s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[TechWife]

Good!  Today I'm working on getting funding for economic development projects to create jobs and improve lives in the inner city.

 

Great - I'd love to hear more about this sometime. It sounds as if it has the potential to allow people to leave violent neighborhoods, depending which city you are talking about. 

[poppy]

The thing I hate the most about this thread is that instead of us all coming together to mourn the horrific tragedy in California, accusations are made that it is all the fault of the law abiding posters that own guns. Or anyone who doesn't automatically agree with any and all gun regulations being proposed or that the NRA is equivalent to ISIS. From my point of view, that feels like some sort of sick mind game that gets emotions high and breaks down the discussion.

 

Come together and do what? Mourn? I'm tired of mourning. I'm tired of "thoughts and prayers with the victims". Do something.

 

It's not just criminals that are the problem. Legally obtained guns are a problem.  The terrorists in San Bernardino bought guns legally. More than 80% of guns in mass shootings are bought legally. 

 

Of course, once a legal gun owner murder someone, he becomes "a criminal" and there is nothing we can do to stop criminals, right? Baloney.  We can make changes that will save lives.    But not with "thoughts and prayers". With determination and action.

Edited December 7, 2015 by poppy

[Valley Girl]

So then, who else are you willing to name "on the same level as extreme Islam"?

 

-- Big Pharma?

-- industry?

-- bureaucrats?

-- very specifically, anyone connected to Monsanto?

-- mainstream allopathic medicine?

-- oh, hello!  The insurance industry! Yeah, them.  Surely Aetna is the equivalent of Daesh.

-- Oh, and OMG! NOAA.  Cuz cloud-seeding.     /sarcasm/

 

All of these folks listed above are looking after their own interests at the cost of lives.  But they're not out there making war, rampaging across entire countries, pillaging huge swaths of countryside, killing half and enslaving the rest of entire populations, cutting off heads, and raping girls 30 times before lunch. 

 

SMH.

 

I agree. The problem with extreme hyperbole like the NRA and ISIS comparison is that it is neither edifying nor persuasive. It does, however, make it easy for people to dismiss the underlying argument being made. I hate to see that happen because I've tempered and even changed my views at times based on what I've read here.

[SKL]

I like the way posters are telling others "do something."  I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. "I'm going to do xyz" would seem more apt.

 

I'm sure most of us "do something" every day.  Make safe choices, try to raise our kids right, get educated, volunteer, vote our conscience, work and pay our taxes.

 

I don't think I can "do something" about the fact that some Americans are secretly planning terrorist attacks in their homes while I'm busy working and paying taxes.  I hope the people who have the ability and authority to "do something" about that will in fact do it.

[Kat w]

Felons are not allowed to buy guns.

Assault weapons are illegal.

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are prohibited by law.

Trigger locks are mandated.

Parents are encouraged by their baby and childhood books and magazines to inquire whether there are guns in the house before letting their kids visit, and not to allow their children to visit even houses where guns are demonstrably locked up and the keys secured elsewhere.

Concealed carry and open carry permits are so difficult to get that they might as well be illegal.

Hunting license rules are almost impossible to figure out.

Many specific handguns are banned from sale or import.

 

That's how those are similar to the current gun situation where I live. Assuming that your question was genuine, and not snarky, which frankly didn't sound like it was the case.

Amen. And just one thought to ponder ( some have their minds made up)

 

But.....where and who would you want to be around or behind when say....another terrorist attack happens.

 

I chose to be with and behind my husband with our concela carry permits and responsible gun ownswershi...in hand.

 

So much can be said, but rarely is, to the account s of these such citizens on movie theaters and the like , who....wait...ready?

 

Actually fend off / disarm the known shooting at innocent people gunmen.

Resulting in zero injuries or at least mittigated, and no deaths?

[SKL]

And we don't know how many crimes are deterred just by the knowledge that some law-abiding citizen *might* have a gun.  Some studies have shown that crime went up after strict gun control was introduced in some areas.

 

Disclaimer - I don't have a gun, and I don't feel I have a need or a duty to carry one at this point.  But I do feel comfortable knowing that in any gathering, some of the good people around me may well be carrying.

[poppy]

I like the way posters are telling others "do something."  I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. "I'm going to do xyz" would seem more apt.

 

I'm sure most of us "do something" every day.  Make safe choices, try to raise our kids right, get educated, volunteer, vote our conscience, work and pay our taxes.

 

I don't think I can "do something" about the fact that some Americans are secretly planning terrorist attacks in their homes while I'm busy working and paying taxes.  I hope the people who have the ability and authority to "do something" about that will in fact do it.

 

Yes, of course, you don't have to do anything, because you think the current gun laws are fine.  But you've probably already "done something" in the sense that you vote for politicians who support banning gun violence  research and commonsense safety measures.  

 

Mass killings done by legally obtained guns are sometimes the result of the choices our nation has made in that regard. You can be OK with that, or try to change it. I'm not OK with it. 

 

And when I say "we need to do something", I mean we as in the United States, which is a representative democracy.  We are responsible for our nation's laws.  We have a national election ahead which will impact this discussion significantly, both with who is President, what influence that President has on SCOTUS and congress, and what direction the national conversation can make. 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by poppy

[Kat w]

And... A small comment on the ' the Constitution is old or dated type of thinking....

 

IMO, that is a VERY slippery slope to start throwing out aspects of the Constitution that we don't like.

 

The founding Fathers were living in a time when they saw what resolve was needed to form and build a new nation.

 

They were very wise men. The later generations don't and didn't see what it was like to live and ensure what they did. A different mind set.

One that is relevant today IMO.

[Kat w]

Chicago would be a good example

 

Ok, I decided to edit. I wasn't going to say it cuz I don't wanna be lynched lol...but a good example of gun free zones making is safer.

 

Unfortunately, the public schools. Included college campuses.

One of the most collected/united gun fre zone example I can think of. And sadly....

We have what we have in America . :(

 

I think retired police or military should be posted at every public school. They need a way to combat/disarm or at least quarenteen them until police can show up.

 

Usually these gunmen want a sensational way to ' go out' . they are in control.

 

They see an gunmen and thst wasn't part of their plan and they usually have to think about . oh crap. What's next .

 

Just.... My opinion.

Please don't lunch me lol :)

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kat w

[Joanne]

So then, who else are you willing to name "on the same level as extreme Islam"?

 

-- Big Pharma?

-- industry?

-- bureaucrats?

-- very specifically, anyone connected to Monsanto?

-- mainstream allopathic medicine?

-- oh, hello! The insurance industry! Yeah, them. Surely Aetna is the equivalent of Daesh.

-- Oh, and OMG! NOAA. Cuz cloud-seeding. /sarcasm/

 

All of these folks listed above are looking after their own interests at the cost of lives. But they're not out there making war, rampaging across entire countries, pillaging huge swaths of countryside, killing half and enslaving the rest of entire populations, cutting off heads, and raping girls 30 times before lunch.

 

SMH.

Logical fallacy.

 

And the thread is about gun control in response to recent events. Talking about the NRA is on context and appropriate. Your list is a red herring.

[Kat w]

Logical fallacy.

 

And the thread is about gun control in response to recent events. Talking about the NRA is on context and appropriate. Your list is a red herring.

I was going to say....

 

Big pharma not hyperbole? I would say it is. (Dh works for big pharma :/ . hey..it pays the bills lol)

 

I can't seem to scroll up right now. But others in there I would describe as at least occasional hyperbole

[Kat w]

Oh yea.

Buerocrats bureo? Lol.

 

I turn on the news or read a local article and unfortunately I see it.

 

Monsoto? I see hyperbole.

 

May be that different people perceive in different ways. Idk

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kat w

[SKL]

But you've probably already "done something" in the sense that you vote for politicians who support banning gun violence  research and commonsense safety measures.  

 

Whether I voted for them or not, the people supposedly representing me in Washington are on your side.  So there goes that.  I actually live in a relatively moderate state and we have and like commonsense safety measures.  I am surrounded by gun owners and yet have never witnessed or feared any gun violence.

 

Like I said, I never heard of the "Dickey amendment" until yesterday, so obviously that didn't influence my vote.  Given that CDC research is just one of many issues voters have to consider - and not the biggest one by far - I can't say the Dickey amendment will determine my votes in the future either.  Besides, I haven't decided if I believe that targeting CDC research funding toward things other than gun control is causing a net loss of life.

[Katy]

If you look at it this way, highway deaths have also massively decreased. We still have a *lot* of people who die in car accidents. We also, as a country, are still collecting and analyzing information about car accidents. We're researching ways to make cars safer, roads safer, etc. Should we stop all research on that since the number of deaths per year is lower? I personally would prefer to continue research. I'm personally very grateful that our country didn't stop doing research after seatbelts started saving lives. I know more than one person whose life was saved by an airbag. So even if gun homicides are down, I think we still need to investigate who is dying and why. And who is injured and why. Look for patterns. See what works.

 

Also, while gun homicides have decreased, the number of gun suicides is still increasing. Maybe if the homicide rate is so low, we should look at ways to address that?

 

According to Pew Research, 85% of Americans support expanded background checks and 79% of Americans support laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns. It seems like a lot of people here are also supporting both of those too. Congress needs to get that message.

 

 

Even the NRA supports blocking people that are mentally ill from obtaining weapons, and in one article I read, restoring federal funding to asylums that was stripped in the 1980's.  Keeping mental health records private, or not forcing mentally ill people to get treatment is typically a concern of people who would rather take guns away from everyone than infringe on the right to privacy for those with mental illnesses or conditions such as autism spectrum disorders.  You can blame that block on democrats.  One person described it to me as a matter of fairness and civil liberties.  Basically, it's better to treat the entire population as if we're incapable of having access to weapons rather than single out those who are demonstrably more likely to harm themselves or others.

 

Come together and do what? Mourn? I'm tired of mourning. I'm tired of "thoughts and prayers with the victims". Do something.

 

It's not just criminals that are the problem. Legally obtained guns are a problem.  The terrorists in San Bernardino bought guns legally. More than 80% of guns in mass shootings are bought legally. 

 

Of course, once a legal gun owner murder someone, he becomes "a criminal" and there is nothing we can do to stop criminals, right? Baloney.  We can make changes that will save lives.    But not with "thoughts and prayers". With determination and action.

 

So you want to...  ban the most popular guns among law abiding citizens?   Ban guns altogether?

 

When you say do something, what do you mean exactly?  I have never heard anyone come up with any law that would have stopped any mass shooting that didn't boil down to taking guns away from everyone.  Which is not possible.

[poppy]

So you want to...  ban the most popular guns among law abiding citizens?   Ban guns altogether?

 

When you say do something, what do you mean exactly?  I have never heard anyone come up with any law that would have stopped any mass shooting that didn't boil down to taking guns away from everyone.  Which is not possible.

 

Really?  We're having this conversation again? There is nothing to do but ban guns altogether?

 

Here is a photo of the weapons the killers used: http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057

 

They also had 7000 rounds of ammunition.  Is that normal?  Fine & dandy? Because..... it's necessarily for protection from wild animals? Really? Perhaps it is normal in "gun culture" but it sounds nuts to the rest of us.

 

They modified the guns to make them more powerful, which is apparently common.  It's illegal, but the laws making it illegal are obviously ineffective.  What else might we do to make the rules enforceable?

 

The background check they passed "only limited categories of information, like whether a purchaser has a criminal history or has been involuntarily committed to a mental-health facility. Federal background checks wouldn't turn up other possible red flags, like whether a purchaser has ties to terrorist organizations."   Do you think that is good enough or should we perhaps change that?

Edited December 7, 2015 by poppy

[SKL]

Right, they modified the guns illegally, secretly, behind closed doors, because they had intentions of killing a bunch of people for ideological reasons.

 

What part of that would commonsense gun control prevent?

 

We need to figure out how to identify and monitor people who think mass murder and terror is a good idea.  Now that the leadership has hopefully stopped denying that such people exist in (and immigrate to) USA, maybe a workable plan will be devised.

[Joanne]

Right, they modified the guns illegally, secretly, behind closed doors, because they had intentions of killing a bunch of people for ideological reasons.

 

What part of that would commonsense gun control prevent?

 

We need to figure out how to identify and monitor people who think mass murder and terror is a good idea. Now that the leadership has hopefully stopped denying that such people exist in (and immigrate to) USA, maybe a workable plan will be devised.

Are having this conversation regarding only the most recent event? Because *informed by research* policy and regulation will, in fact, save lives.

[poppy]

Right, they modified the guns illegally, secretly, behind closed doors, because they had intentions of killing a bunch of people for ideological reasons.

 

What part of that would commonsense gun control prevent?

 

We need to figure out how to identify and monitor people who think mass murder and terror is a good idea.  Now that the leadership has hopefully stopped denying that such people exist in (and immigrate to) USA, maybe a workable plan will be devised.

 

Please don't ignore the questions you don't like.

 

I don't buy the "we just have to stop murder" line at all.   The same year as the Sandy Hook shootings, there was a mass knife attack in China with zero fatalities. Thank God that man didn't have a gun. Let's let fewer murderers get guns. Even before we know they are murderers.

 

[Katy]

Really?  We're having this conversation again? There is nothing to do but ban guns altogether?

 

Here is a photo of the weapons the killers used: http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057

 

They also had 7000 rounds of ammunition.  Is that normal?  Fine & dandy? Because..... it's necessarily for protection from wild animals? Really? Perhaps it is normal in "gun culture" but it sounds nuts to the rest of us.

 

They modified the guns to make them more powerful, which is apparently common.  It's illegal, but the laws making it illegal are obviously ineffective.  What else might we do to make the rules enforceable?

 

The background check they passed "only limited categories of information, like whether a purchaser has a criminal history or has been involuntarily committed to a mental-health facility. Federal background checks wouldn't turn up other possible red flags, like whether a purchaser has ties to terrorist organizations."   Do you think that is good enough or should we perhaps change that?

 

 

7000 rounds of ammunition has become much more common since ammunition has become harder to find due to government induced shortages.  If you like target shooting (and this man said he did) and you can find ammunition at a reasonable price, you buy it because you don't know when you'll find it again. I suppose it's just another way gun control has backfired. Someone DH works with is from Ohio and went there last Christmas.  He stopped at every store he could find online that sold ammunition on his drive back and bought everything he could find that would fit his guns because he likes target shooting competitions and couldn't find ammunition anywhere nearby.

 

One day last week DH had Glenn Beck's show on while I was making dinner. The topic was basic preparation. He suggested a moderate level of prepping, the same level as having a month's worth of food and water, one should have guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition.  That seemed high to me, but my family hasn't been involved in shooting competitions for years and I don't live in an area where I feel I need a gun for safety reasons, and my prepping tends to be related to preparing for natural disasters, not civil unrest, so it's entirely probable many people think like he does.

 

There is no way to make rules regarding modifying weapons enforceable for citizens with no criminal history. Furthermore, rules regarding building guns yourself or modifying weapons you own are much more lax than rules for sales and manufacturing.  Felons might not legally be allowed to purchase guns, but they can purchase tools and parts that make building guns easy. Even building machine guns can be quite easy.  I know a few people who built some from a kit for the pure joy of shooting them.

 

I'm absolutely for banning those who are unable to complete basic training for psychological reasons, or who are on the autism spectrum, or who have bipolar disorder or numerous other disorders from purchasing guns, as long as there is a way to appeal.  I'm not opposed to limiting weapons to American citizens.  I'm not opposed to blocking those who are on the terrorist watch list, assuming there is a legal process in place for Americans to see the evidence against them and to get off the list, which currently there is not.  If you have a name similar to someone who once spoke to a terrorist, you may as well be a terrorist. There have been court rulings that this is unconstitutional and that it needs to be changed, but so far it has not.  You can submit a challenge in writing, but that's the extent of it.  You cannot access evidence or see a judge about any of it.

 

But none of those rules would have changed this situation in San Bernardino at all. This man was a quiet person, probably radicalized by his wife, who had no criminal or mental health issues.  He'd been interested in target shooting for years prior to meeting his wife.  

 

The one thing that might have changed this situation is blocking all immigration from countries such as Saudi Arabia.  But as they are a US ally, I'm not sure that will happen any time soon, despite the vast majority of 9/11 conspirators being from there.  Not when it is a religious duty of innocent Muslims to travel there.

 

I don't know what the answer is.  I waffle about the NSA.  I waffle between being angry about them violating American constitutional rights and thinking it is worth it because at least they catch some things.

 

Edited because my grammar is awful when I'm on cold medicine.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Katy

[poppy]

7000 rounds of ammunition has become much more common since ammunition has become harder to find due to government induced shortages. If you like target shooting (and this man said he did) and you can find ammunition at a reasonable price, you buy it because you don't know when you'll find it again. I suppose it's just another way gun control has backfired. Someone DH works with is from Ohio and went there last Christmas. He stopped at every store he could find online that sold ammunition on his drive back and bought everything he could find that would fit his guns because he likes target shooting competitions and couldn't find ammunition anywhere nearby.

 

One day last week DH had Glenn Beck's show on while I was making dinner. The topic was basic preparation. He suggested a moderate level of prepping, the same level as having a month's worth of food and water, one should have guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition. That seemed high to me, but my family hasn't been involved in shooting competitions for years and I don't live in an area where I feel I need a gun for safety reasons, and my prepping tends to be related to preparing for natural disasters, not civil unrest, so it's entirely probable many people think like he does.

 

There is no way to make rules regarding modifying weapons enforceable for citizens with no criminal history. Furthermore, rules regarding building guns yourself or modifying weapons you own are much more lax than rules for sales and manufacturing. Felons might not legally be allowed to purchase guns, but they can purchase tools and parts that make building guns easy. Even building machine guns can be quite easy. I know a few people who built some from a kit for the pure joy of shooting them.

 

I'm absolutely for banning those who are unable to complete basic training for psychological reasons, or who are on the autism spectrum, or who have bipolar disorder or numerous other disorders from purchasing guns, as long as there is a way to appeal. I'm not opposed to limiting weapons to American citizens. I'm not opposed to blocking those who are on the terrorist watch list, assuming there is a legal process in place for Americans to see the evidence against them and to get off the list, which currently there is not. If you have a name similar to someone who once spoke to a terrorist, you may as well be a terrorist. There have been court rulings that this is unconstitutional and that it needs to be changed, but so far it has not. You can submit a challenge in writing, but that's the extent of it. You cannot access evidence or see a judge about any of it.

 

But none of those rules would have changed this situation in San Bernardino at all. This man was a quiet person, probably radicalized by his wife, who had no criminal or mental health issues. He'd been interested in target shooting for years prior to meeting his wife.

 

The one thing that might have changed this situation is blocking all immigration from countries such as Saudi Arabia. But as they are a US ally, I'm not sure that will happen any time soon, despite the vast majority of 9/11 conspirators being from there. Not when it is a religious duty of innocent Muslims to travel there.

 

I don't know what the answer is. I waffle about the NSA. I waffle between being angry about them violating American constitutional rights and thinking it is worth it because at least they catch some things.

 

Edited because my grammar is awful when I'm on cold medicine.

'We all like to have 10,000 rounds of ammunition for target practice' is not a constitutional right. Like I said , what gun culture might make you think is normal sounds pretty nuts to those outside it.

I get that you're saying the regulations go against the typical mind set . But really. Is it worth it? The option for recreation vs the San Bernardino shooters arsenal is a heck of a trade off.

Edited December 7, 2015 by poppy

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

 

 

The modification the killers made in an attempt to make the rifles fully-automatic failed.

 

I'm not sure how people modify firearms to make them more "powerful" beyond allowing for higher capacity magazines. It's the cartridge ("bullet) design that determines the damage inflicted. The .223 cartridge that was used by the killers is a commonround used for small game hunting, home defense and law enforcement.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooting-suspects-left-baby-daughter-grandma-n473261

 

The modification made to the female killers rife that allowed the use of 30-round magazines was most likely done by removing the "bullet button", a modification that does not allow for the release of the magazine forcing a rifle to be reloaded from the top. Bullet buttons are only required on rifles in California, but as shown here, they are easily rendered useless.

 

As for the number of rounds the killers had. I am not surprised. With the cache of like bombs they had in there homes, I am sure they were preparing for future attacks.

 

Many law-abiding gun owners hoard ammunition because of the constant threat that specific types will be banned and sometimes it's just due to good pricing. I practice once a week, using 50-75 rounds a session. If I have to purchase in bulk to get a good price, I do. I can store 1000 9mm rounds in a large shoebox.

[Katy]

'We all like to have 10,000 rounds of ammunition for target practice' is not a constitutional right. Like I said , what gun culture might make you think is normal sounds pretty nuts to those outside it.

 

Don't twist my words.  I said it sounded high to me, but it is increasingly normal due to this administration's ammunition purchase policies.

 

And yeah, I'd argue having whatever amount of ammunition you want IS a constitutional right.  You might not like it, and we might both agree it's not reasonable, but the constitution doesn't allow the government to limit what a law-abiding private citizen purchases.  The constitution is designed to limit government intrusion on free citizens, not assert it.

 

It's common to go through 100 rounds of ammunition at a time or more if you like practicing target shooting.  If you go to a gun club every day and shoot 100 bullets, 10,000 rounds is only enough for 100 days. That is not "nuts."  That's normal when there are frequently shortages where you can't find particular calibers of ammunition for months at a time. Those shortages that created the need to stock up were created by the Obama administration.  When I was a kid we would stop and buy a box or two of bullets on the way to target practice.  Ammunition was easy to find so there was no need to hoard, and large purchases from someone unknown to a gun store owner would have triggered flags and possibly even calls to police.  These days it's normal for someone to buy as much ammunition as they can find because of shortages.

[SKL]

In the USA, "people outside of your culture think that's nuts" is not a reason to ban or restrict something.

Edited December 7, 2015 by SKL

[Kat w]

We do competitions shooting.

 

Tbat burns thru very little ma cuz you are targeting a specii target.

 

When practicing the sport. It's sport as well for us....you can easily go thru 100 rounds yes.

Multipy thst times however people are in the house wanting to practice yes can add up.

 

We have tempered thst here because dhs dies have alot of ammo on hold.

The big ammo manufacturers have alot on shelves on bold for the govt and have for a few years.

 

Then, some want to make sure they have ammo. Been there...i don't have that many roundsbhere tho. Not even close.

That's just me tho. If another wants thst. I would suppose it's his own business unless he violates the law ie: hurts someone or threateens bodily harm.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I have a case of beer in my refrigerator and a half a dozen bottles of wine in my wine rack and 3 or 4 bottles of liquor in my liquor cabinet. I drink now and the. Yet, I don't feel responsible for the deaths cause by drunk drivers. Maybe I should?

[poppy]

In the USA, "people outside of your culture think that's nuts" is not a reason to ban or restrict something.

True. Frequent mass shootings do raise reasonable questions, though.

[poppy]

Don't twist my words. I said it sounded high to me, but it is increasingly normal due to this administration's ammunition purchase policies.

 

And yeah, I'd argue having whatever amount of ammunition you want IS a constitutional right. You might not like it, and we might both agree it's not reasonable, but the constitution doesn't allow the government to limit what a law-abiding private citizen purchases. The constitution is designed to limit government intrusion on free citizens, not assert it.

 

It's common to go through 100 rounds of ammunition at a time or more if you like practicing target shooting. If you go to a gun club every day and shoot 100 bullets, 10,000 rounds is only enough for 100 days. That is not "nuts." That's normal when there are frequently shortages where you can't find particular calibers of ammunition for months at a time. Those shortages that created the need to stock up were created by the Obama administration. When I was a kid we would stop and buy a box or two of bullets on the way to target practice. Ammunition was easy to find so there was no need to hoard, and large purchases from someone unknown to a gun store owner would have triggered flags and possibly even calls to police. These days it's normal for someone to buy as much ammunition as they can find because of shortages.

The constitution doesn't say you can buy unlimited weapons and ammo..... There are weapons you cannot legally purchase correct? I don't know and I'm not going to google but I am thinking there must be some limit short of a nuclear missle.

 

 

And again I'd say the pleasure of the person who enjoys lots of daily shooting at the gun range is not a high priority compared to public safety. I'm not saying I have answers. I'm saying that the ammo shortage and stockpiling is a part of us culture is troublesome to me. And right now there are people walking around who will die, be murdered, as a result of that cultural mindset. Shooters recreation preferences at the range doesn't persuade me that their priorities match mine, or public safety.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

The constitution doesn't say you can buy unlimited weapons and ammo..... There are weapons you cannot legally purchase correct? I don't know and I'm not going to google but I am thinking there must be some limit short of a nuclear missle.

 

 

And again I'd say the pleasure of the person who enjoys lots of daily shooting at the gun range is not a high priority compared to public safety. I'm not saying I have answers. I'm saying that the ammo shortage and stockpiling is a part of us culture is troublesome to me. And right now there are people walking around who will die, be murdered, as a result of that cultural mindset. Shooters recreation preferences at the range doesn't persuade me that their priorities match mine, or public safety.

I just want to be clear. I don't have "recreational preferences", I have self-defense preferences.

[poppy]

I just want to be clear. I don't have "recreational preferences", I have self-defense preferences.

That mean you need 7000 or more rounds available at any given moment ? The only reason I've heard given for such numbers is target practice. I know there are survivalists who would want to be prepared for the zombie apocalypse.... Does that level of paranoia need to be protected in the name of a 'well regulated militia?' I don't think the answer is obvious at all.

[SKL]

The constitution doesn't say you can buy unlimited weapons and ammo..... There are weapons you cannot legally purchase correct? I don't know and I'm not going to google but I am thinking there must be some limit short of a nuclear missle.

 

 

And again I'd say the pleasure of the person who enjoys lots of daily shooting at the gun range is not a high priority compared to public safety. I'm not saying I have answers. I'm saying that the ammo shortage and stockpiling is a part of us culture is troublesome to me. And right now there are people walking around who will die, be murdered, as a result of that cultural mindset. Shooters recreation preferences at the range doesn't persuade me that their priorities match mine, or public safety.

 

Well if there was an incident and a gun owner shot at the bad guy(s) to try to stop it, wouldn't you want their aim to be good?  You make it sound like shooting accuracy has no societal benefit.  It could save lives.

[EmseB]

The constitution doesn't say you can buy unlimited weapons and ammo..... There are weapons you cannot legally purchase correct? I don't know and I'm not going to google but I am thinking there must be some limit short of a nuclear missle.

 

 

And again I'd say the pleasure of the person who enjoys lots of daily shooting at the gun range is not a high priority compared to public safety. I'm not saying I have answers. I'm saying that the ammo shortage and stockpiling is a part of us culture is troublesome to me. And right now there are people walking around who will die, be murdered, as a result of that cultural mindset. Shooters recreation preferences at the range doesn't persuade me that their priorities match mine, or public safety.

 

How does a recreational shooter at a range with 1,000 rounds at his house result in murder?

 

The conclusions you make from recreational shooters, law-abiding gun owners, hunters, etc to...murder...are baffling to me.  Cultural mindset that enjoys shooting or hunting != murder or shooting up a bunch of disabled people in a school.  I mean, I know there was a cultural mindset that contributed to San Bernadio (and Paris), but the mindset is not the same as the guy who goes down to practice target shooting for a couple hours on a Saturday for a hobby.  It's honestly incredulous to me that you equate the two.  Or even link them, tangentially.  No wonder people think there can be no meeting of the minds here.

 

If someone wants to have 5,000 bullets in their home, and you think it should be illegal to have that many, how do we police that sort of thing?  Regular home inspections?  A nationwide database of ammunition transactions?  Someone must keep track of every shot they fire at a range and report it to the authorities?  Is that what you're thinking?  I can even kiinda sorta understand wanting a national registry for guns, but bullets?  Like individual bullets?

Edited December 7, 2015 by JodiSue

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

That mean you need 7000 or more rounds available at any given moment ? The only reason I've heard given for such numbers is target practice. I know there are survivalists who would want to be prepared for the zombie apocalypse.... Does that level of paranoia need to be protected in the name of a 'well regulated militia?' I don't think the answer is obvious at all.

Sell since I consume 300+ a month, sometimes more. No. 7000 rounds doesn't seem that much. If there is legislation that makes my ammunition more expensive, I will be very happy that I stocked up.

 

Dh and I are planning on taking a two-day training class next spring. We are required to bring 800 rounds EACH.

[Joanne]

In the USA, "people outside of your culture think that's nuts" is not a reason to ban or restrict something.

 

True story.

 

I'd add that in the USA, it is also not a reason to step back, consider, be introspective, and give weight or consideration to what other countries and cultures might be observing that could have merit.

 

#entrenched #defensemechanism

[SKL]

Am I hearing a proposal for rationing bullets?  On what basis?  Because we've had how many domestic incidents involving large numbers of legally purchased (non-police, non-military) bullets?

[Katy]

The constitution doesn't say you can buy unlimited weapons and ammo..... There are weapons you cannot legally purchase correct? I don't know and I'm not going to google but I am thinking there must be some limit short of a nuclear missle.

 

 

And again I'd say the pleasure of the person who enjoys lots of daily shooting at the gun range is not a high priority compared to public safety. I'm not saying I have answers. I'm saying that the ammo shortage and stockpiling is a part of us culture is troublesome to me. And right now there are people walking around who will die, be murdered, as a result of that cultural mindset. Shooters recreation preferences at the range doesn't persuade me that their priorities match mine, or public safety.

 

It says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  My understanding is that for the purposes of the second amendment, other weapons such as bombs are not considered arms.  "Arms" means firearms and ammunition. Basically, firearms and ammunition have traditional uses and lawful purposes. Bombs, missiles, and nuclear technologies do not.

 

In 2008, the supreme court ruled in DC vs Heller that DC's regulations banning handguns, semiautomatic, and automatic weapons, and requiring rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded with a trigger lock were unconstitutional, and that individuals have rights to possess firearms and ammunition for lawful purposes including self-defense, and that the requirement for weapons to be kept unloaded and locked up was also unconstitutional, as it restricted the right to self-defense. That applied to a federal area though, not to individual states.

 

in 2010's McDonald vs Chicago, the court ruled that the rights as outlined in DC vs Heller extend to those in cities and states because of the 14th amendment.  Basically, local regulations cannot infringe on 2nd amendment rights.  But the ruling did uphold the right to ban criminals or the insane from having guns, and did give localities the right to restrict firearm possession from sensitive areas like government buildings or schools. It is also not illegal to regulate the sales of weapons in cities or states. My understanding is this is for things such as background checks, waiting periods, and concealed carry certifications.

 

These are recent cases, and public safety concerns cited in them (two of the most dangerous areas of the country) were not enough to sway the court's interpretation of constitutional rights.

[Bluegoat]

And... A small comment on the ' the Constitution is old or dated type of thinking....

 

IMO, that is a VERY slippery slope to start throwing out aspects of the Constitution that we don't like.

 

The founding Fathers were living in a time when they saw what resolve was needed to form and build a new nation.

 

They were very wise men. The later generations don't and didn't see what it was like to live and ensure what they did. A different mind set.

One that is relevant today IMO.

This is a weird argument to me.  They were men of their time, and fallible.  It's entirely possible - even probable -  even inevitable - they could have overlooked possibilities, or been less than clear about things they intended, or just could have had a bad idea.

 

The  constitution is not some kind of perfect document, it doesn't even claim that, if a constitution is going to be able to provide the foundation for  a nation, in needs to be able to be amended.  Or the nation will fail.

 

Some people seem to give it  quasi-religious status, nd a fundamentalist religion at that.

 

It should be scary that it seems right now that it would be impossible to ever mend it on any important issue.

 

[Katy]

That mean you need 7000 or more rounds available at any given moment ? The only reason I've heard given for such numbers is target practice. I know there are survivalists who would want to be prepared for the zombie apocalypse.... Does that level of paranoia need to be protected in the name of a 'well regulated militia?' I don't think the answer is obvious at all.

 

Have you ever shot a gun?  Guns are hard to control.  Shooting is a skill.  Not just due to kickback, but due to things like adrenaline.  To be a good shot, to be prepared for self-defense concerns, you must practice regularly.  You must practice so regularly that muscle memory takes over. That you can be calm and focused in the midst of a stressful situation.  That you force your body to calm your adrenaline, to slow your heartbeat, to lower your blood pressure, to shoot between breaths, refocus on a target each time you pull the trigger, and to the truly great, even shoot between heartbeats.   To get to a level where you can keep a tight grouping and safely defend yourself or anyone, you must put in the hours and the ammunition and practice regularly.

 

And after that, not only does it feel exhilarating - you feel powerful, you feel safer, you feel more in control of your life. You've learned to control your heart rate and blood pressure.  I'm certain that the same benefits that you get from meditation you also get from learning to shoot well.

 

So if we were back in the 80's or 90's and bullets were easy to come by at any gun store or Walmart, few would need to stockpile that many bullets.  But today, when there are times when you can go months without finding certain types of bullets, yes, I'd argue having thousands of rounds at any given time is a good thing.

[SKL]

This is a weird argument to me.  They were men of their time, and fallible.  It's entirely possible - even probable -  even inevitable - they could have overlooked possibilities, or been less than clear about things they intended, or just could have had a bad idea.

 

The  constitution is not some kind of perfect document, it doesn't even claim that, if a constitution is going to be able to provide the foundation for  a nation, in needs to be able to be amended.  Or the nation will fail.

 

Some people seem to give it  quasi-religious status, nd a fundamentalist religion at that.

 

It should be scary that it seems right now that it would be impossible to ever mend it on any important issue.

 

The US constitution can be amended, but it requires a specific procedure to do so.  So far there have been 27 amendments.

 

Unlike the constitutions of some countries, the US constitution does not include a lot of laws.  It was designed to be flexible so that the basic timeless principles could stand the test of time.

 

[Katy]

One thing to add to the post about shooting:  There is nothing more dangerous than a gun in the hands of someone who hasn't spent time at the range.  If you don't spend the time, you shouldn't have a gun.  The risks are too high.

[poppy]

How does a recreational shooter at a range with 1,000 rounds at his house result in murder?

 

The conclusions you make from recreational shooters, law-abiding gun owners, hunters, etc to...murder...are baffling to me. Cultural mindset that enjoys shooting or hunting != murder or shooting up a bunch of disabled people in a school. I mean, I know there was a cultural mindset that contributed to San Bernadio (and Paris), but the mindset is not the same as the guy who goes down to practice target shooting for a couple hours on a Saturday for a hobby. It's honestly incredulous to me that you equate the two. Or even link them, tangentially. No wonder people think there can be no meeting of the minds here.

 

If someone wants to have 5,000 bullets in their home, and you think it should be illegal to have that many, how do we police that sort of thing? Regular home inspections? A nationwide database of ammunition transactions? Someone must keep track of every shot they fire at a range and report it to the authorities? Is that what you're thinking? I can even kiinda sorta understand wanting a national registry for guns, but bullets? Like individual bullets?

Let me try and explain why they are linked in my mind - recreational shooters and mass killers. I think it's because counties who don't have recreational sport shooting also don't have near daily shooting tragedies. I don't see any benefit personally from guns-as-recreation. I only get the tragedy. And the risk.

 

I am not proposing we limit ammo. The conversation is , is what we have right now the right balance of freedom vs safety? Let's look at various factors. The arsenal of the San Bernardino killers was legally obtained. In many parts of the world , they wouldn't have that opportunity. Do we love the status qui or are there lessons we could learn to benefit public safety?

 

I don't love the status quo, so I am asking questions. The answers I'm hearing don't make me feel better - they don't make me feel like the next tragedy isn't days away. Guns as sport are wrapped up in my mind . Because every proposal to try and make positive change might impact that sportsman too and he is the one standing in the way. And if the argument is 'well target practice daily requires lots of bullets' I do squint at that a little bit. A friend knows someone who died in the CA shooting and she's a mess about it. He had young kids.

[poppy]

One thing to add to the post about shooting: There is nothing more dangerous than a gun in the hands of someone who hasn't spent time at the range. If you don't spend the time, you shouldn't have a gun. The risks are too high.

Now there is a law I could get behind !!! (Lighthearted jest) Edited December 7, 2015 by poppy

[Katy]

Let me try and explain why they are linked in my mind - recreational shooters and mass killers. I think it's because counties who don't have recreational sport shooting also don't have near daily shooting tragedies. I don't see any benefit personally from guns-as-recreation. I only get the tragedy. And the risk.

 

I am not proposing we limit ammo. The conversation is , is what we have right now the right balance of freedom vs safety? Let's look at various factors. The arsenal of the San Bernardino killers was legally obtained. In many parts of the world , they wouldn't have that opportunity. Do we love the status qui or are there lessons we could learn to benefit public safety?

 

I don't love the status quo, so I am asking questions. The answers I'm hearing don't make me feel better - they don't make me feel like the next tragedy isn't days away. Guns as sport are wrapped up in my mind . Because every proposal to try and make positive change might impact that sportsman too and he is the one standing in the way. And if the argument is 'well target practice daily requires lots of bullets' I do squint at that a little bit. A friend knows someone who died in the CA shooting and she's a mess about it. He had young kids.

 

You're arguing that these particular killers, who had pledged allegiance to a group that has declared war on us, and who had a house full of homemade bombs, wouldn't have killed people if they hadn't had access to guns?  That's not logical.  They had a house full of bombs.

 

I would posit that those supporting Donald Trump have similar concerns as yours.  Stopping immigrants and shutting down mosques and throwing out everyone who might possibly be connected to Islamists might make us safer.  But the cost would be constitutional rights and basic human decency.  I'm not going to vote for him, and I'm also not going to support those who connect law abiding citizens with those who have declared war on us.  And war is half of the mass shootings this year.

 

The other half are unhinged young men on the autism spectrum.  That condition should be added to the do-not-sell-guns-to list IMO.

 

I can basically guarantee there will be another attack, because a group we barely acknowledge has declared war on us and because we refuse to put high functioning autism on the list of conditions that shouldn't be allowed weapons.

 

I'm very sorry for your friend and his family.

[Χά�ων]

The other half are unhinged young men on the autism spectrum. That condition should be added to the do-not-sell-guns-to list IMO.

 

 

This bit of your post screams ignorance of those with autism.

[albeto.]

This bit of your post screams ignorance of those with autism.

 

Thank you for pointing that out. What an awful, insensitive, insulting comment. 

 

I should say it's more practical to put religious people on the do-not-sell-guns-to list. 

 

Body-count for body-count, which group is more deadly? People with autism or people with gods? 

 

Or will people now start qualifying people with autism as "peaceful autists" like they do "peaceful muslims"? 

[Kat w]

Sell since I consume 300+ a month, sometimes more. No. 7000 rounds doesn't seem that much. If there is legislation that makes my ammunition more expensive, I will be very happy that I stocked up.

 

Dh and I are planning on taking a two-day training class next spring. We are required to bring 800 rounds EACH.

Same here.

Times 3 people going.....

 

Then thats for one training class.

There are more Wed like to go to but they are pricey.

[Ausmumof3]

Have you ever shot a gun? Guns are hard to control. Shooting is a skill. Not just due to kickback, but due to things like adrenaline. To be a good shot, to be prepared for self-defense concerns, you must practice regularly. You must practice so regularly that muscle memory takes over. That you can be calm and focused in the midst of a stressful situation. That you force your body to calm your adrenaline, to slow your heartbeat, to lower your blood pressure, to shoot between breaths, refocus on a target each time you pull the trigger, and to the truly great, even shoot between heartbeats. To get to a level where you can keep a tight grouping and safely defend yourself or anyone, you must put in the hours and the ammunition and practice regularly.

 

And after that, not only does it feel exhilarating - you feel powerful, you feel safer, you feel more in control of your life. You've learned to control your heart rate and blood pressure. I'm certain that the same benefits that you get from meditation you also get from learning to shoot well.

 

So if we were back in the 80's or 90's and bullets were easy to come by at any gun store or Walmart, few would need to stockpile that many bullets. But today, when there are times when you can go months without finding certain types of bullets, yes, I'd argue having thousands of rounds at any given time is a good thing.

But it doesn't require quite 7000 rounds in the safe. So you even keep them in a safe?

 

I know this because my dh is very accurate and a friend of his is competition level. And yet ammunition here for their rifles cost over $1 per round. Trust me we don't have $7000 worth of ammunition sitting around!

 

They improve accuracy dramatically by using careful adjustments to technique and making their own rounds to suit themselves.

[Kat w]

You're arguing that these particular killers, who had pledged allegiance to a group that has declared war on us, and who had a house full of homemade bombs, wouldn't have killed people if they hadn't had access to guns? That's not logical. They had a house full of bombs.

 

I would posit that those supporting Donald Trump have similar concerns as yours. Stopping immigrants and shutting down mosques and throwing out everyone who might possibly be connected to Islamists might make us safer. But the cost would be constitutional rights and basic human decency. I'm not going to vote for him, and I'm also not going to support those who connect law abiding citizens with those who have declared war on us. And war is half of the mass shootings this year.

 

The other half are unhinged young men on the autism spectrum. That condition should be added to the do-not-sell-guns-to list IMO.

 

I can basically guarantee there will be another attack, because a group we barely acknowledge has declared war on us and because we refuse to put high functioning autism on the list of conditions that shouldn't be allowed weapons.

 

I'm very sorry for your friend and his family.

I completely agree with the ...bomb aspect. I have made thst point before.

 

And knives, about 2 weeks ago a terrorist group had knives on their website as the weapon of choice at thst time.

 

Fertilize r. Do we relegate thst? We have and its very expensive now.

 

On the autism ...hmm.

I have SN boys. I think it depends on where you are on the spectrum... But again..this becomes a slippery slope.

 

What would we do next. The elderly? They are a group that needs self defence / protection ..alot.

 

So. I think alot has to be considered on braod judgement calls.

[Tanaqui]

It says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  My understanding is that for the purposes of the second amendment, other weapons such as bombs are not considered arms.  "Arms" means firearms and ammunition. Basically, firearms and ammunition have traditional uses and lawful purposes. Bombs, missiles, and nuclear technologies do not.

 

But we have a good many guns nowadays that the Founders could never have imagined. They're more accurate, they're easier to use, they fire more rounds per minute.

 

The other half are unhinged young men on the autism spectrum.  That condition should be added to the do-not-sell-guns-to list IMO.

 

Gee, thanks.

 

I'm going to want to see a citation for this.

[Ausmumof3]

The "but they had bombs" argument also applies to the well regulated militia. So you have the right to bear arms, but only guns not bombs, not fly military planes. How does that really help in a hostile overreaching government situation anyway? When your gov has military technology way way beyond the average recreational shooters arsenal. Maybe you use the guns to take over military equipment I don't know? I suppose isil have done it in the Middle East but I suspect they've had a lot of backing from around the world.

[Kat w]

This is a weird argument to me. They were men of their time, and fallible. It's entirely possible - even probable - even inevitable - they could have overlooked possibilities, or been less than clear about things they intended, or just could have had a bad idea.

 

The constitution is not some kind of perfect document, it doesn't even claim that, if a constitution is going to be able to provide the foundation for a nation, in needs to be able to be amended. Or the nation will fail.

 

Some people seem to give it quasi-religious status, nd a fundamentalist religion at that.

 

It should be scary that it seems right now that it would be impossible to ever mend it on any important issue.

I understand your viewpoint. I really do.

My own personal opinion....aside from religious , would be....our generations and none in recent time have endured the winter at valley forge. And the like.

 

I agree, fallable. Clearly, looming at their personal lives. Absolutely.

 

I just think they were at a unique time in history...American history esp. I believe they were at a cutting edge in time.....Ben Franklin and electricity .

I think they had great hope for our nation. And considered many things were possible in the future.

 

Some time periods are life changing...like the invention of computers.

The ancients and the time of Aristotle. All different, yet, all impacting.

 

That's just my opinion . I get what your saying tho.