Gun ownership poll

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Trust me, that is no guarantee in the slightest. It’s an ideal and hopefully an achievable one. It may not be. My view - unsupported by clinical data - is that right now it seems too easy to quickly acquire weapons able to kill several people. Background checks aren’t completed, etc. Perhaps the needle should move back slightly.

The problem is not a single one of the suggestions for more gun laws will do even the smallest thing to stop criminals from getting guns. What they would do is punish law abiding citizens.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The problem is not a single one of the suggestions for more gun laws will do even the smallest thing to stop criminals from getting guns. What they would do is punish law abiding citizens.

How is that possible? Some of the more recent shootings were folks that purchased weapons a day or two before their mass shooting. So restrictions may have done not just the smallest thing but the greatest thing in those situations.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

How is that possible? Some of the more recent shootings were folks that purchased weapons a day or two before their mass shooting. So restrictions may have done not just the smallest thing but the greatest thing in those situations.

an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument.

Wouldn't a mass shooting since they are very rare be an isolated incident? How about a gun legally purched just before a crime? Isn't that another rare isolated incident? They seem to be isolated incidents you are using to promote more gun laws.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

an isolated incident does not alone support a broader argument.

Wouldn't a mass shooting since they are very rare be an isolated incident? How about a gun legally purched just before a crime? Isn't that another rare isolated incident? They seem to be isolated incidents you are using to promote more gun laws.

Oh no, that turns us to aggregate numbers. Come on man, you know this country has many, many, many mass shootings. That’s the whole reason this debate rages on. You can do better.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Oh no, that turns us to aggregate numbers. Come on man, you know this country has many, many, many mass shootings. That’s the whole reason this debate rages on. You can do better.

I would say they are almost non existant compared to other murders. They just get the news coverage.

EDIT to add: There are an average of 316 people shot in America every day. How many months/years would it take in mass shootings to reach that number? So yes I believe using mass shooting to promote more gun laws is beyond silly.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would say they are almost non existant compared to other murders. They just get the news coverage.

EDIT to add: There are an average of 316 people shot in America every day. How many months/years would it take in mass shootings to reach that number? So yes I believe using mass shooting to promote more gun laws is beyond silly.

So we shouldn’t try to restrict guns because there are so many shootings with guns? That’s an only in America moment.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So we shouldn’t try to restrict guns because there are so many shootings with guns? That’s an only in America moment.

LOL, YOU are the one using mass shooting as your excuse. I am just pointing out how silly the excuse you are using is.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

How is that possible? Some of the more recent shootings were folks that purchased weapons a day or two before their mass shooting. So restrictions may have done not just the smallest thing but the greatest thing in those situations.

When someone purchases a gun, there isn't a question like "Do you plan to use this to murder a bunch of people?" And if there was such a question, it wouldn't be answered truthfully.

Here's an example of gun restrictions using the latest example. The mall had a "No guns on these premises" policy. The murderer of course broke that policy. Most law abiding folks obeyed it. Fortunately, there was one guy who ignored it (probably realizing how da** stupid those signs are) and saved countless lives.

Can you ever understand that murderers aren't going to obey laws, while law abiding people, by definition, generally do?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When someone purchases a gun, there isn't a question like "Do you plan to use this to murder a bunch of people?" And if there was such a question, it wouldn't be answered truthfully.

Here's an example of gun restrictions using the latest example. The mall had a "No guns on these premises" policy. The murderer of course broke that policy. Most law abiding folks obeyed it. Fortunately, there was one guy who ignored it (probably realizing how da** stupid those signs are) and saved countless lives.

Can you ever understand that murderers aren't going to obey laws, while law abiding people, by definition, generally do?

Can you understand that easy access to guns generally promotes both good and bad people from getting them? The Vegas shooter had how many guns? What does anyone in this country need so many. Let’s add a dose of reasonableness to our vehement desire to be good guys with guns.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Can you understand that easy access to guns generally promotes both good and bad people from getting them? The Vegas shooter had how many guns? What does anyone in this country need so many. Let’s add a dose of reasonableness to our vehement desire to be good guys with guns.

Do you think your average gang member buys his guns legally, following the rules and restrictions?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Do you think your average gang member buys his guns legally, following the rules and restrictions?

They most certainly do not.

[Carter08]

Your average gang member does not impose a threat on someone living in rural Iowa though. That’s just a fact of geography.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

They most certainly do not.

Finally, you admit the additional gun restrictions you advocate won't affect the criminals.

[G1911]

Aggregate is good.

The CDC (hardly a conservative, pro-gun group! Very much the opposite, in fact) concluded there are are between 500,000-3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year in an anti-gun study that was part of the Obama administrations attacks on the 2nd as part of an executive order.

Using a firearm for lawful defense (which very rarely results in an actual discharge; most criminals are looking for easy pickings and not a fight, unlike exceptionally rare mass shooters that rarely seem to plan on survival; criminals tend to stop as soon as they realize they are facing an armed victim or bystander) is fairly common.

Obviously the very specific circumstances of this very unusual incident under most recent discussion are rare (so are the incidents brought up by the other stand; exceptional incidents that receive coverage are, well, exceptional); but using a firearm, in lawful self-defense is common. For every such case, there are many many more where a law-abiding person is possessing or carrying a firearm for defense and never has to use it at all. For every one of these, there are other recreational, sport and other legal shooters. Legal uses of a firearm vastly outweigh illegal uses of a firearm (many, many of the illegal uses of a firearm are paperwork crimes, not what people think of at first). And yet, millions of us are to be criminalized and the Constitution ignored if the regulators and banners ever get their way, with no real impact on homicides just like the last X number of regulations and bans.

[G1911]

While I understand why many want to regulate, ban, or reverse time into the 18th century, I have never understood many of the things that seem to rankle them most. Like quantity of guns owned. A person has two hands, and dual wielding is some video game absurdity. A long gun and a pistol are about all a person could use effectively in a single incident; having a collection doesn't up the lethality. If anything it reduces it, carrying tons of extra weight and swapping guns takes far more time than just using what they have in hand. One can't really carry more than a few hundred rounds effectively. An active shooter doesn't need and can't use a large number of guns (I am aware of 0 incidents - the Vegas shooter used very little from his stash) or a hoard of ammunition (I am aware of only 1 such incident in US history, the Vegas shooter). Many of the existing laws are rooted in this belief from post 855 that makes no sense whatsoever, even if one adopts the belief that guns are inherently evil and those who have them must be suppressed by the State as gospel.