Is this just our New Normal?

[Joker]

I never know where I really fall on this issue. I grew up in small town Texas and guns were everywhere (and they were in plain sight). No one was hurt by them where I grew up though. I always wonder why that is and why it seems to be so different in some places - my hometown is the same today in regards to guns as it was when I was there, yet still no school shootings or other gun violence.

 

We have no guns in this house, though, because we just don't feel it is necessary. I come from my small town, guns are everywhere, background. Dh comes from a military family and he was in the Marine Corps. Yet, we just don't see a need for guns and have never needed one to defend ourselves or our dds (and we lived in an income restricted neighborhood that wasn't the safest).

 

I honestly don't think more restrictions are going to stop school shootings, but I have no problem with more restrictions. It doesn't bother me since I own zero guns. My dds have attended public middle school for three years and this fall I will have one in public high school. I have never stressed or worried about a school shooting and I don't see that changing.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

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

 

Because we have people that believe in the Constitution and the Second Amendment and believe it applies to the citizenry.  

 

Mandatory gun-buybacks will not fly here.  Many would argue that they will hand in their guns when all the criminals do.

 

I would like to see more data on the outcomes of  Australia's plan.  So far, I'm burning up the net and found some interesting data. 

 

The U.S crime rate has dropped over the last ten years:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/

 

"There were 14,612 murders last year, on average one every 36 minutes. That's a small decline from 14,722 in 2010, but it's a decrease of nearly 17 percent from a decade ago."

 

I'm researching to data on the crime rates in Australia. I read an editorial the inferred that Australia's had homicide rate and dropped but not significantly.  The gun ban created more of a drop in gun-related suicides.  I'm trying to verify with this tool:

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html

 

Australia's drop in murders is lower than it was in 2002, but their increase in sexual assaults is pretty dramatic.  

 

Interesting.

[goldberry]

The Australian plan pretty much relied on good will and honesty of the citizens. People handed their guns in.

 

I have no idea how that would work in a country like the US where the number of guns is so mind-bogglingly huge.

 

I wouldn't expect anyone here to embrace the Australian plan, given the vicious reception it's received  in the past when, you know, an actual Australian mentioned it :)

 

I agree with you.  There would never be enough agreement to get it accomplished.  But then people should stop saying "There is nothing anyone can do."

 

Yes.  There are things that can be done.  We (as a country) are just not willing to do them.  That's the truth of the matter. 

[ktgrok]

I was very interested to read the laws in Australia, thank you! I think implementing some of those, particularly the bit about having to prove you have the ability to lock up the guns, would do a lot for us in the states. Most of the time the problem is someone getting ahold of someone elses gun. If they were locked properly, or maybe equipped with a trigger lock by the manufacturer, that alone would save many lives. As a gun owner I have zero patience for people that don't lock up their guns. ZERO. If you can't afford a safe you can't afford a gun. WAnt easy access? Get a biometric safe and put it by your bed, bolted to the wall. 

[goldberry]

I was very interested to read the laws in Australia, thank you! I think implementing some of those, particularly the bit about having to prove you have the ability to lock up the guns, would do a lot for us in the states. Most of the time the problem is someone getting ahold of someone elses gun. If they were locked properly, or maybe equipped with a trigger lock by the manufacturer, that alone would save many lives. As a gun owner I have zero patience for people that don't lock up their guns. ZERO. If you can't afford a safe you can't afford a gun. WAnt easy access? Get a biometric safe and put it by your bed, bolted to the wall. 

 

The NRA was against "smart guns" as well, if I recall correctly.  Guns that will only fire for the registered owner.

[ktgrok]

The NRA was against "smart guns" as well, if I recall correctly.  Guns that will only fire for the registered owner.

 

grr. 

 

Like I said, we are gun owners. WE actually had, briefly, an NRA membership. We will never again. The propaganda masquerading as news that came in our mailbox from them was awful. 

 

But for a while we were NRA and ACLU members at the same time. Just to confuse things :)

[Dana]

Good commentary from gun owner.

 

http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-1588660306?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=tuesdayPM

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

The NRA was against "smart guns" as well, if I recall correctly.  Guns that will only fire for the registered owner.

 

The people I know who are into guns wouldn't rely on something so expensive, awkward and unreliable for home protection. There are much better options.  BTW, I am NOT a member of the NRA.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/05/04/smartguns/

[Laura Corin]

 

 

Australia's drop in murders is lower than it was in 2002, but their increase in sexual assaults is pretty dramatic.  

 

Interesting.

 

The figures on sexual assault are difficult to work from - are there more assaults or are people just more comfortable with reporting?  You would also have to work out to what extent guns in Australia were previously feared by potential rapists - were they widely held in such a way that self defence was likely?

 

FWIW, the UK tightening of regulations on guns was not because we had an enormous number of gun deaths in the first place - I would not be surprised to see little or no reduction here after the new regulations were in place.  Rather, after Hungerford and particularly Dunblane, the overwhelming public sentiment was that the likelihood of such events occurring again should be minimised, and the politicians followed that.

 

For reference, there was a fatal stabbing of a teacher in Britain recently.  The 15yo assailant was disarmed by school staff.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

DP

 

L

 

[goldberry]

The people I know who are into guns wouldn't rely on something so expensive, awkward and unreliable for home protection. There are much better options.  BTW, I am NOT a member of the NRA.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/05/04/smartguns/

 

The NRA was not against them because of reliability but because of the concept itself.  It is new technology and of course it would start out way too expensive and with bumps.

 

Gun shops who were going to sell them were forced to stop due to death threats.   I doubt that the reliability of the product is what generated those threats. 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-usa-maryland-smartgun-idUSBREA410SD20140502

[mathnerd]

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?

I don't really care about the technical differences between an "automatic", "Semi automatic", "assault rifle" or an AR15. To me, they are all weapons of mass destruction in a school or college. I don't care about what guns hunters use or don't use either. I care even less about what a recreational gun user buys to either show off or collect or shoot in a range with.

 

What I care about is that kids are getting hunted down in school rooms where they are supposed to be safe by these really powerful guns that should only be in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel. I think it is BS that people claim that they have a right or need to own guns that are so powerful (I don't know exact gun lingo - so substitute AR15 here just as an example) and stockpile 1000s of rounds of ammo for them. I was actually being sarcastic when I asked before whether they are defending themselves from large packs of wild animals or a huge army of terroists when they buy so much gun power. I worry that incompetent parents like the Sandyhook shooter's and the Oregon shooter's have no real control on who has access to their ultra powerful guns. Any psycho, weirdo, nutcase, conspiracy theorist, person with anger issues, person not on their prescribed psychotropic medication etc. can overpower or steal from or kill their families to get hold of their powerful guns (e.g. AR15, as I know no other gun name) and go and shoot up the kids at the local school or college who are sitting ducks.

 

I propose a ban on all kinds of powerful guns (add technical description of any powerful gun of your choice and classify them as you like). 

[Mama Geek]

I don't really care about the technical differences between an "automatic", "Semi automatic", "assault rifle" or an AR15. To me, they are all weapons of mass destruction in a school or college. I don't care about what guns hunters use or don't use either. I care even less about what a recreational gun user buys to either show off or collect or shoot in a range with.

 

What I care about is that kids are getting hunted down in school rooms where they are supposed to be safe by these really powerful guns that should only be in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel. I think it is BS that people claim that they have a right or need to own guns that are so powerful (I don't know exact gun lingo - so substitute AR15 here just as an example) and stockpile 1000s of rounds of ammo for them. I was actually being sarcastic when I asked before whether they are defending themselves from large packs of wild animals or a huge army of terroists when they buy so much gun power. I worry that incompetent parents like the Sandyhook shooter's and the Oregon shooter's have no real control on who has access to their ultra powerful guns. Any psycho, weirdo, nutcase, conspiracy theorist, person with anger issues, person not on their prescribed psychotropic medication etc. can overpower or steal from or kill their families to get hold of their powerful guns (e.g. AR15, as I know no other gun name) and go and shoot up the kids at the local school or college who are sitting ducks.

 

I propose a ban on all kinds of powerful guns (add technical description of any powerful gun of your choice and classify them as you like). 

 

I think in general that owning these types of guns and stockpiling large amounts of ammo are for when the SHTF.  I think these are generally preppers at least from my experience.

[ktgrok]

I think in general that owning these types of guns and stockpiling large amounts of ammo are for when the SHTF.  I think these are generally preppers at least from my experience.

 

 

Yes. Not in the sense that they all are stockpiling giant bins of wheat and corn or what not, but yes. Those that I know that have these weapons have them mostly as a "in the worst case scenario" situation. I'd say every one of the ones I know were boyscouts, have college degrees or beyond, work white collar jobs for the government or large fortune 500 companies. Now, that's just the people I know, which is a small subset. But they are not wild, crazy rednecks or what not. They are engineers and software developers. They are in to mechanical things and high tech things. And they are meticulous about keeping said weapon secure. 

[ktgrok]

 

 

I propose a ban on all kinds of powerful guns (add technical description of any powerful gun of your choice and classify them as you like). 

 

The problem with this is that ALL guns are powerful. There isn't some clear clean distinction. A handgun can quickly shoot 10 rounds, as a matter of course. heck, The pump action guns mentioned in a previous post are like what you think of in the wild west, you have to stop and pump between shots. But somehow that rifle is considered more dangerous than a handgun by some?

 

The Australian idea of a limited license, that expires every so many years, that you have to have a FULL background check for, maybe pass a psych exam for, and a requirement that you prove you have the ability to lock them up would be the basic steps. And I'm even fine with limiting how many guns and how much ammo you can buy in a set period, have to show your license when you buy it, etc. 

 

Heck, make it like sudafed, I can't buy that without showing my license. 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

You know when people say to an outsider 'I don't think you understand ?'

 

I don't think you understand. The country is not full of women scared of rape because the government came and took away their guns.

 

I would assume that any significant increases were due to increased reporting.

 

I personally find it upsetting that some of the gun advocates here are just itching to find holes in what was a brave and reasonable response to a terrible tragedy that rocked my nation.

 

I am very grateful a tragedy of that scale has not happened here since.

 

I'm not sure how long that will last, given that we're run by a bunch of Tea Partiers, but gee it's been nice.

 

I hope you are correct about the increase reporting.  

 

This forum is located on a website that advocates education, critical thinking and logic.  I'm sorry that my attempt to educate myself and understand the Australian model and how it would play out in the United States is upsetting to you.  I am not trying to find holes, but trying to figure out how this would be implemented in my country with it's history, Constitutional framework, value of civil liberties, abundance of firearms (270-310 million vs. Australia's 1.5-3 million), may prove difficult.

[ElaineJ]

It sounds like a lot of people feel that they are not safe, that there is a significant likelihood of being assaulted in their lifetime while going about normal activities, and that they would be more likely to be able to protect themselves from said assault with their own gun than with reliance on the police. This seems so sad! Is it so common to believe ourselves to be living on the edge of anarchy? Because that is how I think I would define this sort of situation in which citizens have to look out for themselves with guns because violent people can do whatever they want and no one will be able to help. What can we do to a) make law enforcement more effective and reduce the amount of fear people are living with daily?

Elaine

 

edited because I don't know how the little sunglasses smilie got in there!

[Cammie]

It sounds like a lot of people feel that they are not safe, that there is a significant likelihood of being assaulted in their lifetime while going about normal activities, and that they would be more likely to be able to protect themselves from said assault with their own gun than with reliance on the police. This seems so sad! Is it so common to believe ourselves to be living on the edge of anarchy? Because that is how I think I would define this sort of situation in which citizens have to look out for themselves with guns because violent people can do whatever they want and no one will be able to help. What can we do to a) make law enforcement more effective and reduce the amount of fear people are living with daily?

Elaine

 

edited because I don't know how the little sunglasses smilie got in there!

 

No, it is not common. Citizens in many other countries do not believe themselves to be living on the edge of anarchy. Heck, citizens in many (if not most) parts of the US don't believe it either. 

 

The fear is implanted by those with an agenda to increase gun purchases and to manipulate the voters into worrying about non-existent problems (Obama is NOT going to create a socialist republic) instead of wondering why they don't have access to affordable health care, why their unemployment benefits have been cut, why their unions are being busted, why they are not allowed to sue oil companies, why fracking is allowed, etc.

 

A scared citizenry is much easier to manipulate than one that is confident in its own security.

[In2why]

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 .

 

The genie is out of the bottle.  We are not going to be able to ban or limit guns already in existence.  The market is saturated.   Because of our culture we are not going to limit weapons or ammo.  Conspiracy theorists and marketing to take advantage of paranoia have made that impossible.  That is the sad reality.

 

One simple change that could make the situation better and the NRA and middle of the road people could get behind is criminal and civil penalties for misuse of a weapon.   

 

When a child picks up a gun and accidentally shoots his sister, brother or friend, it is not an accident.  The person who allowed a child access hasn't suffered enough, they should be criminally charged and convicted.   When a school shooter has a gun illegally, he got that weapon somewhere.  The person that allowed access has contributed and should be charged as an accessory to murder.  By criminally and civilly penalizing irresponsibility hopefully people will get serious about gun safety.   Gun owners will start locking their weapons up.   They will begin to secure them from accidents that are not accidents, and theft which could have been prevented.  

[poppy]

 

 

When a child picks up a gun and accidentally shoots his sister, brother or friend, it is not an accident.  The person who allowed a child access hasn't suffered enough, they should be criminally charged and convicted.   When a school shooter has a gun illegally, he got that weapon somewhere.  The person that allowed access has contributed and should be charged as an accessory to murder.  By criminally and civilly penalizing irresponsibility hopefully people will get serious about gun safety.   Gun owners will start locking their weapons up.   They will begin to secure them from accidents that are not accidents, and theft which could have been prevented.

Why wait for (more) dead children? Why not require that guns be secured if children are present?

 

[Cammie]

Priest shot dead.  Another priest wounded.  Shooting in Phoenix.  New Normal.

[In2why]

I don't really care about the technical differences between an "automatic", "Semi automatic", "assault rifle" or an AR15. To me, they are all weapons of mass destruction in a school or college. I don't care about what guns hunters use or don't use either. I care even less about what a recreational gun user buys to either show off or collect or shoot in a range with.

 

What I care about is that kids are getting hunted down in school rooms where they are supposed to be safe by these really powerful guns that should only be in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel. I think it is BS that people claim that they have a right or need to own guns that are so powerful (I don't know exact gun lingo - so substitute AR15 here just as an example) and stockpile 1000s of rounds of ammo for them. I was actually being sarcastic when I asked before whether they are defending themselves from large packs of wild animals or a huge army of terroists when they buy so much gun power. I worry that incompetent parents like the Sandyhook shooter's and the Oregon shooter's have no real control on who has access to their ultra powerful guns. Any psycho, weirdo, nutcase, conspiracy theorist, person with anger issues, person not on their prescribed psychotropic medication etc. can overpower or steal from or kill their families to get hold of their powerful guns (e.g. AR15, as I know no other gun name) and go and shoot up the kids at the local school or college who are sitting ducks.

 

I propose a ban on all kinds of powerful guns (add technical description of any powerful gun of your choice and classify them as you like). 

 

But not understanding is a huge part of the problem.  People say they want to ban semi-automatic weapons, but they don't realize that includes any weapon which moves a bullet into the chamber after being fired.  Most handguns with a clip.  The majority of all modern weapons.   Not knowing the difference ends conversation. 

[Scrub Jay]

No, it is not common. Citizens in many other countries do not believe themselves to be living on the edge of anarchy. Heck, citizens in many (if not most) parts of the US don't believe it either. 

 

The fear is implanted by those with an agenda to increase gun purchases and to manipulate the voters into worrying about non-existent problems (Obama is NOT going to create a socialist republic) instead of wondering why they don't have access to affordable health care, why their unemployment benefits have been cut, why their unions are being busted, why they are not allowed to sue oil companies, why fracking is allowed, etc.

 

A scared citizenry is much easier to manipulate than one that is confident in its own security.

 

Exactly.  I made the mistake on clicking on a post by Ted Nugent that I stumbled onto on FB (not via a friend, thank goodness).  I barely read the comments for a minute because they all sounded crazy and scary.  Wow.  It's not like I didn't know that there were crazy, scary conspiracy freaks out there but it is another thing to see several people spewing this nonsense and hate.

 

[In2why]

No, it is not common. Citizens in many other countries do not believe themselves to be living on the edge of anarchy. Heck, citizens in many (if not most) parts of the US don't believe it either. 

 

The fear is implanted by those with an agenda to increase gun purchases and to manipulate the voters into worrying about non-existent problems (Obama is NOT going to create a socialist republic) instead of wondering why they don't have access to affordable health care, why their unemployment benefits have been cut, why their unions are being busted, why they are not allowed to sue oil companies, why fracking is allowed, etc.

 

A scared citizenry is much easier to manipulate than one that is confident in its own security.

 

I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut, although after writing this other's might. 

 

We are all 3 days away from total chaos at any point in time.  That isn't fear or someone with an agenda.  It is a reality that most people do not like to imagine.  Stop right now and think about your pantry.  How long can you feed your family if you only had what was in your house?  If a natural disaster hit and you had no electricity or utilities how much clean water do you have to drink?  If trucks couldn't resupply your local grocery stores because we all know they don't keep much stock anymore.  Has everyone forgotten Katrina already?  How would your community respond if another Spanish Flu spread throughout the world?  If such a large part of the population was ill or dead?  You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or believe the government is going to disintegrate to want to protect and provide for your family and neighborhood. 

[In2why]

Why wait for (more) dead children? Why not require that guns be secured if children are present?

 

It is required.  But depending on where you live the penalty might be nothing but sympathy or a slap on the wrist. 

[Wheres Toto]

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. 

 

I would find sword collecting freaky if people wanted to be able to carry them around when they went grocery shopping and out to dinner.  Since most people just mount them on their wall, not nearly as strange.

[Aura]

I don't exactly know why America has so many guns, but I suspect it is largely due to our history: our revolution against Britain, our Civil War, our Wild West. Our culture is heavily steeped in history where average citizens took up arms to fight the "bad guy" (whoever that might have been at the time). For a long time, the military might take care of problems on foreign soil, but here in the US, it was the people who dealt with most problems.

 

Understanding that gun ownership is are a part of our history is very important to addressing gun ownership in our present world. People are understandably going to resist what has been such an important part of their culture. The mindset that you are the first line of defense for yourself and your loved ones is ingrained in a large part of the country, which is why we probably have a increase in gun sales after tragedies like these. So what works in other countries will not necessarily work here.

[Word Nerd]

But not understanding is a huge part of the problem.  People say they want to ban semi-automatic weapons, but they don't realize that includes any weapon which moves a bullet into the chamber after being fired.  Most handguns with a clip.  The majority of all modern weapons.   Not knowing the difference ends conversation. 

 

This. I've seen several comments about fear being the primary motivation for gun owners. I find that interesting considering how many pro–gun control arguments are based primarily on emotion and fear—not facts or knowledge about guns, existing laws and restrictions, or even gun owners and their reasons for owning guns. I appreciate that this is a topic that people are incredibly passionate about, and gun violence is most certainly worth getting angry about. But passion alone doesn't solve anything. If people on both ends of the debate and everyone in between (and I consider myself a middle-of-the-roader) can't tone down the rhetoric and actually communicate and listen without making knee-jerk reactions and snarking at one another, there is little point in discussion. "I don't know and I don't care" doesn't exactly promote conversation.

[ktgrok]

No, it is not common. Citizens in many other countries do not believe themselves to be living on the edge of anarchy. Heck, citizens in many (if not most) parts of the US don't believe it either. 

 

The fear is implanted by those with an agenda to increase gun purchases and to manipulate the voters into worrying about non-existent problems (Obama is NOT going to create a socialist republic) instead of wondering why they don't have access to affordable health care, why their unemployment benefits have been cut, why their unions are being busted, why they are not allowed to sue oil companies, why fracking is allowed, etc.

 

A scared citizenry is much easier to manipulate than one that is confident in its own security.

 

To be fair, the gun owners I know are more worried about a right wing theocracy than a socialist republic. 

[ktgrok]

I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut, although after writing this other's might. 

 

We are all 3 days away from total chaos at any point in time.  That isn't fear or someone with an agenda.  It is a reality that most people do not like to imagine.  Stop right now and think about your pantry.  How long can you feed your family if you only had what was in your house?  If a natural disaster hit and you had no electricity or utilities how much clean water do you have to drink?  If trucks couldn't resupply your local grocery stores because we all know they don't keep much stock anymore.  Has everyone forgotten Katrina already?  How would your community respond if another Spanish Flu spread throughout the world?  If such a large part of the population was ill or dead?  You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or believe the government is going to disintegrate to want to protect and provide for your family and neighborhood. 

 

This is true. My husband is a information security engineer. He looks for worst case scenario as a career. He evaluates the risks. And in our own personal lives that means he wants a gun, if only to protect from looting in a natural disaster. 

[ktgrok]

I agree.  I don't understand why this is not already the case in most places.  I have to secure a baby pool in my yard on the off chance a child wanders into my yard and falls in.  Even a tiny baby pool.  And it's not considered good enough to have my yard fenced in.  But I could leave my hand gun on my patio table.  A kid in my family or who wanders over and gets the gun and shoots someone, I would not be held responsible.  At least not based on the cases I hear about pretty regularly.  That's called a tragic "accident". 

 

You would in Florida. Or should be. It is definitely against the law to have the gun where a minor could access it. 

[busymama7]

 

I've been trying to nail down what the rules are here in NY. What I could find about the "must secure your gun" thing was "sometimes". Sometimes? Whatever that means.

 

There was a case where 2 twelve year olds got a hold of dad's gun. It was in his sock drawer. So no, not out in the open. But it was loaded and no safety device. One kid shot the other accidentally. The gun owner faced no charges over that. At least this isn't as bad as if he had left the gun laying on the table, but he left a gun without a safety device in a fairly easily accessible place.

 

The boy who died in that case was not his son, but the friend. I don't think the family pressed charges. Their comment all along though was, we don't have a problem that this guy owned a gun, but we would have liked to know. Of course the owner didn't have to tell them. But he did allow 2 twelve year old boys to be alone in his home with an unsecured gun. I suppose at that point what is the point of punishment. But it seems there is no requirement on the part of the owner to take reasonable steps to protect kids in his home. [/quote

 

 

My dad was in law enforcement and carried a gun daily. I never touched his gun. Not one time. It was drilled into my head from a very young age. I *may* have touched it with his help while cleaning it or something (you'd think I remember) but I would have never in a million years picked it up on my own. He left it on the top of his dresser in plain sight. All. The. Time. (Unloaded)

 

This situation is very tragic. But a 12 year old should know not to touch a gun. Baring neurological issues(delays etc) it is a discipline or possibly education/teaching issue. It sounds like it was the gun owners son who shot it? Was its tragic but if you are going to have guns you have to teach your kids about them and not to touch them. At 12 this boy should have for sure known this. And of course there should have been a safety and it unloaded. Obviously younger kids are different too but I know even at 2 and 3 I never ever messed with my dad's gun.

 

My only brother died young and none of my sisters or I were interested in shooting. But he would have taken us if we cared. Education and discipline with guns and safety is very important. Even if you don't have guns in the house. My kids have been well educated on gun safety, have done shooting merit badges etc. they just would NOT pick up an unattended gun. (We don't have any aside from antiques with no ammo)

[In2why]

I've been trying to nail down what the rules are here in NY.  What I could find about the "must secure your gun" thing was "sometimes".  Sometimes?  Whatever that means.

 

There was a case where 2 twelve year olds got a hold of dad's gun.  It was in his sock drawer.  So no, not out in the open.  But it was loaded and no safety device.  One kid shot the other accidentally.  The gun owner faced no charges over that.  At least this isn't as bad as if he had left the gun laying on the table, but he left a gun without a safety device in a fairly easily accessible place. 

The boy who died in that case was not his son, but the friend.  I don't think the family pressed charges.  Their comment all along though was, we don't have a problem that this guy owned a gun, but we would have liked to know.  Of course the owner didn't have to tell them.  But he did allow 2 twelve year old boys to be alone in his home with an unsecured gun.  I suppose at that point what is the point of punishment.  But it seems there is no requirement on the part of the owner to take reasonable steps to protect kids in his home

 

 

This is the perfect example.  He did not secure his weapon.  A loaded gun in a sock drawer is idiotic.  He should have been charged and found guilty of felony accessory.  Then the family of the boy killed should have sued him in civil court and taken every penny he has, and every penny he might someday make.  By being convicted of a felony he is prohibited from ever owning another firearm.  It wouldn't change this child dying, but when the neighbor down the road purchases a firearm he will think about the penalty of not being responsible and the consequences of being an idiot.  His wife will remember her financially struggling friend and nag her husband to buy a gun safe when he buys the gun.  Being ridiculed and shamed for being an idiot.   

 

I remember when it became law to wear a seatbelt.  Before there were legal penalties it wasn't enough to explain that seatbelts save lives.  In less than 2 generations it became the norm to wear seatbelts.  

[poppy]

There is a video that was viral a few months ago - I'll have to find it.  It was a little experiment.

 

School aged kids were shown a safety video about guns, then had a talk with an officer about NEVER touch a gun, call for help.  The kids all repeated the instructions.  And then an (unloaded) weapon was left in the classroom within an hour or so of that. Two kids found it, played with it for a bit, then called for help.  At one point in looking over the weapon, a boy pointed it directly at his own face. 

 

Telling kids not to touch guns is not an effective way to prevent kids from firearm danger.

 

From the Australia model, from what I've read here, it seems like you have to prove that you have a secure place to store your firearms if you wish to own one.  That doesn't seem terribly onerous to me.   It would likely save many, many lives. 

[busymama7]

There is a video that was viral a few months ago - I'll have to find it. It was a little experiment.

 

School aged kids were shown a safety video about guns, then had a talk with an officer about NEVER touch a gun, call for help. The kids all repeated the instructions. And then an (unloaded) weapon was left in the classroom within an hour or so of that. Two kids found it, played with it for a bit, then called for help. At one point in looking over the weapon, a boy pointed it directly at his own face.

 

Telling kids not to touch guns is not an effective way to prevent kids from firearm danger.

 

From the Australia model, from what I've read here, it seems like you have to prove that you have a secure place to store your firearms if you wish to own one. That doesn't seem terribly onerous to me. It would likely save many, many lives.

That is really interesting. I guess maybe it needs to be more frequent etc. I mean I remember school. Sometimes the teachers/guests sounded a lot like the parents on Charlie Brown (or is it muppets?) wawawa wa wa. ;) One short discussion is probably not enough for the majority of kids. And again ages matter too. I don't think my sisters and I were unusual though. But maybe because we saw a gun every single day it wasn't that novel? And our parents whom we trusted taught us daily from a very young age. I remember as a teen carefully dusting the dresser and making sure I didn't touch the gun ;) I was old enough to pick it up and dust under it but no way in heck was I going to.

[busymama7]

This is the perfect example. He did not secure his weapon. A loaded gun in a sock drawer is idiotic. He should have been charged and found guilty of felony accessory. Then the family of the boy killed should have sued him in civil court and taken every penny he has, and every penny he might someday make. By being convicted of a felony he is prohibited from ever owning another firearm. It wouldn't change this child dying, but when the neighbor down the road purchases a firearm he will think about the penalty of not being responsible and the consequences of being an idiot. His wife will remember her financially struggling friend and nag her husband to buy a gun safe when he buys the gun. Being ridiculed and shamed for being an idiot.

 

I remember when it became law to wear a seatbelt. Before there were legal penalties it wasn't enough to explain that seatbelts save lives. In less than 2 generations it became the norm to wear seatbelts.

I am cautious when people bring up gun control measures but I could really get behind this I think. People should be more careful and then responsible if they aren't. And yes you do have to force people's hand sometimes.

[Miss Marple]

I found the map link on the first page interesting esp. if accurate.  Notice that the states with the most lenient gun controls have the least shootings?  Just an observation....

[Colleen]

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.  

 

Yep, I know some of those folks.

 

The Australian plan pretty much relied on good will and honesty of the citizens. People handed their guns in.

 

 

'nuff said.  It wouldn't work in the U.S.

 

 

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!  

 

Sadly, I agree.

 

 

The only time you do NOT have to have a background check is when it is a private sale between two individuals. 

 

Which transactions often take place at gun shows.  Convenient.

[swimmermom3]

I hope you are correct about the increase reporting.  

 

This forum is located on a website that advocates education, critical thinking and logic.  I'm sorry that my attempt to educate myself and understand the Australian model and how it would play out in the United States is upsetting to you.  I am not trying to find holes, but trying to figure out how this would be implemented in my country with it's history, Constitutional framework, value of civil liberties, abundance of firearms (270-310 million vs. Australia's 1.5-3 million), may prove difficult.

 

I was totally confused by your post with regards to Australia, gun control, and the significant increase in reported rapes.

 

Is the implication that if you deprive male gun owners of their guns, the numbers of rapes will increase dramatically?  The only thing between a male gun owner, my 21 yo dd, and rape, is target practice? That's not a very flattering portrait of gun owners.

 

It's takes hard work, self-discipline, and often some good parenting skills to become a person of integrity, honesty, decency, self-sufficiency, compassion, and good judgement. If guns cannot kill people, then they also can't make people "real men" or "true patriots."

 

I really hope I misinterpreted the implication.

[ktgrok]

I was totally confused by your post with regards to Australia, gun control, and the significant increase in reported rapes.

 

Is the implication that if you deprive male gun owners of their guns, the numbers of rapes will increase dramatically?  The only thing between a male gun owner, my 21 yo dd, and rape, is target practice? That's not a very flattering portrait of gun owners.

 

It's takes hard work, self-discipline, and often some good parenting skills to become a person of integrity, honesty, decency, self-sufficiency, compassion, and good judgement. If guns cannot kill people, then they also can't make people "real men" or "true patriots."

 

I really hope I misinterpreted the implication.

 

I think she meant that perhaps, once women no longer had guns to defend themselves with, they became more vulnerable to rape. Not that having a gun makes a man less likely to rape. But that a WOMAN having a gun makes her less likely to be a victim of rape. 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I think she meant that perhaps, once women no longer had guns to defend themselves with, they became more vulnerable to rape. Not that having a gun makes a man less likely to rape. But that a WOMAN having a gun makes her less likely to be a victim of rape. 

 

 

I was not willing to go as far as to say there has to be a connection and I am willing to accept that the increase in sexual assaults may just be due to the increase of reporting as suggested by the OP.  That is all I was trying to convey with that comment.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[swimmermom3]

I think she meant that perhaps, once women no longer had guns to defend themselves with, they became more vulnerable to rape. Not that having a gun makes a man less likely to rape. But that a WOMAN having a gun makes her less likely to be a victim of rape. 

 

Oh duh, Katie! Thanks so much. I knew I was missing something there.

 

In this case, I can see the correlation.

 

If we look at the US and let's say everyone is armed. If a guy with a gun is going to try and assault a woman with a gun, is it always going to end in the woman's favor?  Or is the idea that a guy with a gun is going to think that his potential target is an unknown because of the gun factor and he is not going to attempt the assault?

 

How would everyone over 18 being armed play out on a college campus where the majority of the assaults involve alcohol?

[ktgrok]

Oh duh, Katie! Thanks so much. I knew I was missing something there.

 

In this case, I can see the correlation.

 

If we look at the US and let's say everyone is armed. If a guy with a gun is going to try and assault a woman with a gun, is it always going to end in the woman's favor?  Or is the idea that a guy with a gun is going to think that his potential target is an unknown because of the gun factor and he is not going to attempt the assault?

 

How would everyone over 18 being armed play out on a college campus where the majority of the assaults involve alcohol?

 

Guns just level the playing field when it is man versus woman. No longer does he have a huge advantage. 

 

As for college campuses...that's a whole nother ball of wax. And no one should carry a fire arm when intoxicated. 

[Ausmumof3]

I'm seriously questioning that gun ownership made any difference to sexual assault stats. For one thing most gun owners I know in Aus are male. There are female gun owners but far fewer. There has been a huge change in culture here about reporting though we still have a way to go. It's to do with victim blaming etc. etc. that's been inherent in a largely male police force.

 

Gun laws over handing in here did rely on honesty but of course if you were caught with the offending weapon afterwards there was a sizable penalty. My dad handed some of his in. His only gripe was that the financial compensation wasn't enough to cover replacement cost. I do know of people who buried or otherwise hid there's but there's no way you could go carrying them in public.

 

I don't get why you guys are so opposed to at least locking them up in a safe. It takes 30 seconds to open or even less if you have a fingerprint or iris recognition thing going on. And it keeps kids that like to push boundaries safe.

 

As far as semiautomatic weapons they are still available here to people who can prove they need them, farmers or professional shooters. You just get a different class of gun license and it's not hard.

 

Eta the male versus female gun thing is just observation and I may be way of base.

[swimmermom3]

I have been sick for a couple of days with inhalers not holding. It's hard to sleep sitting up so I am awake most of the night. This gives me a lot of time to think, which is probably not a good thing. :tongue_smilie:  I am trying to picture what living in an open carry culture would look like.

 

I started by looking at Switzerland with the high level of gun ownership that someone previously linked.

 

Gun Politics in Switzerland

 

They do have a high level of private ownership, but from the Wiki article, I do not get the sense that this is anything like the US. Most of the young men are conscripted into the militia and receive weapons training. They keep their weapons at home as part of their military obligation. The primary purpose is protection from foreign invasion. Everything aspect seems to be relatively well-controlled and people are trained and licensed.

 

How Switzerland Developed Gun Control that Works - this filled in a few more details

 

Could we get to this from where we are? Would our gun owners want to be here? Would the rest of us want to be there?

 

I asked my oldest son (who will probably own a gun at some point) what his job as a TSA officer would be like with open carry. "Unbelievably hard, if not not downright scary." What would a a hockey or soccer game look like with their routine brawls? Would I want to go to a concert where everyone is "loaded" and "loaded?"

 

We have nearly 247,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan that are being treated for PTSD. What will an open carry society look like to them? Will they feel comforted and protected by the guns all around them? 

 

Will open carry make less work for our Law Enforcement Officers because there will be less crime or will their tough and dangerous jobs be even more so?

 

I am trying to envision encountering guns everywhere I look, while I've got my feet in the stirrups at the doctor's office or receiving a cancer diagnosis. Guns at Starbuck's where a jerky guy is getting impatient. Guns during First Communion. Guns at the voting both. Guns in the meeting with the kindergarten teacher.

 

I'd have to get a gun because I have a smart mouth and dislike bullies. I'd have to spend a bunch of my time at the shooting range because I'd hate to be incompetent and be responsible for killing someone I shouldn't have, when I'd rather be reading or hiking. Then I'd have to give a bunch of my money to Wayne what's his face and the arms industry when I'd rather give it to mental health and cancer research and starving children in Ethiopia.

 

I don't think I can get to where Mama Geek is and just assume that because I walked into a room full of folks with guns, that they were all good guys. That takes a whole lot of faith 'cause if it's the guns that make them good, there are scores of people throughout history that missed that message. I would spend all of my life assessing every situation, every person constantly. I'd be running the numbers for how many people in this country are on anti-depressants, who've been busted for DUI, or who've committed domestic abuse. I doubt I'd go to anyone's home since half of the guns in the US are not secured properly. I doubt those numbers will go down if our only answer to gun violence is to increase gun ownership.

 

I'd be the ultimate poster child for paranoia -  and I'd be armed.

 

I'd be grateful if someone would describe an alternate reality that would work given our gun culture.

 

 

[Catwoman]

I'm not comfortable with open carry, either.

 

It's probably because I have always lived in states where it was illegal.

 

I might feel differently if I'd always lived in an open carry state, because it would seem like an ordinary, everyday thing to me.

 

But I don't, so it doesn't.

[swimmermom3]

I'm not comfortable with open carry, either.

 

It's probably because I have always lived in states where it was illegal.

 

I might feel differently if I'd always lived in an open carry state, because it would seem like an ordinary, everyday thing to me.

 

But I don't, so it doesn't.

 

But Cat, in Switzerland, if I understand correctly, it's actually illegal to conceal your weapon. I am still trying to find out more on why that it is the case. That would mean to me that people are comfortable with open carry. One of the articles did mention that the Swiss make it work in part due to a culture of cooperation versus individualism.

 

That was something to think about.

 

 

[Wheres Toto]

I remember when I was in college in Texas they were experiencing problems with people getting shot at while driving if they cut someone off, or were driving too slow.    I couldn't imagine Jersey drivers with a bunch of guns around.

 

Other than that short time in Texas, I've always lived in NJ where it's very hard to get a carry permit.  Somebody walking down the street with a shotgun is going to get a lot of notice around here.   I would not feel safe being around a bunch of people carrying guns in ordinary situations.   Especially not when my kids are around.

[Catwoman]

But Cat, in Switzerland, if I understand correctly, it's actually illegal to conceal your weapon. I am still trying to find out more on why that it is the case. That would mean to me that people are comfortable with open carry. One of the articles did mention that the Swiss make it work in part due to a culture of cooperation versus individualism.

 

That was something to think about.

Wow, really?

 

I had no idea!!!

[Farmgirl70]

One thing that I am truly curious about….I live in an urban neighborhood with lots of gang violence.  In my current world, guns are hardly ever a good thing.  Hearing gunshots is not unusual.  I also grew up in the country--my brothers had hunting rifles--22s and such…I get that and have no problem with hunting or target shooting for fun.

 

However, I wonder how many people who are against further gun control measures live in urban areas?  

 

I cannot imagine feeling safer with a gun in the house.  We've lived here for 16 years.  Though there is lots of gang violence, I do not feel targeted and do not feel it highly likely that someone is going to try to break into our house and try to rape me or otherwise hurt my family.  We are peaceable people.  Any guns we had would be more likely to be used against us than by us.  Furthermore, if I were threatened by an intruder, I would rather have my husband and children have to grapple with the fact that I was hurt or killed than with having killed someone in my defense.  I don't think one recovers easily from having taken life.  That is a horror I do not wish on my teen children or my husband.

 

I also feel that the "intruder hurting my family" argument is so unlikely….I do not want to live in fear of such remote possibilities, and even where I live, it is a remote possibility.  I just don't understand the impulse to own gun for protection--the loaded gun in the sock drawer seems more a danger to my family than a safety measure.  And if it is not loaded, how does it help in terms of the intruder situation?

 

I am truly not trying to be inflammatory.  I do not understand the reasoning behind the "protecting my family" argument.  Listening now...