Gun ownership poll

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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.

How, specifically, is anyone endangered by my possession of a rifle in my home? I don't mean to belabor the point but I really do not see how this is so. Knives are used far more often in US murders than rifles. Is the knife in my home also a danger to "good and bad people"?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

How, specifically, is anyone endangered by my possession of a rifle in my home? I don't mean to belabor the point but I really do not see how this is so. Knives are used far more often in US murders than rifles. Is the knife in my home also a danger to "good and bad people"?

Because many kids that don't know better kill themselves with their parents firearms every year.

In a 2017 study published in Science, Philip Levine and his colleague Robin McKnight found that where gun sales increased after Sandy Hook (as indicated by increases in background checks), rates of accidental death rose, too. They estimated that 60 additional people, including 20 children, were killed in the aftermath of Sandy Hook because of the excess guns people purchased. “With everyone staying home, those new guns are more likely to fall into the hands of a child or other inexperienced user, with deadly consequences,” says Levine, an economist at Wellesley College in Massachusetts.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun...rus-gun-sales/

[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

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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

That is so sad what happened in Australia.

I feel so sorry for those good people that had their guns ripped from their hands by some horrible horrible people who took advantage of a horrible situation.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is so sad what happened in Australia.

I feel so sorry for those good people that had their guns ripped from their hands by some horrible horrible people who took advantage of a horrible situation.

And yet, interestingly, they seem pretty okay with it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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

The problem here is that these figures given do not address what the rates and trends were before the bans - only looking at after the bans. That can't tell us much.

Switzerland
I looked up such incidents in these nations, by using a common search. I'm not claiming a masters thesis here. Switzerland has had 5 massacres since 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Switzerland). One in 1912, 1932 (a police shooting on protestors incident, not really the same thing as we are discussing here as the State is exempted from gun regulations across the world and in every serious proposal I have ever seen), 1976, 2001, and 2015.

So we have had 1 in the 21 years since their 2001 ban you discussed. They had last had one 25 years before the ban. Before that one in 1976, it had really been since 1912 that this happened. We have 4 real incidents, 2 before, the 1 precipitating the ban, and one after the ban. This is a truly tiny sample size, but nothing here suggests that gun control laws have reduced massacres (technically they are up after the ban, but with a sample of 1 that is just as garbage data)

The homicide rate appears to have declined after the ban. It was also declining before the ban though, as it was in most places in the first world during this period. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate. It does not looks like this reduced the murder rate.

The laser sight provision seems odd to me as a shooter - it is about the least efficient method of target acquisition that exists. Old school iron sights are faster to get on target than a laser in most use cases.


Australia

There's too many in Australia to list every one as I did in Switzerland. 1996 was 26 years ago, so splitting into blocks that size and counting off the list by hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Australia):

1969-1995: 20
1996: 2
1997-2022: 37

It does not seem to me that this ban has reduced massacres whatsoever. Massacres have almost doubled since the ban. I doubt that has anything whatsoever to do with the ban, but the data pretty clearly tells us it has not reduced massacres (or if it has, something else has happened that more than offsets its effect and made things worse).

The overall homicide rate follows the first world global trend, it goes up some years, down some years, but the overall is a downward glide (a very good thing). This glide did not begin with the ban. It's about flat on the whole from 1995-2000 (1998 was a good year, 1999 a bad year). Again, the data does not suggest that this ban saved lives. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

The problem here is that these figures given do not address what the rates and trends were before the bans - only looking at after the bans. That can't tell us much.

Switzerland
I looked up such incidents in these nations, by using a common search. I'm not claiming a masters thesis here. Switzerland has had 5 massacres since 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Switzerland). One in 1912, 1932 (a police shooting on protestors incident, not really the same thing as we are discussing here as the State is exempted from gun regulations across the world and in every serious proposal I have ever seen), 1976, 2001, and 2015.

So we have had 1 in the 21 years since their 2001 ban you discussed. They had last had one 25 years before the ban. Before that one in 1976, it had really been since 1912 that this happened. We have 4 real incidents, 2 before, the 1 precipitating the ban, and one after the ban. This is a truly tiny sample size, but nothing here suggests that gun control laws have reduced massacres (technically they are up after the ban, but with a sample of 1 that is just as garbage data)

The homicide rate appears to have declined after the ban. It was also declining before the ban though, as it was in most places in the first world during this period. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate. It does not looks like this reduced the murder rate.

The laser sight provision seems odd to me as a shooter - it is about the least efficient method of target acquisition that exists. Old school iron sights are faster to get on target than a laser in most use cases.


Australia

There's too many in Australia to list every one as I did in Switzerland. 1996 was 26 years ago, so splitting into blocks that size and counting off the list by hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Australia):

1969-1995: 20
1996: 2
1997-2022: 37

It does not seem to me that this ban has reduced massacres whatsoever. Massacres have almost doubled since the ban. I doubt that has anything whatsoever to do with the ban, but the data pretty clearly tells us it has not reduced massacres (or if it has, something else has happened that more than offsets its effect and made things worse).

The overall homicide rate follows the first world global trend, it goes up some years, down some years, but the overall is a downward glide (a very good thing). This glide did not begin with the ban. It's about flat on the whole from 1995-2000 (1998 was a good year, 1999 a bad year). Again, the data does not suggest that this ban saved lives. https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...-homicide-rate

Your wikipedia link doesn't work when I click on it. Where are you seeing 37 "massacres" from 1997 - 2022?

Switzerland has ALWAYS had stronger gun laws than the U.S. so there isn't an exact before-and-after time to compare to.

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Ok that’s a good start. There seems to be a gun of choice for these whackos - the AR. Can we get rid of that or restrict purchases? If it already is restricted let me know.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Ok that’s a good start. There seems to be a gun of choice for these whackos - the AR. Can we get rid of that or restrict purchases? If it already is restricted let me know.

Some states heavily restrict or ban AR-15's and others do not. It is not federally prohibited because it is not really any different from any other semi-automatic rifle. The AR-15 that is sold to civilians have 16-20 inch barrels, and are magazine fed semi-automatic rifles like all other semi-automatic rifles. The standard chambering is for 5.56x45mm, a light cartridge with a shorter range and less penetration than most rounds fired from rifles. The AR-15 has been the standard American rifle since the late 1970's (for the military since the early 1960's, their version is an actual assault rifle though and is a little different from the civilian legal versions).

The AR-15 constitutes the majority of rifles sold in the United States. Because it has been a standard for so long, the design has been made by tons of manufacturers and perfected mechanically over the decades (there are designs I like better, but they work well), and parts and supplies for it are everywhere making it the general go-to for new buyers. It's like the Honda Civic of rifles.

Rifles though, of any type, are rarely used in murders. The vast majority of gun murders are committed with a pistol. Until recently and probably-still-today-but-I-have-not-seen-fresh-data-in-a-few-years, .22lr is used more than any other cartridge, because it is the cheapest and everywhere even though it is, ballistically, less lethal than pretty much every other commonly used round. According to the FBI, bludgeoning murders outpace rifle murders (and stabbing murders are far and away more common). Considering that there's an AR-15 in a huge percentage of households in the US, it is one of the least used murder tools relative to its abundance.