S/O Poll: Guns

[goldberry]

I'm curious to see the numbers on this.... 

Also, I've never done a really involved poll before :blushing:

Edited December 3, 2015 by goldberry

[fairfarmhand]

I'm very pro private gun ownership.

 

I see no reason for a private citizen to own an assault rifle.

 

I also think that there should be limits on the amounts of ammo a person can buy at one time.

[Lady Florida.]

Part One: Other. We own a gun but it's really dh's gun and I'd be perfectly fine with giving it up.

 

On all the rest I voted private ownership is okay (mostly for hunting IMO) but restrictions should be strong. I checked every box that named a restriction on that last part.

 

I'd be happy if the U.S. adopted Australian style gun laws.

[Farrar]

I used to be for more regulation but basically pro-civilian gun ownership. I grew up in a hunting family. My father was an avid bird hunter. My grandfather was a deer hunter. They both owned and loved their guns.

 

But I've moved toward believing that maybe we shouldn't have private gun ownership at all. Honestly, the more this crap happens... "just another day in America..." the more I turn against guns altogether.

[mom2scouts]

I'm very pro private gun ownership.

 

I see no reason for a private citizen to own an assault rifle.

 

I also think that there should be limits on the amounts of ammo a person can buy at one time.

 

I'm not a gun owner and probably never will be, but I support the right to gun ownership. When I hear people talk about assault rifles, I wonder what they are talking about because most people I hear use the term don't seem to know much about guns. My son owns an AR-15. He's an adult and a military member, so maybe people would give him a pass on owning such a weapon, but it is *not* considered an assault rifle and it not an automatic weapon (although I think the state of California describes it as an assault *weapon*). He has it for sport shooting. He likes to go to the shooting range with it and improving for his military quals is just a side benefit of shooting it for fun. Many gun owners only own guns for sport shooting and never intend to use their guns for hunting or self defense (or criminal behavior!).

[umsami]

I'm somewhere between no gun ownership for civilians and major increased regulations.

 

I actually think that regulating ammunition might make more sense than guns.

 

The thing is.... ignoring the mass shootings which happen all the time... we also have kids killed all the time by gun "accidents".  We have extremely high suicide rates by gun among male teens and up.  We lose four women a day to domestic violence homicide and the presence of a gun in the home, increases the chance of death by three times.

 

In general, the hunters I know have been the most conscientious regarding gun safety, etc.  I think it's because they see/use their guns to take a life, and know their power.  Perhaps people who just do target shooting don't see the connection? I don't know.

 

I like some aspects of Switzerland's gun laws.  I like some aspects of Japan's.

 

We definitely need to do more on the mental health screening....and it should be more regular, as well.  But we really suck at general at preventative care and mental health care in this country.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

It's very difficult for me to answer. I don't believe gun ownership should/could realistically be completely banned, so while I'd love for civilian ownership to be completely eliminated, I do agree that that's simply a way to ensure only criminals (and law enforcement) have guns. 

 

That said, I'd love to see major, major restrictions on ownership and use, and I'd love to see a mass shift in our attitude toward gun ownership and gun culture.

 

I don't believe either of those will ever happen here, at least not in my lifetime. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[JFSinIL]

Both my nephews own several guns (some inherited from my Dad, who went dove and duck hunting back in the day). They even took my sister (who has one gun) and me out to the hills where they go to do target shooting a couple years ago -- I did hit one clay target! They also had an AK-47, but with a device on it to prevent multiple firing. Both Eagle Scouts, one with additional military training (now training to be a police officer).

[mom2scouts]

I'm not sure what to think about limits on ammunition. I read that the shooters this week had over 2,000 rounds of ammunition! It's really scary that people who intend to kill have this much firepower. OTOH, ammunition is quite expensive and some gun owners limit practice on their weapons because of the cost. That means we have gun owners who may be getting less experience with their weapons than is prudent. I'm not sure how we determine a reasonable number of rounds, but 2,000 seems high.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I'm very pro private gun ownership.

 

I see no reason for a private citizen to own an assault rifle.

 

I also think that there should be limits on the amounts of ammo a person can buy at one time.

Would you mind defining "assault weapon" for the sake of future posts?

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

 

I'm not sure what to think about limits on ammunition. I read that the shooters this week had over 2,000 rounds of ammunition! It's really scary that people who intend to kill have this much firepower. OTOH, ammunition is quite expensive and some gun owners limit practice on their weapons because of the cost. That means we have gun owners who may be getting less experience with their weapons than is prudent. I'm not sure how we determine a reasonable number of rounds, but 2,000 seems high.[/quot

 

I shoot 50-75 rounds during my weekly range time. 2000 rounds doesn't sound like that many to me.

[Southern Ivy]

I actually think that regulating ammunition might make more sense than guns.

 

My only question/reservation with regulating ammunition is that you can't necessarily regulate what they save. If someone wants to get a lot of ammo, they just have to have the patience to save up for a time, right? Unless, I guess, you have to bring in the used shells in order to buy more? 

 

Just my random thoughts about that. 

[SKL]

To me, the biggest reform would be to limit civilian firearms to simple ones that can't shoot a gazillion times or kill an elephant with one bullet.

 

I would also add stricter safety rules such as locks that can't be opened by unauthorized users.

[Jerico]

AR does NOT stand for assault rifle. But the media uses it because it does sound "bad."

[SparklyUnicorn]

I used to be for more regulation but basically pro-civilian gun ownership. I grew up in a hunting family. My father was an avid bird hunter. My grandfather was a deer hunter. They both owned and loved their guns.

 

But I've moved toward believing that maybe we shouldn't have private gun ownership at all. Honestly, the more this crap happens... "just another day in America..." the more I turn against guns altogether.

 

I'm leaning towards this.  Mostly I've supported allowing gun ownership with regulation, but no matter which way I look at it, I don't see any sort of regulation really helping enough.  Of course we are so saturated with guns that it would take a really long time to get that under control. 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

My only question/reservation with regulating ammunition is that you can't necessarily regulate what they save. If someone wants to get a lot of ammo, they just have to have the patience to save up for a time, right? Unless, I guess, you have to bring in the used shells in order to buy more?

 

Just my random thoughts about that.

You can reload empty shell casings.

 

All the talk of limiting ammo just creates more stockpiling of ammo.

 

After Sandy Hook, there was talk of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban and talk of banning high-capacity magazines, consequentially, the sale of AR-15s and hc magazines went through the roof.

 

Just a week ago (Black Friday), a record number of background checks, required to buy firearms, were done - 185,000 in a single day. I'm sure that record will be broken very soon.

[Guest]

Would you mind defining "assault weapon" for the sake of future posts?

 

This probably isn't elucidating as far as this or any other thread on guns goes, but there's a really interesting history behind this.

 

"Assault weapon" is a generic, catch-all term that doesn't actually have any meaning of its own...."Assault Rifle" is the translation of the German word that means "Storm Rifle," with the original connotation having to do with storming a castle (guns a blazin' style).

 

In current parlance, Assault Rifle can mean different thing sto different people, of course, but the thing that technically separates an assault rifle from a regular hunting rifle is the ability to shoot in different modes. So like one bullet at a time, or in "burst" mode. Or like a machine gun. But you could, of course, use a so-called assault rifle to hunt large game.

 

Most interestingly, the now famous AR rifle doesn't stand for assault rifle, but it's an abbreviation of the company brand name that makes ARs.

 

(I was typing slowly while everyone above me posted lol)

Edited December 3, 2015 by OKBud

[6packofun]

Not a gun owner, support civilian gun ownership, am up for nearly any regulations to create a more stringent process and would like to see assault weapons banned.  HOWEVER.  The one area that is not addressed in this poll and that should be the ONE exception in the process, is when a person has a restraining order against a person who is stalking them, has committed domestic abuse of any kind, etc.  I don't know how this would work, but many people have been killed during the waiting period to obtain a gun for protection while law enforcement could do nothing until a crime had been carried out.  Those exceptions need to be done very carefully, I know.

[Saddlemomma]

I'm not sure what to think about limits on ammunition. I read that the shooters this week had over 2,000 rounds of ammunition! It's really scary that people who intend to kill have this much firepower. OTOH, ammunition is quite expensive and some gun owners limit practice on their weapons because of the cost. That means we have gun owners who may be getting less experience with their weapons than is prudent. I'm not sure how we determine a reasonable number of rounds, but 2,000 seems high.

 

We own quite a few guns including an AR-15 (which, by the way, is so much fun to shoot - I love it!).  When you're shooting for sport/target practice, 2,000 does not last very long.  It may sound like a lot to a non-shooter and/or non-gun person, but it's really a relatively small amount to those of us who go out and shoot for sport.

 

My husband and I took our handguns out to practice with a couple weeks ago.  Collectively we went through about 150 rounds in 1 1/2 - 2 hours. You can do the math from there.

 

As a side note, regulating ammo would be extremely difficult since many of us reload our own.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

This probably isn't elucidating as far as this or any other thread on guns goes, but there's a really interesting history behind this.

 

"Assault weapon" is a generic, catch-all term that doesn't actually have any meaning of its own...."Assault Rifle" is the translation of the German word that means "Storm Rifle," with the original connotation having to do with storming a castle (guns a blazin' style).

 

In current parlance, Assault Rifle can mean different thing sto different people, of course, but the thing that technically separates an assault rifle from a regular hunting rifle is the ability to shoot in different modes. So like one bullet at a time, or in "burst" mode. Or like a machine gun. But you could, of course, use a so-called assault rifle to hunt large game.

 

Most interestingly, the now famous AR rifle doesn't stand for assault rifle, but it's an abbreviation of the company brand name that makes ARs.

 

(I was typing slowly while everyone above me posted lol)

I believe that "assault Weapons" as you've defined fall under the National Firearms Act and are strictly controlled. I can't think of a mass shooter that used an assault rifle, yet the term is used over and over to describe any scary-looking black semi-automatic rifle.

[Southern Ivy]

You can reload empty shell casings.

 

All the talk of limiting ammo just creates more stockpiling of ammo.

 

After Sandy Hook, there was talk of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban and talk of banning high-capacity magazines, consequentially, the sale of AR-15s and hc magazines went through the roof.

 

Just a week ago (Black Friday), a record number of background checks, required to buy firearms, were done - 185,000 in a single day. I'm sure that record will be broken very soon.

I learned something new. Interesting. 

[HSmomof2]

I'm not sure what to think about limits on ammunition. I read that the shooters this week had over 2,000 rounds of ammunition! It's really scary that people who intend to kill have this much firepower. OTOH, ammunition is quite expensive and some gun owners limit practice on their weapons because of the cost. That means we have gun owners who may be getting less experience with their weapons than is prudent. I'm not sure how we determine a reasonable number of rounds, but 2,000 seems high.

 

While I agree in theory with strictly limiting guns/ammo, I just don't see how this could really be controlled or enforced in this country. Gun control laws, like all laws, are for people that follow the laws. Those intent on killing will always be able to find a way to get a gun, or like these latest two, they had plenty of bombs to kill with as well. I am in agreement with thorough background checks and required safety training for gun owners. Better mental health care, and treatment for those with substance addictions would help people dealing with those issues. Measures to preventing accidental gun-related deaths or allowing children access to guns should be a focus. I also agree with a pp that extreme limits on guns will make sure the criminals are the ones with the guns. What about the millions of guns already in circulation in our society? We can make all the laws we want, it'll just create a bigger illegal market. There are no easy solutions, and this time we live in is very troubling to me. 

[Suzanne in ABQ]

While I agree in theory with strictly limiting guns/ammo, I just don't see how this could really be controlled or enforced in this country. Gun control laws, like all laws, are for people that follow the laws. Those intent on killing will always be able to find a way to get a gun, or like these latest two, they had plenty of bombs to kill with as well. I am in agreement with thorough background checks and required safety training for gun owners. Better mental health care, and treatment for those with substance addictions would help people dealing with those issues. Measures to preventing accidental gun-related deaths or allowing children access to guns should be a focus. I also agree with a pp that extreme limits on guns will make sure the criminals are the ones with the guns. What about the millions of guns already in circulation in our society? We can make all the laws we want, it'll just create a bigger illegal market. There are no easy solutions, and this time we live in is very troubling to me. 

 

I agree with all of these points, and I add a couple more.  Is the government planning to confiscate or buy-back all the guns owned legally by private citizens in the country?  That's a lot of guns.  Who would determine the dollar value of those guns?  How could they possibly enforce such a law?  The only people who would willingly comply with such a law are the law abiding citizens whose guns aren't hurting anybody.  Will they go into every house and search for guns?  Is the government willing to kill those citizens who refuse to comply in order to enforce the no-gun law?  Do we want a government willing to do so?

 

As for limitations, I don't see how any of the ones suggested would prevent the horrible tragedies we've seen in the last couple years.  

1. Limitation on types of weapons for civilians (65 votes [15.15%])

   Someone intent on murder can do so with a six-shooter/revolver.  

2. Limitation on magazine capacity for civilians (55 votes [12.82%])

   Magazines can be changed in less that 2 seconds.  Problem solved for mass murderers.

3. Further training/certification required for weapon ownership (62 votes [14.45%])

   Most mass-murders use guns that were purchased by and licensed to someone else.

4. Training/certification required on an ongoing basis (annually, or other) (62 votes [14.45%])

   Again, wouldn't stop someone from using stolen/borrowed/illegally acquired guns.

5. Proof of mental health status required (doctor statement or other) (50 votes [11.66%])

   Would need to check mental health status of everyone who would have access to the guns, not just the owner.  Also, we'd then need to be able to hold the psychiatrist liable if he/she gives the wrong assessment, wouldn't we?  

6. Proof of mental health status, ongoing basis (annually, or other) (50 votes [11.66%])

   Would be ridiculously expensive, time consuming, and impossible to enforce (see previous).  

7.  

[Guest]

 

I'm not sure what to think about limits on ammunition. I read that the shooters this week had over 2,000 rounds of ammunition! It's really scary that people who intend to kill have this much firepower. OTOH, ammunition is quite expensive and some gun owners limit practice on their weapons because of the cost. That means we have gun owners who may be getting less experience with their weapons than is prudent. I'm not sure how we determine a reasonable number of rounds, but 2,000 seems high.

I shoot 50-75 rounds during my weekly range time. 2000 rounds doesn't sound like that many to me.

. The tactical training my inlaws took required 7,000 rounds minimum for the class - I believe it was a three week intensive. It just depends. Edited December 4, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[Amy in NH]

Guns are protected for "a well regulated militia". Keep them in an armoury. Check them out for short periods if you're going hunting. Get rid of private storage & confiscate from those with illegal storage.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Amy in NH

[Guest]

Guns are protected for "a well regulated militia". Keep them in an armoury. Check them out for short periods if you're going hunting. Get rid of private storage & confiscate from those with illegal storage.

Serious question - why is it that the first amendment is applied to things like digital communications and snippets of code but the second amendment only applies to large scale citizen militias and apparently armories?

 

Bit of a double standard there on application of original intent and extrapolation of modern technology and definitions of agency.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[goldberry]

A sincere question for those who believe there should be no additional requirements/limitations on gun ownership:  Do you believe that we don't have a problem with gun violence?  Or if you do believe we have a problem, then how would you propose we address it?

 

 

[Amy in NH]

Serious question - why is it that the first amendment is applied to things like digital communications and snippets of code but the second amendment only applies to large scale citizen militias and apparently armories?

 

Bit of a double standard there on application of original intent and extrapolation of modern technology and definitions of agency.

I don't think I understand your question. The founders intended the second amendment to provide for "a well regulated militia". That's what it says. I don't see a double standard in expecting that all guns - antiquated as well as modern - to be used for that particular purpose.

 

Likewise, the first amendment should apply to speech in whatever form it is expressed - old fashioned and modern alike. No double standard.

 

Maybe you can answer how the double standard works where the "no infringement of right to bear arms" is the only part of the amendment being applied and promoted. What happened to the "well regulated" and the "militia" parts?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Amy in NH

[Guest]

So you're taking the most broad reading of the first and narrow reading of the second? It comes down to how you read the prefatory clause and many a legal treatise has been argued on both sides, but considering the intent of a well regulated militia to retain freedom from tyranny as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms I'd say personal use in defense of property and self is well supported. Intent in drafting matters, as does the context of our current geopolitical realities. Unless your really like to argue that groups such as the Michigan Militia are the only justified expression of that amendment.

 

There are scads of opinions from the bench dealing with this. I find it bemusing that in public discourse there is so much refusal to acknowledge the expanses of one amendment compared to the other, especially the extrapolations that apply only to modern technology and definitions of morality and personal expression. One could argue that defense of self and self vision against harm is the most fundamental freedom of all and that was understood as intrinsic by the Framers.

 

I'll direct you to Heller for one of the more clear opinions on this topic in recent times:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Edited December 4, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[Amy in NH]

So you're taking the most broad reading of the first and narrow reading of the second? It comes down to how you read the prefatory clause and many a legal treatise has been argued on both sides, but considering the intent of a well regulated militia to retain freedom from tyranny as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms I'd say personal use in defense of property and self is well supported. Intent in drafting matters, as does the context of our current geopolitical realities. Unless your really like to argue that groups such as the Michigan Militia are the only justified expression of that amendment.

 

There are scads of opinions from the bench dealing with this. I find it bemusing that in public discourse there is so much refusal to acknowledge the expanses of one amendment compared to the other, especially the extrapolations that apply only to modern technology and definitions of morality and personal expression. One could argue that defense of self and self vision against harm is the most fundamental freedom of all and that was understood as intrinsic by the Framers.

Look, I'm answering the "other" in the poll, not trying to change your mind. I'm applying the same standard for both amendments, not a broader/narrower interpretation as you suggest. I've had Constitutional Law at university - I'm not ignorant as you imply. I disagree with you, and you're not going to change my mind, especially not with attacks on my understanding. And I seriously doubt the founders would have chosen the language they did if they lived in these times or had any idea how their words would be twisted to support the modern atrocities you are apparently unwilling to cease. Stick with your rigid, selective support of the gun lobby and imo you are complicit in these deaths.

 

You want to go with a strict literal interpretation of the parts that suit you, own and keep all the muzzleloaders you want. That would be a double standard first/second amendment position.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Amy in NH

[Tsuga]

I think it's one thing to walk around with a butter knife or even a Swiss Army knife, and another to walk around with a flipping machete. Ya know? And I am not going to answer a poll that doesn't distinguish between different types of firearms.

[Guest]

Look, I'm answering the "other" in the poll, not trying to change your mind. I'm applying the same standard for both amendments, not a broader/narrower interpretation as you suggest. I've had Constitutional Law at university - I'm not ignorant as you imply. I disagree with you, and you're not going to change my mind, especially not with attacks on my understanding. And I seriously doubt the founders would have chosen the language they did if they lived in these times or had any idea how their words would be twisted to support the modern atrocities you are apparently unwilling to cease. Stick with your rigid, selective support of the gun lobby and imo you are complicit in these deaths.

I wasn't saying you were ignorant, my words didn't come across properly. But I stand by your own interpretation given here as THE most narrow of them, especially with your own desired solutions listed in that post. That's why I linked Heller - there has been work done by better scholars than either of us and the opinion goes into depth on both sides of the linguistic issue. Neither is as extreme as proposing all arms be kept in armories, though.

 

Calling someone complicit in death over an opinion supported by current law is rich.

[Little Women]

The one thing you didn't put anywhere on this poll is support for better enforcement of the laws we already have.   Almost every serious suggestion I've seen even from liberal politicians about how to increase limitations on guns (which always are short of a full ban on them, as they know that's political suicide) turns out to be things we already have in place, but they aren't always well enforced.  The only one I've seen that isn't already in place is applying background checks to places like gun shows.    

[T'smom]

I put other on the first part. I am not a gun owner, but I wouldn't say I supported gun rights, just that I accept them as a fact of life.

 

I think people should have to really jump through hoops to purchase firearms. I think there should be classes- repeated every few years, a mental health check, a background check- and anyone guilty of a violent crime or who has restraining orders against them, should NOT be able to buy a gun. I think when they get their license, they should be able to prove (or maybe just explain) that they do have a safe place to put the gun. Gun safe, etc.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

The one thing you didn't put anywhere on this poll is support for better enforcement of the laws we already have. Almost every serious suggestion I've seen even from liberal politicians about how to increase limitations on guns (which always are short of a full ban on them, as they know that's political suicide) turns out to be things we already have in place, but they aren't always well enforced. The only one I've seen that isn't already in place is applying background checks to places like gun shows.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-swamped-gun-background-checks-black-friday/story?id=35529149

 

Apparently, plenty of people are submitting to background checks. Every licensed seller at a gunshow performs a background check on each and every prospective buyer using the FBIs database.

 

IME, private sales are rarely conducted at gunshow as I believe it's frowned upon. Private sellers usually make a copy of the buyers drivers license and ask to see the buyers concealed weapons permit (meaning they have been checked out by the state) before completing the transaction. No one I know wants to sell a gun to a felon.

[goldberry]

I think it's one thing to walk around with a butter knife or even a Swiss Army knife, and another to walk around with a flipping machete. Ya know? And I am not going to answer a poll that doesn't distinguish between different types of firearms.

 

I'm sorry, does that not come under "limiting the types of firearms" that can be owned by civilians? Right now we have little to no regulation for that topic.  So, part of the question, is would you like to see that regulation added.  Or are you talking about all firearms being okay for civilians, but some requiring more training/etc?  That would come under favoring more restrictions that are not listed here.  I was trying to keep it as simple as possible.  Obviously there could be huge debate about *what types* of regulations there could be. 

 

I was curious how many would support *any* regulation, and what type they would favor.

 

ETA changed weapons to firearms.

Edited December 4, 2015 by goldberry

[Little Women]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-swamped-gun-background-checks-black-friday/story?id=35529149

 

Apparently, plenty of people are submitting to background checks. Every licensed seller at a gunshow performs a background check on each and every prospective buyer using the FBIs database.

 

IME, private sales are rarely conducted at gunshow as I believe it's frowned upon. Private sellers usually make a copy of the buyers drivers license and ask to see the buyers concealed weapons permit (meaning they have been checked out by the state) before completing the transaction. No one I know wants to sell a gun to a felon.

 

In my state, private citizens are apparently allowed to take a gun to a gun show and sell it there, without being required to document it.   They are discussing closing that loophole by requiring people who want to buy a gun at a show to get some sort of certificate ahead of time, and then show that to buy a gun from an individual or collector, as well.  (My state is one of the most conservative, with a lot of gun owners but very little violent crime.)

[ikuradesuka]

I didn't read all the posts, but I did select "additional...not listed."

 

I think there should be MUCH stricter consequences for foolish uses of a weapon.  If your weapon causes an "accident", 30 years to life. Minimum.  If your weapon is the cause of an accident, or crime, whether or not you are aware of it, 30 years to life.  Or whatever.  Very strict.  

Sometimes I feel like more regulations are simply telling people, "Yep, you can't handle it.  We knew you were incompetent and untrustworthy.  You need the government to protect you from yourself."  And that really only goes so far.  A downtrodden and untrusted person will eventually revolt.  Heavily regulating guns in the short term will work, but it will not be the same America it once was.  Something else has changed...maybe it's our culture and not our guns.

 

Instead of stripping an entire country of its ability to control itself, perhaps a government by the people and for the people returns to regulating itself.  Innocent until proven guilty and all that.  

 

Edited to add I actually did read them all.  Oops.

Edited December 4, 2015 by ikuradesuka

[Ravin]

I actually think the intended purpose of the second amendment is undermined more by not allowing ownership of assault rifles than by not allowing carrying of handguns. The purpose of it is to ensure an armed populace capable of forming a militia for local defense and possibly overthrowing the government by force if warranted. Protecting yourself from muggers or whatever wasn't in the equation for the Founding Fathers.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Ravin

[Carrie12345]

 

 

 

 

1. Limitation on types of weapons for civilians (65 votes [15.15%])

   Someone intent on murder can do so with a six-shooter/revolver.  

 

I don't think there's a single reasonable person anywhere who believe it's possible to stop all murder, period.  Or even all accidents.  Murder's been around far longer than guns or even knives.