Gun ownership poll

[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/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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/

I do not have a child. If I did, they certainly would not have access to it outside my supervision.

Will you hold knives and other implements of suicide to this same standard?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not have a child. If I did, they certainly would not have access to it outside my supervision.

Will you hold knives and other implements of suicide to this same standard?

I'm talking about accidental injuries and deaths in households that have guns. Not specifically your house and your rifle.

As for knives, there just aren't that many accidental injuries and deaths from knives.

[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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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

I personally don't know any of the people that had to give up their guns, do you?

Like I posted before I own guns. I haven't shot one in close to a decade but would be beyond pissed if I had to give up my James Bond guns. I own the 2 different gun models from the early Bond movies.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I personally don't know any of the people that had to give up their guns, do you?

Like I posted before I own guns. I haven't shot one in close to a decade but would be beyond pissed if I had to give up my James Bond guns. I own the 2 different gun models from the early Bond movies.

From what I remember about James Bond, we're talking pistols, right? Pull trigger, Bang, pull trigger, Bang?
Pretty sure nobody is interested in taking those, unless there are a few grandstanding politicians out there. Maybe it's my middle-America upbringing, but I have never heard a single person say to get rid of all the guns. (Not counting a fringe politician or two.)

[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 cgjackson222

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Looks like the earlier link is picking up an extra paren.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Looks like the earlier link is picking up an extra paren.

Not sure I see the relevance of your link to the discussion, other than to point out that the "massacres" are not mass-murders caused by guns. They include fires, car accidents.

You may wish to consider actual studies done on the topic, such as
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...agreement.html that show that gun violence has been reduced dramatically by the 1996 laws in Australia

[CollectingAmericasPastime]

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.

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.

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.

Responding to the bold...

1) Then it doesn't seem you're willing to be reasonable with responsible gun owners in a discussion.

2) You cannot own an automatic assault rifle. First of all, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Second of all, to own an automatic rifle, you essentially have to sign over your rights; not to mention no mass shooting has been committed with an automatic rifle aside from Vegas, which we still don't have answers on (that's an entirely different discussion).

3) False. The #1 firearm used for murder is the handgun, and it's not even close. The mechanics are the exact same between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle (i.e. AR-15). Magazine capacity is a moot point, as the typical handgun used in these murders is around half or even less of a 30 round AR magazine, yet is responsible for far more deaths. If you want to get technical in regards to mass shootings vs handguns, fine, the AR is preferred; I would argue that's due to the copycat nature of these events rather than any mechanical advantage.

Tell me how Chicago is doing with their restrictive gun laws. Same with NY, which has had multiple shootouts in the streets in just the past week. How are there shootings in California?