Gun ownership poll

[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

[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

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

So we do not care about massacres using any other tool; it only requires bans if it's a gun that was used because it's a gun that was used? If massacres using other tools are way up after a gun ban, this doesn't signify anything? I guess this is largely about perspective, I would think the reasonable goal would be reducing killings and massacres, not shifting on an island the weapon used to commit the murder. An innocent stabbed is not less tragic than an innocent shot.

We'll list every gun massacre:

1970-1995: 14
Hope Forrest Massacre
Campsie murders
Party shooting spree
Wahroonga murders
Milperra massacre
Pymble shootings
Top End shootings
Hoddle street massacre
Queen Street massacre
Oenpelli shootings
Surry hills shootings
Strathfield massacre
Central coast massacre
Canai seige


1996: 2
Hill crest murders
Port Arthur Massacre

1997-2022: 14
Wright St. Bikie Murders
Monash University Shooting
Oakhampton Heights shooting
Hectorville Seige
Hunt family murders
Wedderburn shooting
Sydney hostage crisis
Parramatta shooting
Port Lincoln murders
Brighton siege
Osmington shooting
Hills District murders
Darwin shooting
Melbourne nightclub drive-by shooting

So.... it's exactly the same. Gun massacres have not changed, total massacres have almost doubled, even as overall crime and homicide has decreased for many many years before and after the bans.

I too can produce studies from my side claiming the opposite. I don't like to hide behind an appeal to authority though, I like to look at the data. I have other concerns, I don't think turning things people did when it was legal into a crime overnight like bans do, I like the Constitution, I believe a fellow has the right to defend himself and his family with the prevalent tools of the time and should not be forced to be outraged by the criminals. These are personal opinions I have though and on which we may all reasonably differ. Whether or not a particular action has led to the solution it was intended is something we can look at more objectively. The data does not suggest that these bans have accomplished anything.

I would even posit that there is somewhere in the world where heavy regulation probably HAS actually had an impact, in a place where arms ownership was not so commonplace, valued so highly, and there were far fewer millions with the technical know-how to maintain or build their own arms.

[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

So we do not care about massacres using any other tool; it only requires bans if it's a gun that was used because it's a gun that was used? If massacres using other tools are way up after a gun ban, this doesn't signify anything? I guess this is largely about perspective, I would think the reasonable goal would be reducing killings and massacres, not shifting on an island the weapon used to commit the murder. An innocent stabbed is not less tragic than an innocent shot.

We'll list every gun massacre:

1970-1995: 14
Hope Forrest Massacre
Campsie murders
Party shooting spree
Wahroonga murders
Milperra massacre
Pymble shootings
Top End shootings
Hoddle street massacre
Queen Street massacre
Oenpelli shootings
Surry hills shootings
Strathfield massacre
Central coast massacre
Canai seige


1996: 2
Hill crest murders
Port Arthur Massacre

1997-2022: 14
Wright St. Bikie Murders
Monash University Shooting
Oakhampton Heights shooting
Hectorville Seige
Hunt family murders
Wedderburn shooting
Sydney hostage crisis
Parramatta shooting
Port Lincoln murders
Brighton siege
Osmington shooting
Hills District murders
Darwin shooting
Melbourne nightclub drive-by shooting

So.... it's exactly the same. Gun massacres have not changed, total massacres have almost doubled, even as overall crime and homicide has decreased for many many years before and after the bans.

I too can produce studies from my side claiming the opposite. I don't like to hide behind an appeal to authority though, I like to look at the data. I have other concerns, I don't think turning things people did when it was legal into a crime overnight like bans do, I like the Constitution, I believe a fellow has the right to defend himself and his family with the prevalent tools of the time and should not be forced to be outraged by the criminals. These are personal opinions I have though and on which we may all reasonably differ. Whether or not a particular action has led to the solution it was intended is something we can look at more objectively. The data does not suggest that these bans have accomplished anything.

I would even posit that there is somewhere in the world where heavy regulation probably HAS actually had an impact, in a place where arms ownership was not so commonplace, valued so highly, and there were far fewer millions with the technical know-how to maintain or build their own arms.

Of the gun "massacres" from 1997-2022 you sight, most of them are of 2 or 3 people, something that occurs virtually EVERY DAY in the USA. The few that exceeded 3 are generally restricted to a single household.

You say that you can produce studies showing that Australia's guns laws have not reduced gun violence, but you haven't produced any.

Instead you have cited Wikipedia.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

There are not that many for firearms either. I'll use a left-wing pro-gun control source.

NPR (https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/10327...death-children) using data from the extremely biased Everytonw group says there were 2,070 'accidental' shootings by children from 2015-2020, and 765 deaths, or 127.5 a year.

127.5 per year from guns, 389 from accidental drownings of under 15's (the gap is even larger, as the guns go up to actual adulthood; https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-R...ercent-in-2021).

Meanwhile 44% of households have a gun, and there are over 400,000,000 of them in civilian hands.

It appears that my home is markedly safer for a child than one with a swimming pool.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Of the gun "massacres" from 1997-2022 you sight, most of them are of 2 or 3 people, something that occurs virtually EVERY DAY in the USA. The few that exceeded 3 are generally restricted to a single household.

You say that you can produce studies showing that Australia's guns laws have not reduced gun violence, but you haven't produced any.

Instead you have cited Wikipedia.

Yes, I looked up the list of massacres on Wikipedia. I do not look up an independent scholarly source of every incident on JSTOR, but used a readily accessible list as common sense would suggest. How many deaths would you like to redefine as a massacre? Which here massacre is incorrect and wrong because the list is on Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of the right)? It would seem rather silly to compile a list from scratch that already exists. I'm sorry the list does not support your narrative.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

There are not that many for firearms either. I'll use a left-wing pro-gun control source.

NPR (https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/10327...death-children) using data from the extremely biased Everytonw group says there were 2,070 'accidental' shootings by children from 2015-2020, and 765 deaths, or 127.5 a year.

127.5 per year from guns, 389 from accidental drownings of under 15's (the gap is even larger, as the guns go up to actual adulthood; https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-R...ercent-in-2021).

Meanwhile 44% of households have a gun, and there are over 400,000,000 of them in civilian hands.

It appears that my home is markedly safer for a child than one with a swimming pool.

Well we can agree on the fact that swimming pools may not be the best idea for households with young kids.

The question is whether having a gun in your home makes one's family safer, and the data says it does not.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

https://psmag.com/news/keeping-a-gun...g-killed-there

https://research.northeastern.edu/do...ake-you-safer/

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I looked up the list of massacres on Wikipedia. I do not look up an independent scholarly source of every incident on JSTOR, but used a readily accessible list as common sense would suggest. How many deaths would you like to redefine as a massacre? Which here massacre is incorrect and wrong because the list is on Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of the right)? It would seem rather silly to compile a list from scratch that already exists. I'm sorry the list does not support your narrative.

Just provide one of the studies you say supports the view that Australia's gun laws have not decreased gun violence, please.

[bnorth]

I found these numbers interesting.

From the FBI in 2019.
Homicides by handgun 6365 that was 45.7% of all homicides
Rifles killed 364 or 2.6% of all homicides
600 people died from beatings without weapons or 4.3% of all homicides
knifes killed 1476 or 10.6% of all homicides

The percentage of handgun murders did not shock me. The number of deaths being almost double from no weapon beatings to deaths by rifle kinda shocked me. Also knifes killed around 4 times as many as rifles.

I would be all in for safety courses being required to own guns. Most of the other laws we actually already have.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I found these numbers interesting.

From the FBI in 2019.
Homicides by handgun 6365 that was 45.7% of all homicides
Rifles killed 364 or 2.6% of all homicides
600 people died from beatings without weapons or 4.3% of all homicides
knifes killed 1476 or 10.6% of all homicides

The percentage of handgun murders did not shock me. The number of deaths being almost double from no weapon beatings to deaths by rifle kinda shocked me. Also knifes killed around 4 times as many as rifles.

I would be all in for safety courses being required to own guns. Most of the other laws we actually already have.

I saw similar statistis. Note that there are thousands from "Firearms, type not stated" that do not fall in the handgun or rifle category:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

Do you think some of the thousands of homicides category are from rifles?

How many of the knife deaths were accidental?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

Federally required NICS checks are against mental health records for prohibited persons, and criminal histories for the same. How should the prohibited persons criteria be expanded to make it stricter?

My personal opinion is that it is not the states business what I do and do not own and which of my constitutionally protected rights I choose to exercise, but background checks I see as having some reason behind them. I donÂ’t think they do a darn thing to stop planned massacres (someone planning a massacre does not care at all if they have to break laws to get their firearm from the black market and experience a time delay), but smaller scale crimes of passion it might have some impact.

I forgot I had posted on this thread and I see a lot of discussion has taken place since I posted. I do not think it hurts anyone with good intentions who is trying to obtain possession of one (or another one), for the process or laws around ownership to be more stringent.

Sure someone can obtain a firearm illegally but that process is not as easy or affordable as it is made out to be. And if someone is determined to terrorize unsuspecting innocent people they could certainly get creative and do it in another way that did not require a gun but fact is most of the massacres involve a gun.

I just do not see how making the process somehow more involved, extending the waiting period and/or raising the thresholds for applying for one, hurts anyone who is well intended. It is not a fix by a long shot but even a longer delay in taking possession might buy enough time for a potential shooter to say or post something during that time where it gets reported.

All of these massacres are committed by people who are/were deeply disturbed as we come to find out later on by numerous people who knew the shooter either personally or via social media. Mental illness has been around longer than guns. It is only more recently that these massacres are becoming more commonplace. During that same period of time disregard for law enforcement and violence against officers has also escalated. Our country does not feel like it is getting healthier mentally. There are more brazen and unstable people and like the boiling frog this state has taken place slowly over the last decades. We have really gone off course as a nation, imo.

As far as attempts of the government to essentially repeal lawful gun ownership it is terrifying. But this is the same "government" who instituted lock downs and other measures during Covid for 2 years and counting to protect us from the virus. Not to change topics but there are many people...most people...who Covid was not going to kill and did not kill yet all of us were forbidden to leave our homes. And while the virus was real and a real threat to many with vulnerabilities why was the emphasis of protection not more focused but rather imposed on the masses as a one size fits all? I see the same thing happening here with gun control...government will attempt to protect us all by imposing a law that most of us do not need and few of us will benefit from.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well we can agree on the fact that swimming pools may not be the best idea for households with young kids.

The question is whether having a gun in your home makes one's family safer, and the data says it does not.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

https://psmag.com/news/keeping-a-gun...g-killed-there

https://research.northeastern.edu/do...ake-you-safer/

The very first paragraph of your first link, in its entirety:

"After I pulled the trigger and recovered from the recoil, I slowly refocused my eyes on the target. There it was—a tiny but distinct circle next to the zombie's eye, the first bullet hole I'd ever made. I looked down at the shaking Glock 19 in my hands. A swift and strong emotional transformation swept over me. In seconds, I went from feeling nervous, even terrified, to exhilarated and unassailable—and right then I understood why millions of Americans believe guns keep them safe."

Well maybe we can agree here. I think people like this have no business owning a firearm. This is an op-ed from a person who should not own one. Anyone who feels this way from firing a gun needs to see a psychiatrist.

It is comparing the number of 'gun deaths', which are ~60% suicides every year and include people killed by the State that is free of firearm regulation in every proposal I have seen, and also self-defense shootings to an anti-gun study from the 1970's and 80's that even this writer admits is flawed and uses crude odds that concluded that guns in the home led to more shootings, homicides, and suicides.

Even ignoring the many problems, that the author appears to be a little unhinged and extremely biased, this is of course, probably absolutely true. You can't have a shooting without a gun. As this study draws no line between responsible normal citizens and the mentally deranged or criminal, obviously this is the result.

There is absolutely nobody on the other side of the debate from you that thinks that guns owned by anyone make people safer. I do not like speaking for anyone but myself, but I think I can make a common sense case here. We do not think suicidal people should have a gun, or gang members, or violent felons, or the mentally unhinged. We think responsible Americans have the right to do so, as is enshrined in the foundation of our law. I certainly thought that, when I was the victim of a home invasion, the gun in my home increased my safety rather than decreased it. Perhaps I was wrong, but I strongly doubt it.

I'll get to the second and third if they are better than this and there is a reasonable basis here.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I saw similar statistis. Note that there are thousands from "Firearms, type not stated" that do not fall in the handgun or rifle category:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

Do you think some of the thousands of homicides category are from rifles?

How many of the knife deaths were accidental?

The unknown firearm showed 3326 or 23.9%. My guess since it is unknown is likely very very small percentage of rifles with the majority being handguns.

I hope the FBI would not be using accidents with knifes as homicides. I did notice in one of your links that gun suicides went down but knife suicides went up after the gun ban. Same outcome just a different tool.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just provide one of the studies you say supports the view that Australia's gun laws have not decreased gun violence, please.

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The unknown firearm showed 3326 or 23.9%. My guess since it is unknown is likely very very small percentage of rifles with the majority being handguns.

I hope the FBI would not be using accidents with knifes as homicides. I did notice in one of your links that gun suicides went down but knife suicides went up after the gun ban. Same outcome just a different tool.

Handguns: 8,029
Rifles: 455
Shotguns: 203
Unknown type: 4,863

I agree we can apply common sense. Most of these unknown are going to be handguns, probably in similar ration to the known ones. The majority of these are probably .22lr shootings where it can't be determined because it could have been fired from either a rifle or a pistol; whereas most calibers tend to be 90%+ a rifle or a pistol.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I forgot I had posted on this thread and I see a lot of discussion has taken place since I posted. I do not think it hurts anyone with good intentions who is trying to obtain possession of one (or another one), for the process or laws around ownership to be more stringent.

Sure someone can obtain a firearm illegally but that process is not as easy or affordable as it is made out to be. And if someone is determined to terrorize unsuspecting innocent people they could certainly get creative and do it in another way that did not require a gun but fact is most of the massacres involve a gun.

I just do not see how making the process somehow more involved, extending the waiting period and/or raising the thresholds for applying for one, hurts anyone who is well intended. It is not a fix by a long shot but even a longer delay in taking possession might buy enough time for a potential shooter to say or post something during that time where it gets reported.

All of these massacres are committed by people who are/were deeply disturbed as we come to find out later on by numerous people who knew the shooter either personally or via social media. Mental illness has been around longer than guns. It is only more recently that these massacres are becoming more commonplace. During that same period of time disregard for law enforcement and violence against officers has also escalated. Our country does not feel like it is getting healthier mentally. There are more brazen and unstable people and like the boiling frog this state has taken place slowly over the last decades. We have really gone off course as a nation, imo.

As far as attempts of the government to essentially repeal lawful gun ownership it is terrifying. But this is the same "government" who instituted lock downs and other measures during Covid for 2 years and counting to protect us from the virus. Not to change topics but there are many people...most people...who Covid was not going to kill and did not kill yet all of us were forbidden to leave our homes. And while the virus was real and a real threat to many with vulnerabilities why was the emphasis of protection not more focused but rather imposed on the masses as a one size fits all? I see the same thing happening here with gun control...government will attempt to protect us all by imposing a law that most of us do not need and few of us will benefit from.

My issue here is largely just that it's a vague proposition with no specifics, and it is thus difficult to be for or against or comment on.

As I've said, while I don't agree and think it unconstitutional, I am not greatly bothered by background checks. I didn't really mind the 10 day waiting period my state has the first time either (I do think it has become a rather silly exercise in stupidity when I am going through my 300th background check to buy a box of ammo or I'm purchasing my 30th gun and have the rare and highest level of permitting my state allows). I have not been able to find any evidence that a waiting period works to reduce violence, but it is something that might reasonably be expected to maybe have an impact - reducing a moment of hotheaded anger and letting tempers cool. It doesn't seem to have produced results in states that have it, but I see the logic behind it.

Background checks are already the law at every gun store and dealer in the United States though. What, specifically, are we proposing to expand their scope?

What thresholds would be raised?

How would this waiting period work?

Many gun owners would be fine with some version of these general notions, I think.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Handguns: 8,029
Rifles: 455
Shotguns: 203
Unknown type: 4,863

I agree we can apply common sense. Most of these unknown are going to be handguns, probably in similar ration to the known ones. The majority of these are probably .22lr shootings where it can't be determined because it could have been fired from either a rifle or a pistol; whereas most calibers tend to be 90%+ a rifle or a pistol.

Less worried about handguns in terms of my and other kids’ safety. Situations can largely be avoided. Always a threat of course. Most worried about a mass shooting. Wish we could all agree that it would be best to restrict ARs because that’s what is being used, not handguns.

And the good guy with a gun to stop a psycho with an AR. Unless he has a kid in the room, my guess is he or she pusses out. No offense to you responsible gun owners but if the situation becomes real I doubt you’re taking a bullet for my kid.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Less worried about handguns in terms of my and other kids’ safety. Situations can largely be avoided. Always a threat of course. Most worried about a mass shooting. Wish we could all agree that it would be best to restrict ARs because that’s what is being used, not handguns.

And the good guy with a gun to stop a psycho with an AR. Unless he has a kid in the room, my guess is he or she pusses out. No offense to you responsible gun owners but if the situation becomes real I doubt you’re taking a bullet for my kid.

The statistics do not align with your concerns though. You can worry about whatever, we all do to some extent, but I don’t see why I should be criminalized because of a concern you have that is not only not founded in statistics but is in direct opposition to it. I do not see how you can possibly avoid being shot with a handgun but not a rifle by avoiding bad situations.

I don’t see why anyone would expect gun owners to leap, movie style, in front of a bullet to save your kid and take a bullet. What they can do is shoot back and maybe end the threat much faster. Like the NRA instructor in Texas who grabbed his AR-15 when he heard a church shooting, chased down and killed the gunman who was moving to location 2 to continue his slaughter. I don’t see why public policy should be based on the fear one side has without regard to its rationality.

I don’t see why anyone on the gun side would consider this some sort of fair compromise or across the aisle opportunity, being criminalizing based on a fear you have that is not in accord with any evidence.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

My issue here is largely just that it's a vague proposition with no specifics, and it is thus difficult to be for or against or comment on.

As I've said, while I don't agree and think it unconstitutional, I am not greatly bothered by background checks. I didn't really mind the 10 day waiting period my state has the first time either (I do think it has become a rather silly exercise in stupidity when I am going through my 300th background check to buy a box of ammo or I'm purchasing my 30th gun and have the rare and highest level of permitting my state allows). I have not been able to find any evidence that a waiting period works to reduce violence, but it is something that might reasonably be expected to maybe have an impact - reducing a moment of hotheaded anger and letting tempers cool. It doesn't seem to have produced results in states that have it, but I see the logic behind it.

Background checks are already the law at every gun store and dealer in the United States though. What, specifically, are we proposing to expand their scope?

What thresholds would be raised?

How would this waiting period work?

Many gun owners would be fine with some version of these general notions, I think.

Feels to me like you want to argue/debate and I feel like we are on the same side of this. If I had specifics I would have posted them. How we got where we are today did not happen accidentally or overnight. I am simply thinking out loud on the topic. And sure you could have commented on my thoughts. Maybe that is the problem and why there is no reasonable answer. I think it might be important to understand what has happened leading up to this.

Are you suggesting that nothing should be done? Something needs to be done. I know my stating "something" rubs you the wrong way but we clearly as a society are not getting better at co-existing with one another.

As someone who owns 30 guns, if you had to wait 45 days to get your new Glock would you even give a fuck? And of course an extended wait period would have a positive impact but that on its own will not fix the problem.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Feels to me like you want to argue/debate and I feel like we are on the same side of this. If I had specifics I would have posted them. How we got where we are today did not happen accidentally or overnight. I am simply thinking out loud on the topic. And sure you could have commented on my thoughts. Maybe that is the problem and why there is no reasonable answer. I think it might be important to understand what has happened leading up to this.

Are you suggesting that nothing should be done? Something needs to be done. I know my stating "something" rubs you the wrong way but we clearly as a society are not getting better at co-existing with one another.

As someone who owns 30 guns, if you had to wait 45 days to get your new Glock would you even give a fuck? And of course an extended wait period would have a positive impact but that on its own will not fix the problem.

I think replying to people who reply to oneself is normal forum behavior… you quoted and replied to me specifically to continue an earlier discussion. Asking what specifically you are proposing is logical. I have no idea if we are on the “same side”.

I made specific propositions earlier in this thread. I’m unclear why you are offended I asked for what you are proposing, and in the next breath you ask me the exact same thing. Is asking this acceptable or not?

As for whether I’d “give a fuck” about a waiting period, I already answered that in the post you are unhappy about.

[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.

[irv]

Originally Posted by lorewalker

i forgot i had posted on this thread and i see a lot of discussion has taken place since i posted. I do not think it hurts anyone with good intentions who is trying to obtain possession of one (or another one), for the process or laws around ownership to be more stringent.

Sure someone can obtain a firearm illegally but that process is not as easy or affordable as it is made out to be. And if someone is determined to terrorize unsuspecting innocent people they could certainly get creative and do it in another way that did not require a gun but fact is most of the massacres involve a gun.

I just do not see how making the process somehow more involved, extending the waiting period and/or raising the thresholds for applying for one, hurts anyone who is well intended. It is not a fix by a long shot but even a longer delay in taking possession might buy enough time for a potential shooter to say or post something during that time where it gets reported.

All of these massacres are committed by people who are/were deeply disturbed as we come to find out later on by numerous people who knew the shooter either personally or via social media. Mental illness has been around longer than guns. It is only more recently that these massacres are becoming more commonplace. During that same period of time disregard for law enforcement and violence against officers has also escalated. Our country does not feel like it is getting healthier mentally. There are more brazen and unstable people and like the boiling frog this state has taken place slowly over the last decades. We have really gone off course as a nation, imo.

as far as attempts of the government to essentially repeal lawful gun ownership it is terrifying. But this is the same "government" who instituted lock downs and other measures during covid for 2 years and counting to protect us from the virus. Not to change topics but there are many people...most people...who covid was not going to kill and did not kill yet all of us were forbidden to leave our homes. And while the virus was real and a real threat to many with vulnerabilities why was the emphasis of protection not more focused but rather imposed on the masses as a one size fits all? I see the same thing happening here with gun control...government will attempt to protect us all by imposing a law that most of us do not need and few of us will benefit from.

"the urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H.l. Mecken

[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.

[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.

[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.

[KMayUSA6060]

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?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sure, here is one. I do not endorse this or any other, as argument from authority is silly and irrational. This finds that the drop is due to other factors and begins long before the ban: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611...tandi269t.html


I should make it a signature at this point as it's getting old typing it out. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument, nor is it persuasive (as many other kinds of illogical arguments are). Another expert or study will always be found that concludes something a different; a claim is true or untrue or an opinion/value statement that is neither false nor true on the merits of itself and its supporting evidence, not the authority or claim of any person or group.

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Less worried about handguns in terms of my and other kids’ safety. Situations can largely be avoided. Always a threat of course. Most worried about a mass shooting. Wish we could all agree that it would be best to restrict ARs because that’s what is being used, not handguns.

And the good guy with a gun to stop a psycho with an AR. Unless he has a kid in the room, my guess is he or she pusses out. No offense to you responsible gun owners but if the situation becomes real I doubt you’re taking a bullet for my kid.

What an absolute slap to the face of every single person who has died for this country - first responders and military members.

The police response to the Uvalde shooting was putrid, but it's also highly questionable and needs investigating rather than chalking them up to being pansies.

Find the right people to do the job, and you'll have the right protection.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think replying to people who reply to oneself is normal forum behavior… you quoted and replied to me specifically to continue an earlier discussion. Asking what specifically you are proposing is logical. I have no idea if we are on the “same side”.

I made specific propositions earlier in this thread. I’m unclear why you are offended I asked for what you are proposing, and in the next breath you ask me the exact same thing. Is asking this acceptable or not?

As for whether I’d “give a fuck” about a waiting period, I already answered that in the post you are unhappy about.

If you cannot tell that we are on the same side then there is not much more to discuss since you simply want to poke holes in what anyone posts. Carry on.

And I must have missed the post if you actually proposed something.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I appreciate you providing a link re: Australia gun violence. But I don't see where in the article it supports your view that the laws enacted in 1996 did not decrease gun violence. You chose an article from 2003, and from what I am reading in the article, it acknowledges that gun violence decreased in Australia but it might have been too early to attribute it to the laws. Further study was needed. That further study has since occurred, and the studies indicate that the laws led to a substantial decrease in gun violence.

At the end of the day, are you okay with the current levels of gun violence in the US? If not, what do you think should change?

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If you cannot tell that we are on the same side then there is not much more to discuss since you simply want to poke holes in what anyone posts. Carry on.

And I must have missed the post if you actually proposed something.

Asking what you are proposing is not poking a hole. I doubt we are on the 'same side' as you are upset I asked you the same question that you asked me. Carry on.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, argument by authority is not rational. I do not endorse it. A competing authority is always available. The massacre data does not suggest they are any less common after than before.

Am I okay with the levels of gun violence in the US? This is, frankly, the kind of rhetorical crap that gets tiring. Why do you only care about gun violence? Why is a shooting more tragic than a stabbing, besides that one has been politicized as a tool? People who do not agree with the gun control push do not support homicides. For the one hundredth time: I am against homicide. We all are. Nobody is okay with these events. I am against shootings. I am against stabbings. I am against it. Can we debate in basic good faith?


I do not see how criminalizing tens of millions of peaceful Americans exercising their constitutional rights makes any sense or accomplishes anything besides the benefit to one side of criminalizing the other side. A psycho who wants to murder a room of children does not care if the tool he uses is legal or illegal. I am against the left trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently, I am against the right trying to criminalize normal citizens who disagree with them and live differently. I do not blame millions of people for the actions of a single psycho. I do not think you can practically legislate away sin and evil (thousands of years of trying have produced no result still). I think the law should punish the guilty perpetrator, not half the country. I think we should look at our mental health problems and see what we can do to maybe reduce the number of people who reach this mental place effectively unsupervised (and gave 3 specific possible avenues off the top of my head earlier in this thread). This seems to be the actual problem. If anyone can finally tell me what "strengthening background checks" actually means I might endorse it; NICS already exists and is federal law which most who have brought it up in this thread apparently don't know. I am probably okay with a waiting period for a first firearm purchase. There is no evidence these actually accomplish anything, but it's not a huge deal.

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

I do not generally endorse continuing to cede constitutional rights and criminalizing normal gun owners or subsets of normal gun owners. Holding the other half of the country liable for a single psycho is a bastardization of law. I’ve said this since page 1. You might want to read the last few sentences though. I might endorse background check changes if anyone can actually tell me what they want to change, specifically (it’s hard to endorse a meaningless proposition that doesn’t specify what would change). If data suggests a waiting period helps, I’d endorse it for a first firearm purchase too.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not generally endorse continuing to cede constitutional rights and criminalizing normal gun owners or subsets of normal gun owners. Holding the other half of the country liable for a single psycho is a bastardization of law. I’ve said this since page 1. You might want to read the last few sentences though. I might endorse background check changes if anyone can actually tell me what they want to change, specifically (it’s hard to endorse a meaningless proposition that doesn’t specify what would change). If data suggests a waiting period helps, I’d endorse it for a first firearm purchase too.

Okay, at least you are considering some sort of reform. But considering that you seem to think data is some form authoritarianism, it doesn't sound like you will seriously listen to data.

You seem to have instead embraced what a lot folks have done--blame mental health. The problem with that stance of course, is that the same folks that blame mental health never want to fund it. There will always be crazy people, and we have made it extremely easy for them to get extremely dangerous guns. No amount of funding of mental health in the world is going to change that.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Sounds like you don't endorse any gun reform.

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'll pretend for a moment it was.

I would propose a compromise:
1. Raise the age limit on firearm purchase to 21 (as is/has been done with things like alcohol and tobacco) and require a proficiency exam that is reasonable to pass (as is done when getting a drivers' licence or permit to drive.)
2. Have 2 or 3 people in every school in this country, with firearm experience and having passed a training test, carrying at all times while in or near the school. Could be teachers, administrators, janitors, whatever.

Compromise because:
1. All agree, some people should not have firearms and maturity and gun safety are reasonable requirements.
2. All should recognize the obvious fact that when these incidents occur, and they always will because we have thousands and thousands of nuts walking around, they end when a good guy with a gun, who knows how to use it, uses it. The sooner the better, and on-site is much faster than phone calls for help, esp. in rural areas.

I'm tired of the gun being blamed. If there is an effort to restrict gun purchases, the compromise is an equal acknowledgement that guns in the right hands save lives.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'll pretend for a moment it was.

I would propose a compromise:
1. Raise the age limit on firearm purchase to 21 (as is/has been done with things like alcohol and tobacco) and require a proficiency exam that is reasonable to pass (as is done when getting a drivers' licence or permit to drive.)
2. Have 2 or 3 people in every school in this country, with firearm experience and having passed a training test, carrying at all times while in or near the school. Could be teachers, administrators, janitors, whatever.

Compromise because:
1. All agree, some people should not have firearms and maturity and gun safety are reasonable requirements.
2. All should recognize the obvious fact that when these incidents occur, and they always will because we have thousands and thousands of nuts walking around, they end when a good guy with a gun, who knows how to use it, uses it. The sooner the better, and on-site is much faster than phone calls for help, esp. in rural areas.

I'm tired of the gun being blamed. If there is an effort to restrict gun purchases, the compromise is an equal acknowledgement that guns in the right hands save lives.

I very much appreciate you trying to find some middle ground. I strongly agree with raising the age limit to 21--could really have an impact on reducing school and other shootings.

But the good guy with a gun theory is tricky. I realize this is just humorous, but I watched it the other night and it really changed my views:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCI4bUk4vuM

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

Asking what you are proposing is not poking a hole. I doubt we are on the 'same side' as you are upset I asked you the same question that you asked me. Carry on.

Read the room...I am not upset in the least. I have not really made any proposals other than longer waiting periods which could only help but as I suggested I think any meaningful discussion on what should be done needs to include a discussion of understanding how we got here.

Your many posts have been poking holes in others' suggestions or defending the 2nd amendment which is why I asked what you propose being done. I did not see where you proposed anything. Sorry if I missed it. I felt it was a fair question to ask you since you seem more than qualified to answer.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I very much appreciate you trying to find some middle ground. I strongly agree with raising the age limit to 21--could really have an impact on reducing school and other shootings.

But the good with a gun theory is tricky. I realize this is just humorous, but I watched it the other night and it really changed my views:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCI4bUk4vuM

I wasted a minute and a half watching that, but the guy is just being an ass.

Question for you: If good guys with guns isn't the answer, why do people call the police?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Okay, at least you are considering some sort of reform. But considering that you seem to think data is some form authoritarianism, it doesn't sound like you will seriously listen to data.

"some form authoritarianism". Mhm. I used a list of massacre events to see if they happened more or less after the event. You used an op-ed from a nutball who needs psychiatrist help with their power fantasies after handling a gun. I believe data is "form authoritarianism", whatever that even means. Mhm. Again, can you even attempt to debate in good faith as decent people who just disagree on an issue?

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You seem to have instead embraced what a lot folks have done--blame mental health. The problem with that stance of course, is that the same folks that blame mental health never want to fund it. There will always be crazy people, and we have made it extremely easy for them to get extremely dangerous guns. No amount of funding of mental health in the world is going to change that.

Yes. I don't see what else we would rationally blame, unless we believe a firearm is sentient and controls itself. When someone hangs themself, we don't blame the rope. When Rwanda's slaughtered a million people we didn't blame machetes. I cannot fathom why we would blame a tool instead.

No law is going to magically solve mental health. And no law will magically solve murders. There will always be crazy people, and we will never be able to control them all. It is a leftist view I have that I think we should spend more dollars on helping them. There will always be guns and bad guys don't give a darn what's legal and not. I notice you've made no proposition yourself at all while being unhappy about mine.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I wasted a minute and a half watching that, but the guy is just being an ass.

Question for you: If good guys with guns isn't the answer, why do people call the police?

I appreciate you even clicking on the link. It gets a little more serious at the end (not the host, but others).

I am not saying cops shouldn't be armed, but I fear that arming teachers in schools is tough one. Especially when there are kids with semiautomatic weapons. My wife is a middle school teacher, and we have discussed this issue quite a bit. Its a tough one.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'll pretend for a moment it was.

I would propose a compromise:
1. Raise the age limit on firearm purchase to 21 (as is/has been done with things like alcohol and tobacco) and require a proficiency exam that is reasonable to pass (as is done when getting a drivers' licence or permit to drive.)
2. Have 2 or 3 people in every school in this country, with firearm experience and having passed a training test, carrying at all times while in or near the school. Could be teachers, administrators, janitors, whatever.

Compromise because:
1. All agree, some people should not have firearms and maturity and gun safety are reasonable requirements.
2. All should recognize the obvious fact that when these incidents occur, and they always will because we have thousands and thousands of nuts walking around, they end when a good guy with a gun, who knows how to use it, uses it. The sooner the better, and on-site is much faster than phone calls for help, esp. in rural areas.

I'm tired of the gun being blamed. If there is an effort to restrict gun purchases, the compromise is an equal acknowledgement that guns in the right hands save lives.

I respect your proposals, but I would like to give an opinion about #2. Do you happen to work in a school? I do, and I hate the thought of arming janitors, admin, or, especially, me. I think being ready to use a gun is a huge responsibility, and I do not want it as "another" part of my job. If you are going to want people with guns in the schools, make them people who are only there to have a gun, like police. Also, I think the only way to be a feasible deterrent would be in the gun were always available. Admin can't be expected to run down the hall to their offices to unlock their gun in an emergency situation. So people (like our governor!) want me to be an armed teacher? What, with my gun in my holster all day?? No thank you.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not generally endorse continuing to cede constitutional rights and criminalizing normal gun owners or subsets of normal gun owners. Holding the other half of the country liable for a single psycho is a bastardization of law.

100% agreed.

Originally Posted by G1911

I might endorse background check changes if anyone can actually tell me what they want to change, specifically (it’s hard to endorse a meaningless proposition that doesn’t specify what would change).

So once again, please tell us what you specifically propose as acceptable changes? Instead your posts simply avoid from making suggestions and instead attack what others have proposed.

Originally Posted by G1911

If data suggests a waiting period helps, I’d endorse it for a first firearm purchase too.

I thought you stated that data you have data which suggests waiting times do not help except for crimes of passion?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I respect your proposals, but I would like to give an opinion about #2. Do you happen to work in a school? I do, and I hate the thought of arming janitors, admin, or, especially, me. I think being ready to use a gun is a huge responsibility, and I do not want it as "another" part of my job. If you are going to want people with guns in the schools, make them people who are only there to have a gun, like police. Also, I think the only way to be a feasible deterrent would be in the gun were always available. Admin can't be expected to run down the hall to their offices to unlock their gun in an emergency situation. So people (like our governor!) want me to be an armed teacher? What, with my gun in my holster all day?? No thank you.

+1

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I wasted a minute and a half watching that, but the guy is just being an ass.

Question for you: If good guys with guns isn't the answer, why do people call the police?

Also, while Klepper is a comedian doing a comedy show, he does make points. Please go back to the video and watch at 6:17 for another minute and a half. 3% doesn't sound impressive to me.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Read the room...I am not upset in the least. I have not really made any proposals other than longer waiting periods which could only help but as I suggested I think any meaningful discussion on what should be done needs to include a discussion of understanding how we got here.

Your many posts have been poking holes in others' suggestions or defending the 2nd amendment which is why I asked what you propose being done. I did not see where you proposed anything. Sorry if I missed it. I felt it was a fair question to ask you since you seem more than qualified to answer.

Without being too specific politically because of the site rules, that has been alluded to in posts more than once in this thread, included 1 or 2 of mine.