Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[Word Nerd]

My question is does he put deer meat on the table with a semi-automatic rifle or whatever the gun is that was used. If not then why can't we at least get rid of those?

Semi-automatic just refers to the gun having a self-loading mechanism instead of a manual one; one squeeze of the trigger still fires one shot. Yes, they are regularly used in hunting.

[TCB]

Semi-automatic just refers to the gun having a self-loading mechanism instead of a manual one; one squeeze of the trigger still fires one shot. Yes, they are regularly used in hunting.

 

So the gun used in Texas on Sunday is one that is regularly used in hunting? 

[Word Nerd]

So the gun used in Texas on Sunday is one that is regularly used in hunting? 

 

I don't know what he used or how people use specific models of guns.  

[Liz CA]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/

 

Speaking of bad ways to handle disappointments, mass killing, etc. It’s really not new, but the media reach and visual coverage of it is. Reading about something on a printed page takes the immediacy out of it in a way film does not. And wall to wall coverage with detailed images are desensitizing and traumatizing to the public, as much as they might be inciting for others.

 

No real argument, just musing.

 

I do feel this is a huge factor contributing to the increase in these events. It seems like there is no definite answer to the question why mass shootings have increased so much in the last decade or so while weapons of one sort or another have been around for a long time.

I am thinking a two - or three pronged approach is necessary to reduce these incidents. Enforcing existing laws, adding where it's necessary - see Murphy's post a few pages back, and somehow convincing media outlets that news can be reported without sensationalizing it. A shooting in and of itself is horrible enough without 59 videos and 101 speculations before all the facts are obtained.

 

[goldberry]

http://www.newsweek.com/department-defense-reported-only-one-domestic-violence-case-703806

 

Has this been discussed yet? Looks like the DOD is also failing at it's job.

And a look at domestic violence in military families

https://www.domesticshelters.org/domestic-violence-articles-information/the-facts-about-abuse-in-military-families

 

Bad, bad, bad.

 

But I bet this at least will be fixed after all this coming out.  Too bad it took people getting killed, which is often the case in our society.  :crying:

[Murphy101]

So the gun used in Texas on Sunday is one that is regularly used in hunting?

The AR-556 (and similiar AR-15s) semi automatic rifles are often used for hunting. They are just one trigger pull, one shot rifles.

 

http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/

 

Also, I know it's been said, but it needs repeating. The AR does not stand for assault rifle. It stands for armalite rifle.

[Murphy101]

I would absolutely vote no against a mandatory registry of gun owners.

 

The best gun is the gun no one knows you have and that you never need to use.

 

I think "advertising" that a person or a home has a gun on them is stupid.

[Bluegoat]

Yep, I think that's what I've already been saying upthread, just in different words: criminals who want a gun will find a way to get one, including ones supplied by our loving government.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how that would really follow.  I mean, I think high taxes on ammo to reduce shooting is a similarly bad idea to over-taxing booze, with likely similar results.

 

But as far as regulation - we regulate booze pretty heavily - more than guns are regulated in some places I think.  You have to be 19 or 21 - you can't have open liquor on the street or in a car - no driving while over the limit - all kinds of regs on selling and licences required, you get shut down if you sell to minors...

 

Criminals would still get guns, likely, though if they are less common and more expensive, fewer will likely have them.  But those are going to be serious criminals, who are involved in particular kinds of crimes.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

What about the cigarettes example?

 

There is a big black market for them, where it is possible to have one - where there is a source of non-taxed ones.

 

But I don't think price is the main reason use has gone down.  I'd say the #1 reason is that it has become impossible to smoke in so many places, even heavy smokers do so less often, and people have become unaccustomed to smoking in certain social situations too, like when they eat.  Along with that it's become less socially acceptable.

 

Price is a pretty minor factor I think.

[Murphy101]

That criminals will find a way doesn't mean we need to make it easier for them.

 

Permits that require for each gun purchase:

 

Background checks that weed out any felons and any violent offenses in the last 10 years

 

Mandatory safety and law courses

 

2-4 week wait

 

Ammo purchase limit permits. Maybe similiar to hunting tag limits? Idk, but I think something reasonable to be figured out.

[Butter]

I would absolutely vote no against a mandatory registry of gun owners.

 

The best gun is the gun no one knows you have and that you never need to use.

 

I think "advertising" that a person or a home has a gun on them is stupid.

 

How is mandatory registration of guns advertising that a person or home has a gun?

 

I don't have a problem with guns being registered, but I do wonder if unusable antiques would need to be registered.  My parents have some antiques (none of which have been used in 50+ years).  Two may be illegal (my grandfather's sawed off something or other from the 1930s and my other grandfather's gun he took off a dead Nazi and brought home after WWII).

[Bluegoat]

It is possible to have a registry that isn't available to the public - which I agree is a really bad idea.  You could have one that is available only to certain persons, like police.

 

That being said, I don't know how cost effective that really is.  Here, gun owners have to have a firearms licence, that info is recorded somewhere, if anyone really needs it.  We also used to have an actual firearms registry - which cost a ton of money for not a lot of utility.  I always thought that if that money had been put into policing gun smuggling, or heck even community policing, it would be much more effective at preventing crime.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not to mention that registration is also the first step to confiscation.

 

Prove it.

 

[Bluegoat]

re below:  it seems to me that the rate is more relevant than the number.  The US population is about 55x that of Finland, so one would expect both bad and good things in Finland to happen far fewer times than in the USA. 

 

But I wasn't bringing up Switzerland to say it has a high mass shooting death rate.  I was saying they have a lot of guns and don't have nearly the murder rate the US has.

 

Which seems fairly meaningless given how many people are killed in mass shootings vs how many are in the population. Mass shootings, thankfully, remain relatively rare in the grand scheme. The article goes on to address this...

 

 

This is true.  There are communities in Canada with a lot of guns.

 

It's the attitude that is different.

 

But that does still speak to this question of regulation.  Because no one in Canada, or Switzerland, or Finland, blinks an eye when people say, no, you can't have an automatic weapon, or you have to lock up ammo and guns in separate cabinets, and you can't carry a handgun hidden on your body, or in your car glove box.

 

That's why even people in other places where guns are used a lot find these conversations, where lobby groups oppose even the most sensible regulations, and people talk about the government wanting to confiscate their weapons, really odd.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

How is mandatory registration of guns advertising that a person or home has a gun?

 

I don't have a problem with guns being registered, but I do wonder if unusable antiques would need to be registered.  My parents have some antiques (none of which have been used in 50+ years).  Two may be illegal (my grandfather's sawed off something or other from the 1930s and my other grandfather's gun he took off a dead Nazi and brought home after WWII).

 

If those weapons were obtained before the laws changed (likely) they are not illegal.  The WW2 gun probably isn't a fully automatic but if so it would be legal but paperwork would need to be done to legally transfer it to a new owner.

 

IMO the law would be written that unusable antiques would need to be rendered unusable by a professional and if so would not need to be registered.  We have a very, very old double barrel shotgun that belonged to my great-great-grandfather that would be dangerous to shoot, so we had it made inoperable and it is now a showpiece in DH's den.

[eternalsummer]

You seem to be talking about abortion (taking innocent lives themselves legally) as an example of "killing is positively glorified". That is a gross perversion of reality. Seriously, why does abortion always come into the picture when it has no relevance?

 

Someone (Poppy, I think?) already posted a really good list of actual sins against already-born people that definitely deserve judgement. Are you saying that God is allowing us to have so many killed by guns as our judgement? For abortion? For which sins is this a natural consequence except the sin of making guns our idols?

 

 

I am not Christian and I'm not Mercy, but generally speaking if you're arguing about an excess of the killing of innocents in the US, abortion is absolutely relevant.    For people who see abortion as killing an innocent human being (that is to say, they see the unborn child as having the same right to life as the born child, so killing one is sin in the same way that killing a toddler or a 20 year old or a Grandma is a sin), I don't see how you could separate the two.

 

As far as the random mass shootings being a result of God's judgment of our national sin - well, I don't believe in a literal God, so maybe I can explain it as metaphor in a way that will make sense to the non-religious (or less-religious, I dunno).

 

There are a number of factors in our society that correlate directly with increased criminality - one, for instance, is single motherhood.  You can blame this on women (who initiate the majority of divorces) or on men (by claiming that they are not involved enough with their children after divorce), but no matter whose fault it is, the fact is that single motherhood causes adverse outcomes, on a societal scale, for kids.  The rate of broken families in the black community, for instance, cannot be separated from the result of broken families, which is a destabilized society and increased crime (and increased other deleterious effects, like teen pregnancy, etc.)

 

Similarly, a lot of rich people and especially a lot of corporations don't pay their taxes - they hire expensive lawyers who find ways to hide their money or take deductions or whatever else so that they don't have to pay their share of the government's operating costs.  What this means, practically speaking, is both that people who do pay all of their taxes (largely the middle class and small businesses) have to pay more than they would have if everyone just payed their fair share and that we're massively in debt as a nation.  The debt limits our ability to raise interest rates and makes our financial situation as a nation fairly precarious - we can just barely afford to service the debt, as long as the rate stays down, which means that as long as we're in control of the financial world things are skating by, but we have no margin for error and it will be Very Bad Indeed if/when that control is lost.  

 

You can find these kinds of things across society in economic, political, social spheres, of course.

 

Now, imo, there is also a more nebulous relationship between the degeneration of society (that is, the ways in which society has become bad - society meaning the aggregate behavior of individuals) and the maleffects we feel through things like mass shootings and consumer fraud and price gauging and domestic abuse and a million other things.  It is this: when you, as a society, permit abortion, you say that killing innocent life is okay.  This cheapens the value of life in your society; if we refuse to protect the most vulnerable and unprotected, how can we expect society to protect us?  Similarly, when we allow corporations to dodge their taxes (by we I mean the government as we're a democracy), we cheapen the value of financial responsibility and of fairness; if we refuse to insist that those with the most help fund the operations of the country in which they operate, how can we say that as a country we don't have a culture of corruption?

 

 

Anyway, you can see the above as God or not; if you see God as sort of directing events in the world I guess you'd see it as God; if you see natural law as directing events you'd just see it as the result of all the strings being pulled in the harmony of the universe according to natural law.

[Liz CA]

Prove it.

 

 

I think what Murphy and Arctic mean is that if a registry for all weapons exists, government - if so inclined - has a list of owners and could therefore confiscate. But Murphy and Arctic may explain this better.

[Butter]

If those weapons were obtained before the laws changed (likely) they are not illegal.  The WW2 gun probably isn't a fully automatic but if so it would be legal but paperwork would need to be done to legally transfer it to a new owner.

 

The Nazi gun is a sig sauer.  I don't know anything about it.  I haven't even seen it even though it occurs to me that my grandfather gave it to my father when he died in 1997 and I still lived at home then.  It was very much illegal (or at least very much against the rules) for my grandfather to bring it home from Germany.  He was far from the only serviceman to do so, however.  So my grandfather technically didn't own it and so could not legally transfer it to my father.  It hasn't been used since that Nazi used it before he died.  That one is an interesting and unusual case, though.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think what Murphy and Arctic mean is that if a registry for all weapons exists, government - if so inclined - has a list of owners and could therefore confiscate. But Murphy and Arctic may explain this better.

 

The common argument is that registration is the slippery slope to confiscation.  If that is the case, they should be able to cite multiple instances of registration followed by confiscations.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The Nazi gun is a sig sauer.  I don't know anything about it.  I haven't even seen it even though it occurs to me that my grandfather gave it to my father when he died in 1997 and I still lived at home then.  It was very much illegal (or at least very much against the rules) for my grandfather to bring it home from Germany.  He was far from the only serviceman to do so, however.  So my grandfather technically didn't own it and so could not legally transfer it to my father.  It hasn't been used since that Nazi used it before he died.  That one is an interesting and unusual case, though.

 

The weapon itself isn't banned in any way and isn't a special category.  As there is no gun registry it can be safely transferred as per the laws of your state and federal law where applicable.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, you can’t take what you don’t know people have, and linking specific firearms to specific permit owners in a government database? Not gonna fly.

 

Some interesting articles - if your buyback program makes a citizen a criminal for not participating, it’s not voluntary, no matter how much you pay them for their gun. That’s confiscation with a coupon for a frosty thrown in.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/how-australia-and-britain-tackled-gun-violence.html

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

 

‘Efficacy’ in Australia:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1540791

 

The bolded is correct.  However, I see no issue with banning a certain type of weapon and compensating the owner for surrendering it.

 

[8circles]

I'd say the #1 reason is that it has become impossible to smoke in so many places, even heavy smokers do so less often, and people have become unaccustomed to smoking in certain social situations too, like when they eat.  Along with that it's become less socially acceptable.

 

 

You mean the culture of smoking anywhere, anytime changed? Yeah, it would be nice if all gun owners were on board with making guns less appropriate anytime, anywhere. Change the gun culture.

[Murphy101]

How is mandatory registration of guns advertising that a person or home has a gun?

 

I don't have a problem with guns being registered, but I do wonder if unusable antiques would need to be registered. My parents have some antiques (none of which have been used in 50+ years). Two may be illegal (my grandfather's sawed off something or other from the 1930s and my other grandfather's gun he took off a dead Nazi and brought home after WWII).

I have zero confidence in anything being private these days. The IRS has been hacked. Credit agencies have been hacked. (Tho I swear I think that bs given how equifax makes more money off people being hacked than protecting them.grrrrrr) I think any notion that information intended only for police or any other government agency would stay in that agency is BS. I also think it could be used in ways unintended by those who would register, just like nearly all our information is used in ways we have no control over and no genuine ability to opt out of.

 

Our government/financial system/society mostly sucks eggs at protecting information of any kind these days.

[Murphy101]

The bolded is correct. However, I see no issue with banning a certain type of weapon and compensating the owner for surrendering it.

 

Well once banned, the compensation is usually a joke. Pennies on the dollar what it was worth. It's similiar to eminent domain. Once a property is deemed such, it becomes slightly better than completely worthless and the compensation is usually similiar to that worth, not the worth a year or so before it was targeted for eminent domain. It isn't supposed to be like that, but more often than not it is. But unlike real estate, it would suddenly create a bigger profit to sell on the black market rather than into the buy back. They'd have to compensate enough to make it worth turning in.

 

And all this costs money. When supposedly money is a factor in why this guy got slipped through so some many cluster bleep. Not enough people in various agencies to enter all the information into state and national databases. Not enough mental health care. Not enough mental health care workers. Not enough police. And huge state and federal cuts. We are close to dealing with austerity measures if the cuts get even worse, and by most expectations they will.

 

Even so, I see no reason to have a buy back on what's just a normal rifle. There is nothing about this rifle that makes it anything more than a normal hunting rifle.

 

I would agree though that bump stocks should be restricted. No one needs to hold a trigger down and spray bullets in a continuous stream. I'm unsure if the practicalities of making them illegal. I wonder how easy it is to makeshift one. Maybe a better course would be to insist manufactures make rifles in such a way that it's harder or impossible to bump stock them?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Whether or not you see no issue is immaterial to whether it actually is a problem. You asked for proof, and the proof is self evident (but I was nice enough to provide a liberal source, a conservative source, and a foreign university source. Tada!): you cannot confiscate without registration, and if you legally compel a buyback, it isn’t voluntary. Even if they could somehow pass constitutional muster I think the federalist came to the conclusion that is most likely as to the result.

 

What is self evident?  You certainly can confiscate without registration, and in fact that is what happened in the source you cited.

 

"The massacre shocked and horrified Australians, and in just 12 days the government proposed and passed the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program. The new gun laws included a ban on many types of semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns. Each gun required a separate permit with a 28-day waiting period, and Australia created a national firearms registration system. Guns could only be sold by licensed firearms dealers, and limits were placed on the amount of ammunition that could be sold. Firearm owners had to be 18, complete a safety course, and have a “genuine reason†for owning a gun, such as sport shooting, hunting, or occupational requirements (“personal protection†did not count as a legitimate reason). Licenses expired every five years, and could be revoked if police found “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.â€

 

The new laws also included a national gun-buyback program for newly prohibited weapons. The program cost $230 million, which was raised through a small health-insurance tax increase, and ultimately more than 700,000 firearms were purchased by the government or voluntarily handed in. Some firearms weren’t turned in, and in 2012 an estimated 260,000 illegal guns were still in circulation."

 

I suggest reading your sources a little better instead of relying on NRA terror porn.

 

Your second link actually contradicts itself. 

 

"That policy is the gun buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians’ hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of Australia’s gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that tale: when they describe Australia’s gun buyback program, almost none of them tell the truth about it."

 

Okay, seems legit.  Australia banned and confiscated certain types of firearms.  However, the author of the article follows with additional histrionics:

"The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation."

 

I am not sure banning certain firearms that don't serve a civilian purpose is a "sweeping" confiscation of guns, particularly when 80% are not removed.

 

So what we know from your links:

1.) Australia instituted a buyback/confiscation in conjunction with registration.  Registration was not needed first.

 

2.) Australian gun owners can still legally own most firearms with registration.

[Murphy101]

You mean the culture of smoking anywhere, anytime changed? Yeah, it would be nice if all gun owners were on board with making guns less appropriate anytime, anywhere. Change the gun culture.

This analogy doesn't work for me.

 

One, smoking isn't a right.

Two, smoking is what you can't do anywhere/time. You can carry unlit cigarettes on your person all you want. I actually don't have an issue with guns mostly anywhere/time.

 

It's not much of a right if we can only avail that right in such a restricted manner that it doesn't really exist.

 

If we were to use this analogy with guns. Then it's not the having guns on us anywhere/time that would be the focus. It would only be the firing of the guns. Which I'm okay with. I agree people shouldn't be firing up guns anywhere anytime for funzies. But just having a permitted gun a holstered? Wouldn't bother me.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Murphy101

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well once banned, the compensation is usually a joke. Pennies on the dollar what it was worth. It's similiar to eminent domain. Once a property is deemed such, it becomes slightly better than completely worthless and the compensation is usually similiar to that worth, not the worth a year or so before it was targeted for eminent domain. It isn't supposed to be like that, but more often than not it is. But unlike real estate, it would suddenly create a bigger profit to sell on the black market rather than into the buy back. They'd have to compensate enough to make it worth turning in.

 

 

1.) Australia paid a market rate for guns.

2.) You are incorrect about eminent domain. Eminent domain requires a market analysis and a price based on a willing buyer and a willing seller.  Granted many who fight against eminent domain want more, but that does not mean what they want is what the market would bear with property up for sale.

[8circles]

This analogy doesn't work for me.

 

One, smoking isn't a right.

Two, smoking is what you can't do anywhere/time. You can carry unlit cigarettes on your person all you want. all you I actually don't have an issue with guns mostly anywhere/time.

 

It's not much of a right if we can only avail that right in such a restricted manner that it doesn't really exist.

 

If we were to use this analogy with guns. Then it's not the having guns on us anywhere/time that would be the focus. It would only be the firing of the guns. Which I'm okay with. I agree people shouldn't be firing up guns anywhere anytime for funzies. But just having a permitted gun a holstered? Wouldn't bother me.

 

Given that simply the presence of guns makes one statistically less safe, I disagree.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Even so, I see no reason to have a buy back on what's just a normal rifle. There is nothing about this rifle that makes it anything more than a normal hunting rifle.

 

 

 

Incorrect.  The vast majority of hunting rifles cannot handle high capacity magazines.  There is a reason people select certain weapons for mass murder.

Edited November 8, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Murphy101]

Incorrect. The vast majority of hunting rifles cannot handle high capacity magazines. There is a reason people select certain weapons for mass murder.

One, the size of the magizine doesn't change that they still have to pull the trigger for every bullet.

 

Two, if magazine size is the concern, then I'd rather focus on that than the gun. I'd be okay with restricting high capacity magazines in some manner. Either under an ammo limit, or requiring a special permit, or I'm open to other options.

[Liz CA]

Incorrect.  The vast majority of hunting rifles cannot handle high capacity magazines.  There is a reason people select certain weapons for mass murder.

 

Murphy voiced her opinion. 

We have already been warned by Susan Bauer in this thread not to attack people but debate the issue.

We can agree or disagree with someone else's opinion but I don't think we can label it "correct" or "incorrect."

I know it's semantics but it really sets the tone for a debate.

 

A lot of people seem to be interested in this debate so it would be nice not to have it locked.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Liz CA

[8circles]

Murphy voiced her opinion. 

We have already been warned by Susan Bauer in this thread not to attack people but debate the issue.

We can agree or disagree with someone else's opinion but I don't think we can label it "correct" or "incorrect."

 

Seriously?

 

Saying something is "incorrect" factually is not an attack on Murphy.

 

I'm so freaking tired of this BS about imaginary personal attacks.

 

ETA: Especially since the only supposed "personal attacks" that you care about are ones coming from one particular side of the argument.

Edited November 8, 2017 by 8circles

[Murphy101]

Murphy voiced her opinion.

We have already been warned by Susan Bauer in this thread not to attack people but debate the issue.

We can agree or disagree with someone else's opinion but I don't think we can label it "correct" or "incorrect."

I know it's semantics but it really sets the tone for a debate.

 

A lot of people seem to be interested in this debate so it would be nice not to have it locked.

Oh geez. She was fine. I said it's just a hunting rifle. She said that's incorrect bc of the possible mag size options for it. I'd have to research if that is true specifically for the AR-556 and series, and not semi automatic rifles generally, but mostly I suggested if the mags are the problem, then that should be the focus instead of the guns. Nothing to get knickers twisted over. No semantics there. Reign is an articulate person, if she wanted to label me rudely, I wager she'd find a better word than "incorrect".😎

[Liz CA]

Seriously?

 

Saying something is "incorrect" factually is not an attack on Murphy.

 

I'm so freaking tired of this BS about imaginary personal attacks.

 

ETA: Especially since the only supposed "personal attacks" that you care about are ones coming from one particular side of the argument.

 

No. I am as interested in your opinion as I am in any other which is why I am asking to be careful so moderators cannot accuse us of ad hominem attacks. As the moderators and owners of this site, they have a right to do so.

It's an interesting discussion with many viewpoints. Let's keep it open.

 

[8circles]

No. I am as interested in your opinion as I am in any other which is why I am asking to be careful so moderators cannot accuse us of ad hominem attacks. As the moderators and owners of this site, they have a right to do so.

It's an interesting discussion with many viewpoints. Let's keep it open.

 

 

THen stop policing people and falsely accusing them of personal attacks.

[Butter]

One, the size of the magizine doesn't change that they still have to pull the trigger for every bullet.

 

Two, if magazine size is the concern, then I'd rather focus on that than the gun. I'd be okay with restricting high capacity magazines in some manner. Either under an ammo limit, or requiring a special permit, or I'm open to other options.

 

1.) But it does make it so they don't have to reload as often and so can pull that trigger more times in a certain time period than without a high capacity magazine.  Also, not having to reload means they don't have to stop what they are doing and pay attention to something else (reloading) giving people around them a chance to stop them.  Even people who can reload very quickly have to pay attention to what they are doing.

 

2.) I think those are very good ideas.  I vaguely recall some call for restricting magazine size after Columbine maybe.  Obviously, it didn't happen.

[Murphy101]

Given that simply the presence of guns makes one statistically less safe, I disagree.

Okay. I disagree back.

 

If we took the steps I have suggested, I'd be interested in knowing how that affects the statistics. And what those statistics include to begin with. Given the scant info wet gunownership research, it'd be difficult to have a reliable statistic on responsible, permitted, gun safety following gun presence. For example, I wouldn't feel I was statistically less safe in a room full of armed police officers even though police have a higher chance of gun related problems. I wouldn't feel unsafe around permitted, sober, gun safety following hunters. Circumstance matters. It's matter so much it's why we are discussing reasonable gun regulations.

[8circles]

Okay. I disagree back.

 

If we took the steps I have suggested, I'd be interested in knowing how that affects the statistics. And what those statistics include to begin with. Given the scant info wet gunownership research, it'd be difficult to have a reliable statistic on responsible, permitted, gun safety following gun presence. For example, I wouldn't feel I was statistically less safe in a room full of armed police officers even though police have a higher chance of gun related problems. I wouldn't feel unsafe around permitted, sober, gun safety following hunters. Circumstance matters. It's matter so much it's why we are discussing reasonable gun regulations.

 

I agree with you there. I can honestly say I've never met anyone carrying a gun (except some  LEO's) who made me feel safer or neutral. And I know many, many people in varying demographics who carry. So sure, that influences my opinion. There are too many douchebags with guns.

Edited November 8, 2017 by 8circles

[poppy]

Not to mention that registration is also the first step to confiscation. And quite frankly even those of us who are armed hope we never, ever have to pull the trigger. Mandatory hold periods and criminal checks? Different kettle of fish.

 

So you are in favor of mandatory holds and criminal checks?   

[SKL]

My subjective feeling of safety is not affected at all by whether or not I'm in a room full of law-abiding gun-toters, or law-abiding people who choose not to own guns.

 

But more importantly, the standard of what is OK is not some people's subjective feeling.  There has been much work done in the past several decades to fight that attitude when it comes to certain demographics.  Law-abiding gun owners are another demographic that should not be stereotyped and should not have their rights restricted due to some people's subjective feelings.

[Murphy101]

So you are in favor of mandatory holds and criminal checks?

I just don't understand how anyone could be not okay with those.

 

No one needs to buy a gun this second or else they will just... wait. Wait is what they will do and it won't hurt them or anyone else. Gun sellers might not like it because it will reduce impulse buys, but I'm okay with that. There's some things no one should ever buy on impulse and guns are one of them, imnsho.

 

Sure felons and violent offender criminals will find some other way, but I see no reason to make it easier for them.

[EmseB]

Given that simply the presence of guns makes one statistically less safe, I disagree.

Statements like this are a prime example of how statistics are misused to create fear. Standing in a room with a gun on a table is not anymore dangerous than standing in a room with a banana on a table.

 

A gun is not a bomb or some type of explosive that can go off without intention. A gun will not fire unless someone pulls the trigger. Being around a gun is not unsafe.

[Liz CA]

So you are in favor of mandatory holds and criminal checks?   

 

Not Arctic - obviously, but these seem reasonable precautions to me. I am sure some issue will present itself where it seems such a guideline, if it prevents someone from obtaining a gun, is unjust, debatable, whatever. But such is the nature of rules and regulations. If they are well thought out and consistently implemented, there should be less of an issue with it.

 

[8circles]

My subjective feeling of safety is not affected at all by whether or not I'm in a room full of law-abiding gun-toters, or law-abiding people who choose not to own guns.

 

But more importantly, the standard of what is OK is not some people's subjective feeling.  There has been much work done in the past several decades to fight that attitude when it comes to certain demographics.  Law-abiding gun owners are another demographic that should not be stereotyped and should not have their rights restricted due to some people's subjective feelings.

 

Except I'm not basing my opinion solely on my personal feeling. I'm basing it on factual statistics which have been posted many times. I mention my personal feelings because people try to refute facts with their feelings which are different. It just so happens that my personal feelings line up with the facts.

[8circles]

Statements like this are a prime example of how statistics are misused to create fear. Standing in a room with a gun on a table is not anymore dangerous than standing in a room with a banana on a table.

 

A gun is not a bomb or some type of explosive that can go off without intention. A gun will not fire unless someone pulls the trigger. Being around a gun is not unsafe.

 

Uh, no, it's not.

 

A gun is NOT a banana.

 

Guns are not usually lying on tables, they are on a person who is carrying it because they believe there is a possibility of needing it and they are willing to do so.

[hornblower]

Statements like this are a prime example of how statistics are misused to create fear. Standing in a room with a gun on a table is not anymore dangerous than standing in a room with a banana on a table.

 

A gun is not a bomb or some type of explosive that can go off without intention. A gun will not fire unless someone pulls the trigger. Being around a gun is not unsafe.

 

C4 won't go off if it's just lying on your table. Do you think everyone should be able to have C4? 

 

 

 

And you're sidestepping the data that living in house with a gun makes you more likely to die from homicide or suicide. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

 

" A recent meta-analysis of 16 studies examined the relationship between firearms and gun deaths. Gun ownership doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk of suicide. This research is bolstered by a national survey that found that a gun in the home was far more likely to be used to threaten a family member or intimate partner than to be used in self-defense."

 

And given the large numbers of accidental deaths from firearms, it's disingenuous to say that there's no risk. 

 

[SKL]

Except I'm not basing my opinion solely on my personal feeling. I'm basing it on factual statistics which have been posted many times. I mention my personal feelings because people try to refute facts with their feelings which are different. It just so happens that my personal feelings line up with the facts.

 

It is true that gun ownership in the US (not globally) is somewhat correlated with violence, but there are other things that are much more predictive of violence.  Do you avoid being in a room with the #1 predictor mentioned in this study?  See Table 2.  I hope your answer is "no" and hope you can see why I take offense when you put gun owners in a box.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

[ChocolateReignRemix]

One, the size of the magizine doesn't change that they still have to pull the trigger for every bullet.

 

Two, if magazine size is the concern, then I'd rather focus on that than the gun. I'd be okay with restricting high capacity magazines in some manner. Either under an ammo limit, or requiring a special permit, or I'm open to other options.

 

The magazine size changes the potential rate of fire,

 

Many hunting rifles have magazines that hold 10 or fewer rounds (often 5 or less).  The difference in the potential rate of fire between 5 round magazines and 30 round magazines is significant.  One reason those doing mass shootings use high capacity magazines/rifles is because they can reload less often yet still fire a large number of rounds.  The AR-series type of rifles also have a more stable firing platform conducive to high rates of fire.  There are reasons these weapons are designed the way they are.

 

FTR, many states have addressed the magazine issue, but those are even easier to purchase and transport as they require no license or background check.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh geez. She was fine. I said it's just a hunting rifle. She said that's incorrect bc of the possible mag size options for it. I'd have to research if that is true specifically for the AR-556 and series, and not semi automatic rifles generally, but mostly I suggested if the mags are the problem, then that should be the focus instead of the guns. Nothing to get knickers twisted over. No semantics there. Reign is an articulate person, if she wanted to label me rudely, I wager she'd find a better word than "incorrect".😎

 

FWIW, even though we disagree at times, I respect you too much to ever insult you.  You are correct that if I wanted to do so it would be clear I was. lol

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No. I am as interested in your opinion as I am in any other which is why I am asking to be careful so moderators cannot accuse us of ad hominem attacks. As the moderators and owners of this site, they have a right to do so.

It's an interesting discussion with many viewpoints. Let's keep it open.

 

 

Saying someone is "incorrect" is not an ad hominem attack.  Come on.