Gun ownership poll

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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

Mass shootings are my concern. I readily admit that. I don’t see how the prevalence of non-mass shooting gun violence cuts against “my side.” To the contrary, I would think it supports “my side.”

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Mass shootings are my concern. I readily admit that. I don’t see how the prevalence of non-mass shooting gun violence cuts against “my side.” To the contrary, I would think it supports “my side.”

They are so few and far between with so few people involved compared to other shootings it makes zero sense to focus on them. or maybe I couldn't care less about this subject and like reading silly to me responses.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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

I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?

Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

They most certainly do not.

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

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.

Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle and bring it to school. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?

The hero in the mall was just 22 years old. Just curious, how do you correlate depressed and troubled with age?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

It is incredibly obvious that the 'bad guy' in these discussions and scenarios is the person murdering innocent people . It's very, very, very simple. The good guy is the person taking action to stop the massacre of innocent people.

If one cannot identify who at the mall was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', well...

EDIT: For the 5,000th time they cannot legally purchase an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is an actual object with an actual meaning.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The hero in the mall was just 22 years old. Just curious, how do you correlate depressed and troubled with age?

What? I am just saying that troubled/depressed kids exist. But because they are law abiding, they can buy an assault rifle (without a considerable waiting period). This does not seem wise to me.

And I'm not asking the age limit to be 22, so I am not really sure how your comment is relevant.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

they can buy an assault rifle (without a considerable waiting period).

5,001: They factually cannot buy an assault rifle. They and the seller will go to federal prison for a very, very long time.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is incredibly obvious that the 'bad guy' in these discussions and scenarios is the person murdering innocent people . It's very, very, very simple. The good guy is the person taking action to stop the massacre of innocent people.

If one cannot identify who at the mall was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', well...

EDIT: For the 5,000th time they cannot legally purchase an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is an actual object with an actual meaning.

A lot of people consider the AR-15 a weapon of war. If it's not technically an assault rifle, then my apologies. Either way, I really don't understand why an 18 year old can buy one.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.

I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

5,001: They factually cannot buy an assault rifle. They and the seller will go to federal prison for a very, very long time.

Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

A lot of people consider the AR-15 a weapon of war. If it's not technically an assault rifle, then my apologies. Either way, I really don't understand why an 18 year old can buy one.

There is not a single military force in the entire world using an AR-15 like civilians in the US may purchase. Semi-auto .223's are not used by any military. They never have been. That some find this false branding helpful to their argument does not make it true. This one is just plain factually wrong, yet again.

This one element so difficult in these debates. All of the knowledge is on one side, it's like arguing evolution with a creationist; they just do not know what they are talking about and are factually wrong over and over.

[Deertick]

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.

You guys are truly hilarious.

Being able to buy an AR-15 on your 18th birthday is not that funny though.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.

Apparently it would be easier, just the most basic of points on the subject, they refuse to learn, even though it sinks their argument from the get go. 'Indisputable Mechanical Facts About The Basic Function Of The Most Common Guns 101' is evidently a difficult course.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Would you be interested in teaching the aspecs of thermonuclear fusion to my dog? It would be easier.

Hahaha. Agree - it’s like trying to teach older white men about social progress.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You guys are truly hilarious.

Being able to buy an AR-15 on your 18th birthday is not that funny though.

Don’t worry, they will send their thoughts and prayers when we have a mass shooting.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

Again, gang members and other various criminals and murderers will have no problem arming themselves on the black market.

If a politician proposed what you just did, they'd certainly get the Crip and Bloods vote.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

Didn't you just say single incidents weren't valid to prove a greater point? That was the first logical thing you'd said all thread, besides your first post where you had a completely different view.

Originally Posted by Carter08

If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.

I don't believe anyone has made a case they want a gun to overthrow the state. That the government can murder us all with aircraft does not seem relevant to any point anyone has actually made. Sure, my AR-15 would be useless if the government decided to carpet bomb my state.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

Security clearance? I feel like that is probably not what you actually meant.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Hahaha. Agree - it’s like trying to teach older white men about social progress.

Sounds racist and ageist.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sounds racist and ageist.

Yes but is it really any sillier than the majority of his posts?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

I think I'm in for the most part. Sounds kind of like Switzerland: https://www.businessinsider.com/swit...hs-2018-2?op=1

[Deertick]

Life in prison for anyone selling "blackmarket" Buybacks and bounties. Existing possession is grandfathered contingent on meeting requirements.

Again, if you meet the requirements, any individual can have a CCP.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Didn't you just say single incidents weren't valid to prove a greater point? That was the first logical thing you'd said all thread, besides your first post where you had a completely different view.




I don't believe anyone has made a case they want a gun to overthrow the state. That the government can murder us all with aircraft does not seem relevant to any point anyone has actually made. Sure, my AR-15 would be useless if the government decided to carpet bomb my state.

Here’s where we can engage. I feel like the right to have weapons is meant to protect you and the citizens of whatever state you are in from a rogue federal government/federal leader more than it is to protect you from the fellow citizens of your own state. No?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Yes but is it really any sillier than the majority of his posts?

No - he's an actual troll. Everyone else is a least serious, even if they refuse to learn the most basic facts about the subject they are passionate about.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

Security clearance? I feel like that is probably not what you actually meant.

I meant similar requirements, minus the credit score, lol

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Here’s where we can engage. I feel like the right to have weapons is meant to protect you and the citizens of whatever state you are in from a rogue federal government/federal leader more than it is to protect you from the fellow citizens of your own state. No?

It was the largest concern when the 2nd was written, and a driving one as the text makes clear. It was not the only one; the founders certainly believed very much in a natural born right to defend one's family and hearth, and to hunt.

Nobody here is threatening to use them against a rogue state, or saying they will/would. Few of the pro-gun comments have stated what specifically they own or why, I think bnorth did; none imply this. Civilian's are not using their 5.56's against aircraft, they are using them mostly for sport and home defense (to which the AR is particularly well suited), some for hunting.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

No - he's an actual troll. Everyone else is a least serious, even if they refuse to learn the most basic facts about the subject they are passionate about.

Again, you both raise poor responses to actual points. Sigh. God bless America nevertheless.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I meant similar requirements, minus the credit score, lol

Credit score doesn't change it much, the other requirements and the mandatory insurance would seem to eliminate the less affluent from having them under this plan.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Again, you both raise poor responses to actual points. Sigh. God bless America nevertheless.

You had a good, thoughtful response before you changed your position to troll.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

It was the largest concern when the 2nd was written, and a driving one as the text makes clear. It was not the only one; the founders certainly believed very much in a natural born right to defend one's family and hearth, and to hunt.

Nobody here is threatening to use them against a rogue state, or saying they will/would. Few of the pro-gun comments have stated what specifically they own or why, I think bnorth did; none imply this. Civilian's are not using their 5.56's against aircraft, they are using them mostly for sport and home defense (to which the AR is particularly well suited), some for hunting.

Is it really needed for home defense I think is they question many of us are asking. Because it seems to be used an awful many times for mass shootings.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

You had a good, thoughtful response before you changed your position to troll.

When I disagree with you you then say I am trolling. Quit that junk. This is a serious issue. My initial posts stated the worst outcome would be to leave law abiding citizens defenseless against bad guys with guns. Still feel that way. The entrenched nature of your position is rough though.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Is it really needed for home defense I think is they question many of us are asking. Because it seems to be used an awful many times for mass shootings.

A civilian AR-15 is the best tech of the 1960's, and then neutered down to comply with bans. Rifles are rarely used in crime, but the majority of rifles these days are AR variants. It's like the Honda Civic of rifles, it's not particularly great but it is ubiquitous, and once something is the standard it is difficult to unseat it.

No single firearm is necessary for home defense, there are many other firearms in the same caliber with the same capacity. Rifles of this type are well-suited to home defense, because of their lack of firepower. The ballistics of 5.56 minimize danger to neighbors, the energy is dumped faster than most other rounds. The light recoil, because of the lack of power, makes it easier to manage than other cartridges for people who do not put in thousands and thousands of rounds of practice. The AR is usually selected over other 5.56 options because parts are everywhere and made by everybody. It's been the civilian standard for over 30 years. It has numerous downsides as well as the upsides, but its downsides aren't things particularly important in a home defense situation.

My home defense rifle is an AR for these reasons; there are better platforms overall or for other purposes.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by Frank A

It seems like nobody wants to hear this shit, but we need the draft back. An 18 year old still does not have a finished brain. The military helps it function properly in the long run. The service makes men out of boys. But God forbid we can't do that to the young men of today. They are babies and brought up spoiled and useless. God help this country, it's going down the drain.

Quite possibly one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on here.

1) I’m curious if you’ve ever served and, if so, if you ever left the wire and saw combat in any way, shape, or form. An 18 year old doesn’t have a finished brain? You’re right. So let’s go give them some shell shock!

2) Hardly anybody who volunteers wants to serve in a potential combat situation with somebody who never wanted to be there in the first place, worried that the drafted won’t have their back.

3) Makes men out of boys? To a degree, yes. It can also bring high rates of suicide, homelessness, and PTSD. “We love our veterans (During voting season anyway)!” But yes, let’s force people into that. And for what?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

There is not a single military force in the entire world using an AR-15 like civilians in the US may purchase. Semi-auto .223's are not used by any military. They never have been. That some find this false branding helpful to their argument does not make it true. This one is just plain factually wrong, yet again.

This one element so difficult in these debates. All of the knowledge is on one side, it's like arguing evolution with a creationist; they just do not know what they are talking about and are factually wrong over and over.

For all of your knowledge, I haven't found any of your arguments against gun reform convincing.

Please enlighten me as to how it is a good idea for an 18 year old to be able to buy an AR-15 the day they turn 18?