Is this just our New Normal?

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

It's a legitimate question. The poster equated owning lots of guns to owning lots of china. I know why people own different sets of china. I don't know why people think guns are cool. I think the analogy is stupid. So the question is, why do people think owning guns is cool? Why do people think owning multiple ways of terrorizing and killing people is cool?

 

Gee, I wonder why we can't have a civil conversation about this topic...<sarcasm>.  

 

Why don't you contact the Albuquerque police and ask them? They used multiple ways to terrorize and kill this guy.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/james-boyd-killed-by-cops_n_5021117.html

[Aura]

I think Caroline's question isn't totally unreasonable.  I don't think everyone who owns guns thinks terrorizing and killing people is cool, but there is definitely a culture of promoting violence as cool and fun.  Even if that is in the form of fantasy why do people like this stuff?  I often wonder that myself.  I don't like it at all.

 

We even give toy guns to children.  So they grow up with the thought that guns are toys.  Or if they don't, how do you make sure they don't grow up with the thought that guns are toys?  I think that's impossible.

 

I don't understand. Are you saying that toy guns are responsible for an increase in violence?

[Word Nerd]

I don't think everyone who owns guns thinks terrorizing and killing people is cool,

 

How magnanimous of you!

[Aura]

I do agree more rules probably won't completely solve the problem.  If someone is that hell bent on hurting people, they will find a way to do it.  Although I do think guns make that easier.  For example, why does it not raise red flags when someone buys a lot of guns in a short period of time?  Even if one is an avid gun collector or hobby shooter, why would they suddenly decide to buy tons of ammunition?  Just cuz?  KWIM?

 

Then again, we treat people with suspicion about everything and I don't like that either. 

 

So there is no easy answer.

Are you sure it doesn't? Around here, from what I hear from family members who do have guns, it's nearly impossible to do this, anyway.

 

But over-all, I agree with you. There is no easy answer. And I'm cautious with what seems like an easy answer because often that leads to worse problems.

[TracyP]

It's a legitimate question. The poster equated owning lots of guns to owning lots of china. I know why people own different sets of china. I don't know why people think guns are cool. I think the analogy is stupid. So the question is, why do people think owning guns is cool? Why do people think owning multiple ways of terrorizing and killing people is cool?

 

I don't understand why one would own multiple sets of china. Care to explain?

 

I am totally unimpressed by guns, but my brother is a cop and he LOVES his guns. He will tell you their history, their use, their pros and cons. He's a fabulous guy. I'm pretty sure he never terrorizes anyone. :)

 

I support stricter gun laws, but I can't get on board with the gun control people because they make comments like the bolded. I grew up with guns, but they were used for hunting for food and to scare coyotes away from the calves. I have never held a gun with intent of hurting a person. Never. 

 

I believe this is why a constructive conversation never happens. I know many gun owners who would support a complete ban on automatic weapons, but it is hard for them to join sides with those who have so much disdain for gun owners. So around and around we go.

[goldberry]

Making more rules against guns, etc. seems like a band-aid reaction to me. I think it's easy to blame guns, when they're the instrument being used, but I don't think the problem is the instrument. I think the problem lies in the people, and I think these people would just find another way to cause harm.

 

Would greater regulation really address the cause of violence against kids and in schools? I don't think so. The people that are most dangerous around guns are not going to follow the laws anyway, and there are always going to be ways to get your hands on illegal whatever.

 

 

 

The problem is that the "causes" are so varied, you stand a much greater chance of decreasing opportunity rather than addressing  all those different causes.  No, it will never *solve* the problem.  But it has been *shown* to decrease the incidence of occurance.  That's good enough for me and much better than nothing.

 

 

 

Gee, I wonder why we can't have a civil conversation about this topic...<sarcasm>.  

 

Why don't you contact the Albuquerque police and ask them? They used multiple ways to terrorize and kill this guy.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/james-boyd-killed-by-cops_n_5021117.html

 

That's a very sad and awful thing.  I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion though.

[goldberry]

I didn't say that.  I'm pointing to the culture of treating violence as fun. 

 

Another example...pirates.  Kids pretending to be pirates.  I don't think they will grow up to be pirates or bad people for playing pirates, but if you think about it, they are essentially pretending to be robbers and murders who operate on the sea.  What would you think if your kid started pretending to play pimp and drug dealer?  I mean, it's just a game right?  That's hardly even an extreme example.  Not more crazy than sea robber and murder.

 

I thought I was weird because when the whole Pirates of the Caribean craze started, I was kind of creeped out by it.  After studying what real pirates did and do, it seemed odd to make it into something looking so appealing.  It's definitely a little disturbing.

[Aura]

I didn't say that.  I'm pointing to the culture of treating violence as fun. 

 

Another example...pirates.  Kids pretending to be pirates.  I don't think they will grow up to be pirates or bad people for playing pirates, but if you think about it, they are essentially pretending to be robbers and murders who operate on the sea.  What would you think if your kid started pretending to play pimp and drug dealer?  I mean, it's just a game right?  That's hardly even an extreme example.  Not more crazy than sea robber and murder.

Okay. I understand what you're saying. I guess I don't really have a problem with pretend play like that. I don't equate any games or toys with treating violence as fun, per se. I think role-playing, even in the examples you gave, can help kids to learn to identify "bad" and "good," and it also helps them to learn to follow rules. 

 

So while I would cringe if my kids tried to play pimp or drug dealer, at the typical age of role-playing like that, they doubtfully have a full grasp of what either really means. I might have one of *those* talks, but I wouldn't be worried about them becoming either a pimp or a drug dealer.

 

The real problem is when kids don't learn that there are "bad" roles and "good" roles. In other words, it's not the games or the toys, it's what is acceptable in the child's environment. If real violence is acceptable or expected, the kid will be more likely to resort to violence. If real violence is unacceptable, the kid learns that, too. "Games are okay. Toys are okay. Hurting your brother or sister is not okay. I don't care what you were playing."

[Caroline]

Sure. I own four sets of china. I own my every day china, which gets used every day. I own Chrisss china, which is used between Thanksgiving and New Years. I own regular good china, which is used for fancy occasions. I own my grandmother's china, which is used rarely because it had to be hand washed. The rest are dishwasher safe. None have ever been used to kill someone.

 

Why are guns cool? The poster listed multiple guns that are used to kill people. And only people. You don't use a hand gun to shoot meat.

 

The conversation doesn't happen because you took me saying guns to terrorize and kill people to mean I didn't know what I was talking about. But I did.

 

I don't understand why one would own multiple sets of china. Care to explain?

 

I am totally unimpressed by guns, but my brother is a cop and he LOVES his guns. He will tell you their history, their use, their pros and cons. He's a fabulous guy. I'm pretty sure he never terrorizes anyone. :)

 

I support stricter gun laws, but I can't get on board with the gun control people because they make comments like the bolded. I grew up with guns, but they were used for hunting for food and to scare coyotes away from the calves. I have never held a gun with intent of hurting a person. Never.

 

I believe this is why a constructive conversation never happens. I know many gun owners who would support a complete ban on automatic weapons, but it is hard for them to join sides with those who have so much disdain for gun owners. So around and around we go.

[Joanne]

Seems like a lot of these are associated with psychotropic drugs. Whether that's causative is anyone's guess.

 

The violent games can only be assessed if you select for percentage of teens and young adult males who play. As a mom of 2 of those and a school administrator for more, I would say that in America, the % is close to 100. So it would be like saying "what these killers have in common is brushing their teeth" or "eating French fries".

 

The psychotropics are a bit more complicated. My guess is that the drugs are unrelated but the etiology behind needing the drugs or seeking the drugs is related to the shooting (or plans to do something).

[TracyP]

Sure. I own four sets of china. I own my every day china, which gets used every day. I own Chrisss china, which is used between Thanksgiving and New Years. I own regular good china, which is used for fancy occasions. I own my grandmother's china, which is used rarely because it had to be hand washed. The rest are dishwasher safe. None have ever been used to kill someone.

 

 

 

I have one set of china, which seems like plenty to me. It seems like for you each set serves a particular use for a different situation. That is actually very close to the gun analogy.

 

Why are guns cool? The poster listed multiple guns that are used to kill people. And only people. You don't use a hand gun to shoot meat.

 

It is true that you don't use a handgun to shoot meat, but a handgun is just as useful as a rifle when you are trying to scare critters away from your livestock.

 

The conversation doesn't happen because you took me saying guns to terrorize and kill people to mean I didn't know what I was talking about. But I did.

 

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you are saying here.

 

I have one reason for posting. You could sum it up as: you collect more flies with honey than vinegar. Somewhere between 32-50% of Americans own guns. Offending them isn't the best way to get them to support stricter gun laws.

 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I could come up with ways to do it and I don't own a single gun. And I live in a state with more regulation than most.

 

Every store that sells ammo in my state limited the purchaser to 2 or 3 boxes and the shelves are frequently empty of popular cartridges (22LR).

[Aura]

Every store that sells ammo in my state limited the purchaser to 2 or 3 boxes and the shelves are frequently empty of popular cartridges (22LR).

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There are limits in place now, often by the stores themselves, even the ones that cater to gun owners. And you have to show ID to purchase guns. I'm not saying stock-piling isn't possible. I'm just saying that for those that are determined to do so, more regulations isn't going to stop them.

[Trish]

I didn't say that.  I'm pointing to the culture of treating violence as fun. 

 

Another example...pirates.  Kids pretending to be pirates.  I don't think they will grow up to be pirates or bad people for playing pirates, but if you think about it, they are essentially pretending to be robbers and murders who operate on the sea.  What would you think if your kid started pretending to play pimp and drug dealer?  I mean, it's just a game right?  That's hardly even an extreme example.  Not more crazy than sea robber and murder.

 

I've wondered this at times. Pirates have such a romantic image, when the reality was pretty harsh. What if Disney had a ride named "Drug Dealers of Newark?"

 

Maybe in 100 years, they will!

[SadieMarie]

I don't understand why one would own multiple sets of china. Care to explain?

 

I am totally unimpressed by guns, but my brother is a cop and he LOVES his guns. He will tell you their history, their use, their pros and cons. He's a fabulous guy. I'm pretty sure he never terrorizes anyone. :)

 

I support stricter gun laws, but I can't get on board with the gun control people because they make comments like the bolded. I grew up with guns, but they were used for hunting for food and to scare coyotes away from the calves. I have never held a gun with intent of hurting a person. Never.

 

I believe this is why a constructive conversation never happens. I know many gun owners who would support a complete ban on automatic weapons, but it is hard for them to join sides with those who have so much disdain for gun owners. So around and around we go.

But the same is true for gun advocates. The most extreme voices

become the face to those of us who think guns and our current laws are PART of the problem. And it is hard to take gun owners seriously when you hear what some of them, the loudest usually, are saying and when you see the way they behave.

 

I grew up around guns too. My father and brothers hunted. My SIL is an avid hunter. My uncle bought a gun after a home invasion robbery where he was tied to a chair and beaten very badly. He lived alone in a rural area. After that he bought a handgun, not an assault rifle, and he didn't feel the need to wear it openly everywhere he went as some sort of show to intimidate people. He bought what he needed to protect himself. And thankfully he never needed to use it.

[TracyP]

But the same is true for gun advocates. The most extreme voices image.jpg

become the face to those of us who think guns and our current laws are PART of the problem. And it is hard to take gun owners seriously when you hear what some of them, the loudest usually, are saying and when you see the way they behave.

 

 

 

I agree. Completely. I hate that those people are the face of gun advocates. I hate that the NRA is the face of gun advocates. These are not the gun owners I know.

 

I grew up around guns too. My father and brothers hunted. My SIL is an avid hunter. My uncle bought a gun after a home invasion robbery where he was tied to a chair and beaten very badly. He lived alone in a rural area. After that he bought a handgun, not an assault rifle, and he didn't feel the need to wear it openly everywhere he went as some sort of show to intimidate people. He bought what he needed to protect himself. And thankfully he never needed to use it.

 

 

I don't like to get involved in these conversations because I support stricter gun laws and a complete ban on assault rifles. I also support the right of gun owners to own multiple guns of whatever type they like (with the aforementioned exception). This means I make pretty much everybody mad on a message board. :tongue_smilie: BUT I know a lot of people IRL who feel the same as me. If these "middle-grounders" could be reached, some common sense laws could be enacted.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I agree. Completely. I hate that those people are the face of gun advocates. I hate that the NRA is the face of gun advocates. These are not the gun owners I know.

 

 

I don't like to get involved in these conversations because I support stricter gun laws and a complete ban on assault rifles. I also support the right of gun owners to own multiple guns of whatever type they like (with the aforementioned exception). This means I make pretty much everybody mad on a message board. :tongue_smilie: BUT I know a lot of people IRL who feel the same as me. If these "middle-grounders" could be reached, some common sense laws could be enacted.

 

 

What is your definition of an assault rifle?  I'm very curious about your position since you are not against someone owning multiple guns of other types.  Rifles, in which assault rifles are a subset, were cited in 322 gun-related deaths in 2012.  The use of handguns in gun-related deaths was 6,371 in 2012.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Do any of these statistics change your view?

[mathnerd]

 

Would greater regulation really address the cause of violence against kids and in schools? I don't think so. The people that are most dangerous around guns are not going to follow the laws anyway, and there are always going to be ways to get your hands on illegal whatever.

 

I disagree -  if automatic weapons were illegal, a teen is not going to easily buy an AR-15 rifle (which is what the Sandyhook and Oregon shooters used) to shoot up other kids just because he was angry and wanted to kill a few people. It takes money (thousands of $$$ for illegal arms) and planning and a lot of stealth and a lot of time to buy these things illegally. The situation today seems to be to steal your dad's "recreational assault rifle" and ammo and stuff them into a guitar case and go and shoot up the whole school.

 

If ARs are banned, I am not worried about gangsters and smugglers who will illegally procure assault rifles anyway - there are several government agencies to police illegal activity.

[goldberry]

I agree. Completely. I hate that those people are the face of gun advocates. I hate that the NRA is the face of gun advocates. These are not the gun owners I know.

 

 

I don't like to get involved in these conversations because I support stricter gun laws and a complete ban on assault rifles. I also support the right of gun owners to own multiple guns of whatever type they like (with the aforementioned exception). This means I make pretty much everybody mad on a message board. :tongue_smilie: BUT I know a lot of people IRL who feel the same as me. If these "middle-grounders" could be reached, some common sense laws could be enacted.

 

Sounds like a vocal minority problem.  There are probably more middle grounders on both sides than the extremists would like us to know about.  Who represents the middle ground right now?  Nobody it seems...

[SadieMarie]

Sounds like a vocal minority problem. There are probably more middle grounders on both sides than the extremists would like us to know about. Who represents the middle ground right now? Nobody it seems...

This is true in so many areas, not just guns.

[Catwoman]

We even give toy guns to children. So they grow up with the thought that guns are toys. Or if they don't, how do you make sure they don't grow up with the thought that guns are toys? I think that's impossible.

When I was growing up, all the kids had toy guns, including the girls. Cap guns, water guns, guns that made noise, whatever. And we all knew they were toys and none of us grew up believing that real guns were toys.

 

I think a kid would have to have some sort of existing psychological problem where he couldn't separate fantasy from reality if he grew up without realizing that real guns aren't toys.

 

That said, I have never lived in a place where people were allowed to carry guns without special (and difficult to obtain) permits, and that's just the way I like it. :)

[Catwoman]

I never had a toy gun.

 

My husband did not either.

I wonder where we get our opinions from. LOL

 

I agree totally on the last part.

 

I see kids around here running around with realistic toy guns. Stuff that I wouldn't know if it was real or not. I don't mean the bright pink and green and orange guns. I mean black...large...and realistic looking. I don't like that. And these days I wouldn't be surprised (around here) if a cop wouldn't pull his gun if he came upon a kid roaming around with one.

I don't like the super-realistic-looking guns, either. Aren't they supposed to have orange tips on the barrels or something? I would think it could be dangerous for a kid to be running around a public park or on the street with a gun that looked very realistic.

[Catwoman]

I saw one the other day and I was like wow...what is that thing..it looks real. I didn't see any orange.

 

Of course if you are going to say orange tip...what's to stop someone from painting a real gun with some orange and trying to pass it off as a toy?

I have wondered about that, too!!!

[shawthorne44]

But the way I see that explanation is like saying I can appreciate an electric chair as an object.  Or I can appreciate a crack pipe as an object.  I associate it with such a base thing (killing) that it's hard for me to see it as anything other than an instrument for killing.  Because at the end of the day, aside from sport shooting, it is intended to kill animals or people. 

 

 

Lots of people would truly rather die or have their family be killed (or something really bad happen), then kill someone, even a bad person.  That is a completely valid and admirable viewpoint, and people that think that shouldn't have a gun. You don't want to provide the gun that shoots you.  But, I don't think that.  I see them as something that would help me defend myself and my family.  Period.  That is my only reason.  I do not think that is a base thing.  

 

I remember hearing about a court case where a woman defended herself with a gun.  Someone attacked her in the street and tried to drag her off to a second crime scene.  She shot the person, and he later died.  While waiting for the police/ambulance to arrive she took great care of her gun.  Even going so far as to find a paper bag in the trash and setting the gun on the bag when she set it down on the ground because she didn't want the gun scratched.  The other side of the court case tried to make a big to-do about it that she was a cold-blooded killer because a guy was bleeding out while she was getting that paper bag.  But, it was explained by the expert that to her, the gun was the reason she wasn't at that very moment being raped and murdered.  Therefore it was deserving of great respect.  That makes total and complete sense to me.  

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

There is Internet, gun shows, going to a neighboring state with less regulation to buy more, etc.

 

The limit is not based on any regulation, but an inability of the manufacturers to meet the increase in demand.  People are buying it up as fast as the manufacturers can make it.

 

FWIW, the cartridge that I cited  (LR22) is not readily available in unlimited amounts ANYWHERE (including gun shows, internet and on-line retailers).  Again, it's got nothing to do with regulation - and everything to do with demand.

 

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/10/20/is-the-obama-administration-the-cause-of-gun-ammunition-shortages/

[Mama Geek]

I walked into a restaurant that just happened to be in an area where there was a gun rally, the restaurant was open to having them as customers.  I was completely safe, the only thing that could have made it turn bad was if the government came in with guns blazing.  There were cops, bikers, cowboys, and just normal everyday people there.  Nobody was mad, nobody was crazy, they were just normal people taking a stand.  I have lived in smaller cities mostly in the south, but also in Colorado and Alaska and have been around lots of people with guns and also people that conceal carry.  I have never been the least bit uncomfortable.  

 

I remember when living in Alaska in the big city a young kid was kidnapped from a family picnic by someone that the family knew.  There were 5 times as many citizens with guns in the search party as there were cops.  They were found and the kid was returned to mom within 3 hours and no one was killed.

[Leav97]

Will a small handgun suffice for protection?  Maybe, maybe not.  It could very easily take more than one bullet to stop a criminal before they could harm you.  In my gun safety class they said that someone with a knife 10 feet away can kill you even if you have a gun pointed at them.  They might die, but who cares?  Also, someone protecting themselves is unlikely to be very accurate.  I would much much rather have plenty of bullets loaded than to shoot and miss at a bad guy and then run out of bullets.  

 

As far as quantity of firearms, some people just think they are cool and they like to have a variety.  If someone wants to have a lightweight 22 rifle, and an early Smith and Wesson revolver, and a rifle that uses black powder, and a Glock with a 14-magazine, and a tiny titanium automatic, i won't knock anyone else because of it anymore than I would have a problem with someone having multiple China sets.  

 

This is actually part of the problem.  Being hurt by your own gun or accidentally shooting someone you love, are very real problems.  On of the local ministers ended up shooting his own granddaughter.  She was living with them. He woke up and heard her coming in the back door.  Assumed it was a burglar and shot her twice.

 

How many people are trained well enough to really handle an emergency? Do you want untrained people carrying a weapon around your children?

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I disagree -  if automatic weapons were illegal, a teen is not going to easily buy an AR-15 rifle (which is what the Sandyhook and Oregon shooters used) to shoot up other kids just because he was angry and wanted to kill a few people. It takes money (thousands of $$$ for illegal arms) and planning and a lot of stealth and a lot of time to buy these things illegally. The situation today seems to be to steal your dad's "recreational assault rifle" and ammo and stuff them into a guitar case and go and shoot up the whole school.

 

If ARs are banned, I am not worried about gangsters and smugglers who will illegally procure assault rifles anyway - there are several government agencies to police illegal activity.

 

Automatic weapons (i.e, machine guns) haven't been manufactured since 1986.  The ARE very expensive because of their limited availability.  Everyone manufactured has a serial number issued by and registered to the ATF.  So, in a way, their are limited and owned by a very few. 

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

Neither of these teens purchased their AR-15s.  It's illegal for them to due to their ages.  

 

I am curious, are you proposing that just AR-15's be banned or all "assault-rifles"?  If you want "assault-rifles" banned, what is your definition of one?  What will become of all the  "assault rifles" in circulation?  What makes an assault rifle more dangerous than a hunting rifle?  You are aware that people hunt with AR-15s and other military-style rifles, right?

[ktgrok]

I truly wish there could be real dialogue on this issue.

 

I am a liberal democrat and dh and I are definitely pacifists. Yet I have never once suggested that gun ownership be banned in the United States. I grew up on a horse farm and my dad had guns stored in a cellar. He didn't hunt and he didn't shoot for fun, but he did have to put down injured animals. For me, guns had a practical, not glamorous purpose. They were also there for personal protection as we lived far out enough that emergency services would take a while to respond.

 

In our current circle of friends, I can think of only one person that wants a nation-wide ban on guns. So I am curious to know the real numbers across the country. If we took the media, the NRA, and the armament industry out of the conversation for a bit, would we find there is more common ground than we know?

 

Gun controls? I might want a few, but to know what I want, I would need to ask some questions because I am not a gun enthusiast or owner so there are things I don't understand. Like, if I want to volunteer in a school or chaperone our regatta team, I have to undergo a background check. I also had to do that when I was licensed to sell real estate. Why is getting a background check to own a gun problematic?  Because my experience with guns is from a practical aspect, I do not understand the need to own assault rifles. What would be the realistic situation where one would be necessary?

 

I am looking for genuine answers, not "It's my God-given American right to own an AK-whatever because it makes me feel powerful, manly, sexy at the shooting range." If you trivialize the deaths of first graders and stalk and threaten to rape and kill opponents as Open Carry Texas is doing, then I cannot hear what you say.

 

So talk to me, please. If you are more comfortable doing so in a pm, please do. 

 

First - I agree with you. I think there is a ton of common ground. 

 

As for why assault rifles, the main answer is that if, some day, some crazy thing happened where rebellion was needed (and honestly, this seems slightly less kooky given the amount of current politicians running on a theocratic platform), assault rifles would be needed. They also have a home protection purpose, in the sense that they require less skill to use in some ways. 

 

that said, I think we need to have county or state militias. If you want a gun you have to join the militia. Officers are voted on. Everyone has a background check and psych eval before joining. You have to do a minimum number of hours of training with the group every year. That would, if nothing else, put you around people who might notice you are a total wacko. You wouldn't be able to be a hermit and avoid the scrutiny of the public. 

[goldberry]

I walked into a restaurant that just happened to be in an area where there was a gun rally, the restaurant was open to having them as customers.  I was completely safe, the only thing that could have made it turn bad was if the government came in with guns blazing.  There were cops, bikers, cowboys, and just normal everyday people there.  Nobody was mad, nobody was crazy, they were just normal people taking a stand.  I have lived in smaller cities mostly in the south, but also in Colorado and Alaska and have been around lots of people with guns and also people that conceal carry.  I have never been the least bit uncomfortable.  

 

I remember when living in Alaska in the big city a young kid was kidnapped from a family picnic by someone that the family knew.  There were 5 times as many citizens with guns in the search party as there were cops.  They were found and the kid was returned to mom within 3 hours and no one was killed.

 

I don't think I understand the point of your post....?

the only thing that could have made it turn bad was if the government came in with guns blazing   I don't think that's accurate.  Any number of things that can happen in any restaurant, or bar, or parking lot (domestic, road rage, drunken testosterone display) ANY of those things could have escalated with guns involved.  The government blazing in was probably the least likely possibility.  Yes, I am sure they were just normal people taking a stand.  But normal people do stupid things in the heat of the moment all the time.  They can usually be made worse by a gun being involved. (or by being naked, but that's another thread ;)

 

Take the guy in the movie theater who was mad at the other person texting or whatever and shot him.  No guns = fist fight, coke thrown in someone's face, security removing all parties....no one dead in other words. 

 

As for your search story..how is that supposed to relate?  Do you believe they were found earlier because of searchers carrying guns?

[goldberry]

Automatic weapons (i.e, machine guns) haven't been manufactured since 1986.  The ARE very expensive because of their limited availability.  Everyone manufactured has a serial number issued by and registered to the ATF.  So, in a way, their are limited and owned by a very few. 

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

Neither of these teens purchased their AR-15s.  It's illegal for them to due to their ages.  

 

I am curious, are you proposing that just AR-15's be banned or all "assault-rifles"?  If you want "assault-rifles" banned, what is your definition of one?  What will become of all the  "assault rifles" in circulation?  What makes an assault rifle more dangerous than a hunting rifle?  You are aware that people hunt with AR-15s and other military-style rifles, right?

 

You clearly know a lot about guns, and I will readily admit that I don't.  So in other countries that have banned "semi-automatic" "self-loading rifles and shotguns", and "pump action longarms"...supposedly those were banned because they were more likely to be used in multiple shootings (I take that to mean those weapons make it easier to shoot multiple people quickly). 

 

Are those types of weapons that would be necessary to people using them for other purposes?  For example, would a hunter need a self-loading or semiautomatic weapon in order to engage in hunting? 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Ah ok

Well I would have no clue about that since I've never bought anything like that.  I've just heard there are many avenues to buy guns outside of the laws and regulations.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but your original statement came across as if you were stating a fact.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Ah ok

Well I would have no clue about that since I've never bought anything like that.  I've just heard there are many avenues to buy guns outside of the laws and regulations.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but your original statement came across as if you were stating a fact.

[In2why]

It's a legitimate question. The poster equated owning lots of guns to owning lots of china. I know why people own different sets of china. I don't know why people think guns are cool. I think the analogy is stupid. So the question is, why do people think owning guns is cool? Why do people think owning multiple ways of terrorizing and killing people is cool?

 

They aren't cool toys, they are tools.  We own rifles for hunting to fill our freezer and to a skeet shoot because it makes us better hunters.  We have handguns and a shotgun for self defense.  My husband worked nights and if you live in the middle of nowhere you know that the police and neighbors can't protect you if someone breaks in.  You might need to kill a rabid Fox or shoot someone before they hijack your car with your baby in the car seat. 

 

I would never terrorize anyone and in a situation where someone is shooting I would duck and cover like everyone else.  Even LEO's who practice extensively miss what they are aiming at 40% of the time.  I feel that "good guys with a gun" are more likely to kill someone in the crossfire or be killed by law enforcement who don't know who the bad guy is when everyone is shooting.  

 

So yeah I can see how it is like China.  Different guns for different uses.  Some people even collect.  My husband owns an antique gun he never fires but he keeps it because his grandfather owned it. 

[SadieMarie]

There is Internet, gun shows, going to a neighboring state with less regulation to buy more, etc.

 

I think I remember reading that the internet is where the Aurora killer bought ammo, in large amounts.  

[SadieMarie]

I walked into a restaurant that just happened to be in an area where there was a gun rally, the restaurant was open to having them as customers.  I was completely safe, the only thing that could have made it turn bad was if the government came in with guns blazing.  There were cops, bikers, cowboys, and just normal everyday people there.  Nobody was mad, nobody was crazy, they were just normal people taking a stand.  I have lived in smaller cities mostly in the south, but also in Colorado and Alaska and have been around lots of people with guns and also people that conceal carry.  I have never been the least bit uncomfortable.  

 

I remember when living in Alaska in the big city a young kid was kidnapped from a family picnic by someone that the family knew.  There were 5 times as many citizens with guns in the search party as there were cops.  They were found and the kid was returned to mom within 3 hours and no one was killed.

The government coming in with guns blazing?  I think this is the root of a lot of it, honestly.  People, ones I know unfortunately, are arming for this eventuality.  Either that or Obama's secret plan not to step down after eight years and establish a Muslim dictatorship.  And the Las Vegas shooters were terrorists, hate group, government hating terrorists.  And yet people are more afraid of the government blazing in.  I will even go so far as to say there are nuts out there HOPING the government comes blazing in and are getting tired of waiting.  

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

You clearly know a lot about guns, and I will readily admit that I don't.  So in other countries that have banned "semi-automatic" "self-loading rifles and shotguns", and "pump action longarms"...supposedly those were banned because they were more likely to be used in multiple shootings (I take that to mean those weapons make it easier to shoot multiple people quickly). 

 

Are those types of weapons that would be necessary to people using them for other purposes?  For example, would a hunter need a self-loading or semiautomatic weapon in order to engage in hunting? 

 

Most if not all hunters I know use the items you listed as banned and AR-15s as well.  Even bolt-action rifles which are not considered semi-automatic allow to shoot 5 shots without reloading. 

 

I'm not sure what banning those would do to the crime rates down as they are used very rarely in homicides in the US.  (322 homicides from all kinds of rifles in 2012, 6,371 homicides due to handguns in 2012).  Since many are used by hunters, I doubt you could get legislation passed to ban them.  

 

Our own Vice President came out in favor of shotguns for home-defense just a few years ago. 

[goldberry]

Here are a couple of artcles that I found informative.

 

Differences between machine guns and semiautomatic weapons, plus info on previous gun control efforts.  Pages 1-3 are relevant.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/semi-automatic-weapon-vs-machine-gun.htm

 

 

This was from 2013 when Washington was trying to pass an assault weapons ban, but seems pretty neutral about explaining the issue and why previous gun control measures were less than effective.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

 

I'm getting the picture that previous efforts had too many loopholes and did not address the existing weapon supply.  (Ahhh...this is kind of like the healthcare debacle!  By the time something gets passed it's too watered down to do any actual good, so it's easy to just trash it.)

 

Question for those familiar with NRA positions, apparently the NRA opposes limits on high capacity magazines (even over 10).  Do they have any valid reasoning on that, or is it just a matter of opposing any legislation period?  If you are a gun owner, would you be opposed to that?  If so, what are your reasons?

[SadieMarie]

Question for those familiar with NRA positions, apparently the NRA opposes limits on high capacity magazines (even over 10).  Do they have any valid reasoning on that, or is it just a matter of opposing any legislation period?  If you are a gun owner, would you be opposed to that?  If so, what are your reasons?

I am not a member of the NRA but I think they use the slippery slope argument.

[goldberry]

I found this from the NRA president...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/13/stand-and-fight/?print=1

 

That tells me what I need to know.  Not a single, rational, fact-based argument.  Heavy dosage of fear-mongering with a smidge of illegal immigrant blaming thrown in for good measure.  No thanks.

 

Wow. 

 

ETA, I think I might use that article as an exercise for DD detecting logical fallacies...

 

 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Post Newtown there was an explosion of ARs, ammo and magazine sales.  These ARs, ammo and magazines are now sitting in the safes and gun cabinets in people's homes.  When these items are banned as suggested here.  What will be the mechanism for confiscating these items?  

 

The federal government doesn't have a good track record of tracking guns that THEY put into circulation (see Fast and Furious), so I wonder how they are going to go about gathering up ones purchased by citizens.  There is no federal gun registry aside from the one the ATF has for full-auto machine guns.  

 

How do you envision this working?  

 

How do you get full-compliance?

 

Will handguns be included in the ban since they account for most of the homicides? 

 

How with the government handle handguns that can be equipped to look like assault weapons? (They currently exist)

 

If a person is disarmed and then becomes a victim of a violent crime, does the federal government have any liability?

 

 

 

 

[laundrycrisis]

I am going to refrain from posting any more on this topic, but I would suggest that we would be better served trying to figure out what causes people to have so little regard for life that they are willing to take one.  I know it's much more difficult task than passing legislation, but it would probably be more effective.

 

Keep in mind, that every time the words "gun control" are utter by a politician, this happens...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/gun-sales-newtown_n_4394185.html

 

 

Yes - and why is it so often young people, going after their peers, at school ?  

 

When this started happening with postal workers at post offices, there was a lot of focus on how the work environment might be contributing.  

[poppy]

Post Newtown there was an explosion of ARs, ammo and magazine sales. These ARs, ammo and magazines are now sitting in the safes and gun cabinets in people's homes. When these items are banned as suggested here. What will be the mechanism for confiscating these items?

 

The federal government doesn't have a good track record of tracking guns that THEY put into circulation (see Fast and Furious), so I wonder how they are going to go about gathering up ones purchased by citizens. There is no federal gun registry aside from the one the ATF has for full-auto machine guns.

 

How do you envision this working?

 

How do you get full-compliance?

 

Will handguns be included in the ban since they account for most of the homicides?

 

How with the government handle handguns that can be equipped to look like assault weapons? (They currently exist)

 

If a person is disarmed and then becomes a victim of a violent crime, does the federal government have any liability?

What makes you think the Australia plan would not work, at least as a starting point?

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

What makes you think the Australia plan would not work, at least as a starting point?

If people would accept it, it could be an excellent starting point. It won't solve the whole issue, but it would help.

[poppy]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I believe the gun issue is secondary.

 

Of course I believe mentally ill people should not have access to guns. But how about getting to the root of the problem here - the mental illness itself? Shouldn't we be giving some attention to the underlying cause? There is currently no cure for mental illness. The drugs available are questionable. It makes me so very frustrated that the issue of mental heatlh always gets buried under all the talk of guns.

Buried?! It is a near constant refrain in the gun control discussions. I'd go so far as to call it an NRA talking point: it's the media, it's video games, it's mental illness. The strategy is to change the topic, reframe the debate away from firearms.

 

To paraphrase the quote from Obama earlier in this thread: all countries have crazy people. Only Americans, among all developed nations, have this level of gun violence. Blaming mental illness is just a distraction .

[Cammie]

I just read that ALL THREE of the people killed in Las Vegas were ARMED at the time they were killed.  Two were armed police officers.  The third was carrying a concealed weapon.  And yet the NRA would still have us believe that we are all safer if we are all carrying guns.

 

I think we need to get to the root of the fear mongering that the NRA and like groups seem to thrive on.  What, exactly, are they afraid of?  Their own government?  Other citizens of the US?  A takeover by a foreign power?

 

Or is money at the root of it?  Are gun manufacturers and lobbyists so invested in raking in the big bucks that they will do anything to make sure that a segment of the population is always afraid?  And therefore always feels the need to be armed?

 

As Dr. Phil always said - there has to be some payoff for the behavior...otherwise you would stop doing it.

 

What is the payoff?

 

A fearful citizenry demands guns.  Gun makers profit.  The government attempts to regulate guns.  The fear of losing guns gets ramped up.  Gun makers profit.  At every turn, gun makers profit.

 

Follow the money...it will often reveal the true nature of the beast.

[ktgrok]

Why do people think guns are cool?

 

MOst of the people that I know that think they are "cool" like them in large part because of the craftmanship that goes into them. They admire the workings, the tooling on it, the precision, etc just like they admire a well made automobile. It's an amazing machine that they can take apart, clean, and put back together. And they can target shoot, or hunt, etc. Finally yes, they like knowing they can protect themselves and their families. 

 

Lots of people collect swords too, for similar reasons and I don't think people find that weird. Or maybe I just hang with weird people. 

[mom2scouts]

Questions from a confused non-gun owner:

 

Are there no police or law enforcement people working in America? Why should someone have an AK47 type gun at home for protection? Is making a 911 call when something bad happens out of fashion? Or is the police force so inefficient that people stock pile ammo in their home - sort of DIY law enforcement in case of a burglary? 

 

 

I am genuinely confused by the gun culture. What are these people protecting themselves from when they buy powerful rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo? A large pack of rabid wild animals that might attack them in a rural area? A burglar or a criminal? Multiple terrorists attacking a household at the same time? If such a large scale terrorist attack happens, are they planning on jumping on the streets like in the Terminator movies with guns blazing?

 

I live in the suburbs, have a desk job, I socialize with people in my neighborhood and live a quiet life. I have met one IT guy who works with computers and plays video games on his xbox at home who has an assault rifle. According to him, he owns it because he likes it. He lives in a secure apartment and works in a suburban blue chip company - so no wild animals or criminals here. Beyond that, I don't know any one who owns a gun. I never understand why people need automatic weapons (multiple kinds) in their home.

 

I am trying to understand what constitutional rights of a person are taken away if a ban on guns that fire many rounds (assault rifles?) comes into effect.

 

Will a small hand gun suffice for protection? And if a mentally ill child steals his family's small gun and shoots at school with it, will the damage be lesser than if that child got hold of an assault rifle? Will this question offend the NRA or their lobbyists? 

 

I am happy to write to my local senator about my views if that would help in any way. But, I know that the views expressed by her are the same as mine already. I don't know what else I can do about it.

 

First of all, most people don't have AK47s for protection.  Criminals have them illegally, gun collectors have them, and shooting enthusiasts have them for sport.  The attempted crackdown on ammo after the Newtown shootings actually stimulated a huge buying binge and hoarding because people thought ammo was going to become very scarce.

 

You say you don't know anyone other than one co-worker who owns a gun.  Have you asked people?  You would probably be shocked if you knew how many people are carrying!  I live in a very liberal Midwestern town and I know many.  That nice 55 year old female receptionist at your doctor's office may carry.  The suburban neighbor with two toddlers and a baby on the way may carry.  That pretty, health conscious woman at church may carry.  That 60 year old man who works at Walmart may carry.  That 20 something guy in your office may carry. That nice couple you meet at your child's sports games may carry. These are just people I know personally and doesn't even count the hunters and military members I know who own guns.

 

These school shootings are almost always caused by young males who feel they don't fit in.  We MUST find a way to identify and help these boys.  Guns in the hands of those who've lost hope are very deadly and we need to address the gun issue, but we've also seen that they can still do some damage with other weapons (knives) when guns are not available.

 

[ktgrok]

I disagree -  if automatic weapons were illegal, a teen is not going to easily buy an AR-15 rifle (which is what the Sandyhook and Oregon shooters used) to shoot up other kids just because he was angry and wanted to kill a few people. It takes money (thousands of $$$ for illegal arms) and planning and a lot of stealth and a lot of time to buy these things illegally. The situation today seems to be to steal your dad's "recreational assault rifle" and ammo and stuff them into a guitar case and go and shoot up the whole school.

 

If ARs are banned, I am not worried about gangsters and smugglers who will illegally procure assault rifles anyway - there are several government agencies to police illegal activity.

 

A teen can't legally buy one now. Even my son's 22 rifle for target shooting/competition is legally in my husband's name for that reason. 

[ktgrok]

I guess I had a completely different train of thought.  I was thinking that despite so many rules and regulations there are still loopholes and exceptions to the regulations.  For example, you may have to wait to buy a gun from a gun shop, but that requirement does not exist when you buy a gun at a gun show.  So they have lots of gun "shows" around here.

 

My point is the regulations don't go far enough and that there are various ways around them that aren't all that difficult. 

 

Just to clear this up, if you are buying from a vendor/business at a gun show you DO have to have a background check, or have a concealed carry permit which shows that you have already had a background check. 

 

The only time you do NOT have to have a background check is when it is a private sale between two individuals. So, if I sold you my gun, I don't have to do a background check on you. Yes, some private sales happen at gun shows, but they also happen everywhere else. Most of the sales at a gun show are from vendors...gun stores that have table set up and follow the same rules they normally follow.