laws?

[irv]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

So should we just not bother with laws?

90% of the laws were written for 10% of the population.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

So should we just not bother with laws?

We should not bother with laws from the 56% to criminalize the 44% who did nothing wrong. No one is advocating that murder not be illegal. Some of us are against being criminalized because a psycho broke that law.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

So should we just not bother with laws?

We should have laws that take into account the fact there are people out there who do not respect laws and may try to murder you, your family, or other innocents.

[cannonballsun]

We are not the only country to have a mass shooting. It has happened in many countries. We are the only country to just stick with things as they are, and basically change nothing, when we have a mass shooting.
Other countries that have had mass shootings have been proactive, and changed things, and they have been successful in greatly lowering these mass shootings.
There's no cure all, there's nothing that works in every situation, but if you can save one life, wouldn't that be worth it ? In the world, we are the outlier. I believe we are 8 times more likely to die by gun than the next highest country. Plus it is estimated that there are 400 million guns in this country. Talk about the elephant in the room ! People continue to say guns are not the problem.
Also, today's responsible gun owner may be tomorrow's gun owner who goes off the deep end. The shooter in Law Vegas was a very successful person. He didn't seem like a risk at all, until he murdered 60 people and wounded many others.
My response to this situation is what the people of Uvalde said : "Do something".

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

we are not the only country to have a mass shooting. It has happened in many countries. We are the only country to just stick with things as they are, and basically change nothing, when we have a mass shooting.
Other countries that have had mass shootings have been proactive, and changed things, and they have been successful in greatly lowering these mass shootings.
There's no cure all, there's nothing that works in every situation, but if you can save one life, wouldn't that be worth it ? In the world, we are the outlier. I believe we are 8 times more likely to die by gun than the next highest country. Plus it is estimated that there are 400 million guns in this country. Talk about the elephant in the room ! People continue to say guns are not the problem.
Also, today's responsible gun owner may be tomorrow's gun owner who goes off the deep end. The shooter in law vegas was a very successful person. He didn't seem like a risk at all, until he murdered 60 people and wounded many others.
My response to this situation is what the people of uvalde said : "do something".

touche!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

We are not the only country to have a mass shooting. It has happened in many countries. We are the only country to just stick with things as they are, and basically change nothing, when we have a mass shooting.
Other countries that have had mass shootings have been proactive, and changed things, and they have been successful in greatly lowering these mass shootings.
.

What country has "greatly lowered" mass shootings by banning arms? Can you link the data? Does this country have 400,000,000 guns in it already? Do you truly believe that a psycho plotting a massacre will simply dispose of his weapon and magazines if they are made illegal for anyone to have?

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

There's no cure all, there's nothing that works in every situation, but if you can save one life, wouldn't that be worth it ?

Frankly, no. A life might be saved if protesting and free speech were illegal. Should we eradicate them? We would have less traffic deaths if cars were illegal. Should we eradicate them? Everybody is disgusted by these incidents, but, even assuming criminals will magically follow this law for the first time in the history of the world, living in a totalitarian nightmare where everything that has ever caused a single death is illegal is worse. We would be able to use and do almost nothing.

Furthermore, I don't see how making my rifle here next to my desk illegal saves a single life. Who is in endangered by it?

Criminalizing the other half of the population is attractive to many on both sides of the culture conflict these days. I think it unfortunate that this is so, and short sighted.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

What country has "greatly lowered" mass shootings by banning arms? Can you link the data? Does this country have 400,000,000 guns in it already? Do you truly believe that a psycho plotting a massacre will simply dispose of his weapon and magazines if they are made illegal for anyone to have?




Frankly, no. A life might be saved if protesting and free speech were illegal. Should we eradicate them? We would have less traffic deaths if cars were illegal. Should we eradicate them? Everybody is disgusted by these incidents, but, even assuming criminals will magically follow this law for the first time in the history of the world, living in a totalitarian nightmare where everything that has ever caused a single death is illegal is worse. We would be able to use and do almost nothing.

Furthermore, I don't see how making my rifle here next to my desk illegal saves a single life. Who is in endangered by it?

Criminalizing the other half of the population is attractive to many on both sides of the culture conflict these days. I think it unfortunate that this is so, and short sighted.

If you have a gun next to your desk, there are many people endangered by it. Good and bad people. And it’s just not a good way to design a society in my view. Once we feel the need to arm ourselves at our desks I think we’ve truly lost.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

What country has "greatly lowered" mass shootings by banning arms? Can you link the data? Does this country have 400,000,000 guns in it already? Do you truly believe that a psycho plotting a massacre will simply dispose of his weapon and magazines if they are made illegal for anyone to have?

Switzerland and Australia are two countries we could learn a lot from in terms of reducing gun violence.

Switzerland has over 2 million guns (about .25 guns for every citizen) and guns are very important to them culturally (they have a large shooting contest for 13-18 year olds each year, and see gun ownership as a patriotic way to guard against potential invasions) but hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001 and often have less than 50 gun related homicides per year in a country with over 8 million people.

Specific laws that reduce gun violence in Switzerland include:

1) Gun sellers follow strict licesning procedures : Gun permits are doled out locally and they keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region in what they call a "canton." Cantonal police don't take their duty doling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived to vet the person.

2) Violent people or those with substance abuse issues can't have guns: People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.

Those who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" also can't own a gun.

Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.

3) The Swiss banned the use of automatic weapons, silencers, laser sights, and heavy machine guns.

https://www.businessinsider.com/swit...-deaths-2018-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjlT4BME2aE



Australia had a mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996 in which 35 people died.
The Australian Government, then led be a Conservative named John Howard pushed through strict gun laws 12 days later.

The laws: 1) Banned semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession.

2) Forced people to provide a legitimate reason to own a gun, and to wait 28 days to buy a firearm.

3) Had a massive mandatory buyback of guns, resulting in the confiscation and destruction of about 700,000 guns reducing gun-owning households by half.

Australia has had only 1 mass shooting since 1996, and gun violence has been reduced by over half.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Arc3c8Pc8

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That I said before seems like a non-starter. Too many good guys make dumb decisions. If there isn’t a desire to try to restrict high capacity guns from bad guys maybe there is no way to agree on something.

How are you proposing to do this? It is already illegal for known 'bad guys' to possess arms. You said earlier that gun-owners need to get over their idea that the other side is trying to take our guns away. How are you going to remove these guns from bad people without a record, without removing them from the tens of millions of good guys who own them too?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

How are you proposing to do this? It is already illegal for known 'bad guys' to possess arms. You said earlier that gun-owners need to get over their idea that the other side is trying to take our guns away. How are you going to remove these guns from bad people without a record, without removing them from the tens of millions of good guys who own them too?

To be clear, not looking to take away your guns in that you get to keep a ton of them. But just like you’re not allowed to own surface to air missiles and such, maybe you’d agree you don’t need to own automatic assault rifles. Or agree that future purchases of them should be limited.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

To be clear, not looking to take away your guns in that you get to keep a ton of them. But just like you’re not allowed to own surface to air missiles and such, maybe you’d agree you don’t need to own automatic assault rifles. Or agree that future purchases of them should be limited.

I want to separate my personal opinions from facts. Just to be clear, automatic assault rifles are already heavily restricted and de facto banned. To own an automatic assault rifle, that gun had to be federally registered before 1986, a fee paid for every transaction, and approval from the BATFE secured to buy one that was registered. They cost tens of thousands of dollars as a result and these small number of legally-owned by civilian guns are never used for self-defense or in crimes (well I suppose they are occasionally used in a paperwork crime where someone fills out a form wrong). People are not going to the store and purchasing an automatic assault rifle, it is a serious federal felony to do so and has been since 1986. These firearms are already basically illegal for all but the elites in certain states.