The right to bear arms

191012141518

Replies

  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    And, azdak, clearly you are the mirror opposite of the Ted nugent fringe. So no sense in trying to have a rational discussion.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?

    Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.

    Why do you insist on reducing everything to black and white? It makes it very difficult to have a rational conversation with you.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Extremist rants from either side aren't an accurate reflection of that position and shouldn't be used as an argument that your stance is right.

    Also, claiming that gun owners as a whole are mentally unbalanced is offensive, and not an effective way to draw other people to your line of reasoning, ESPECIALLY if you're not going to post any kind of proof of that statement. That's not a debate, it's just name-calling.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    By the same token, claiming that everyone wanting to discuss improvements to gun laws wants take away all guns or doesn't care about the safety of their family or must never have been in a dangerous situation or should shut up because the issue was settled in 1791 adds little to a discussion.
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?

    Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.

    Sorry, I must have missed it. :huh:
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?

    Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.

    Why do you insist on reducing everything to black and white? It makes it very difficult to have a rational conversation with you.

    not saying anything is black and white -- and that's exactly the problem. the rush now is "BAN SCARY LOOKING RIFLES!!" just because they've been used in several recent, high-profile shootings. that's black-and-white thinking. because the fact is, something like 20 times more people are killed every year by handguns than any other kind of gun. more people are killed yearly by knives than they are by any kind of rifle. more than twice as many are killed with fists or feet as with any kind of rifle. so why, then, are we suddenly attacking the rifles when, it is shown through FBI statistics, they are a drop in the bucket?

    ETA: here are the numbers, from 2011

    * 12,664 people slain in the United States.
    handguns - 6,620
    knives - 1,694
    fists or feet - 728

    ** rifles of every type used in only 323 homicides
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    They are not a drop in the MASS SHOOTING bucket. The push to ban is the high powered, large capacity weapons. When someone can squeeze off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds without reloading, the potential mass casualties are much higher than a with handgun that unless modified, can hold a fraction of that.

    final_weapons2.png

    People are going to be murdered, or even accidentally shot, by all manor of weapons. But It seems quite clear that the mass killings are predominantly committed with high capacity weapons.

    And this, of course, does not underscore the need for a comprehensive mental health background check before handing out any weapon.

    And we always hear about how legal gun owners are so responsible. Yet at one point, ALL guns had to be legal, no? Presumably, there is no company that is manufacturing guns to give to criminals. So through either sale, trade, theft, etc., the legal guns ended up in the hands of criminals. Where is the onus for legal gun owners to legally sell or dispose of their weapons, or to to keep them secure so they don't fall into the wrong hands?

    That's right, the penalties are minute, if ever served. Corrupt dealers, straw purchasers, and private sales need to be regulated and strictly penalized.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Yup. We mentioned this, what, a page ago?

    Time to ban shotguns, too, I guess.

    Why do you insist on reducing everything to black and white? It makes it very difficult to have a rational conversation with you.

    not saying anything is black and white -- and that's exactly the problem. the rush now is "BAN SCARY LOOKING RIFLES!!" just because they've been used in several recent, high-profile shootings. that's black-and-white thinking. because the fact is, something like 20 times more people are killed every year by handguns than any other kind of gun. more people are killed yearly by knives than they are by any kind of rifle. more than twice as many are killed with fists or feet as with any kind of rifle. so why, then, are we suddenly attacking the rifles when, it is shown through FBI statistics, they are a drop in the bucket?

    ETA: here are the numbers, from 2011

    * 12,664 people slain in the United States.
    handguns - 6,620
    knives - 1,694
    fists or feet - 728

    ** rifles of every type used in only 323 homicides

    An assault weapons ban is not the only thing being discussed. I happen to agree with you that it would be largely ineffective. How about addressing any of the other measures being discussed instead of continuing the false "BAN! BAN! BAN!" mantra.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    An assault weapons ban is not the only thing being discussed. I happen to agree with you that it would be largely ineffective. How about addressing any of the other measures being discussed instead of continuing the false "BAN! BAN! BAN!" mantra.

    the problem is that this is the only thing truly being talked about in earnest.

    the biggest problem is our mental health care. but that's such a big, complex issue. so a lot of the thought seems to be, 'you know, that's gonna be tough to do something about. so let's work on this gun thing instead.'
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    They are not a drop in the MASS SHOOTING bucket. The push to ban is the high powered, large capacity weapons. When someone can squeeze off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds without reloading, the potential mass casualties are much higher than a with handgun that unless modified, can hold a fraction of that.

    and mass shootings are a drop in the overall gun death bucket. they are, in fact, on a steady decrease. and I'm not sure how much you know about guns. but automatic weapons aren't legal. and semi-auto handguns can accept pretty large clips.
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but there is no steady decrease in mass shootings. Hopefully 2012 was an aberration, but it was much higher than typical in that year. It's been steady, on average, since 1980.

    And yes, I'm aware fully automatic weapons are not legal. But a push to ban large capacity clips for handguns is something to be considered. Do we need to give people the tools to mow many others?

    Other points are going ignored. Again I ask where the penalties for distributing the legal weapons into the hands of those who are prohibited from having them?

    Why is it ok to register cars and track their sale, but not guns? Why does my Sudafed use get tracked by drivers' license and federal database, but not my ammunition purchase?
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    there is, in fact, a steady decrease. 2012 was a high year. but right now we don't know if it was a random spike or a new trend.
    ... those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

    “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

    The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

    ...

    Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

    Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member

    Other points are going ignored. Again I ask where the penalties for distributing the legal weapons into the hands of those who are prohibited from having them?

    Why is it ok to register cars and track their sale, but not guns? Why does my Sudafed use get tracked by drivers' license and federal database, but not my ammunition purchase?

    gun dealers can't sell guns to those that aren't allowed to have them. pass the federal background check, you're clear. that isn't to say that you aren't dealing with some kind of mental issues and probably shouldn't have access. but, as it stands, we don't have anything in place to prevent that. we should, but we don't have a mechanism in to handle that right now. mostly because there are privacy issues involved, I'm sure.

    and I buy lots of ammo, if it is on sale or I have the extra cash. no reason I shouldn't be able to buy however much I want.
  • marsellient
    marsellient Posts: 591 Member
    I've been reading the comments with great interest because as a Canadian the whole gun thing is outside my experience. Well, not quite. I grew up with shotguns and hunting rifles in the house: locked up and ammunition stored separately. Handguns, I think of as being only for police and criminals.

    So...I'd like to hear thoughts about this if anyone should care to take a look:
    http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf

    I realise this is from a pro gun control website, but the stats are from government sources in both countries. I did look at stats from Stats Canada and from U.S. government websites and with my my math came up with basically the same figures.

    I'm curious.
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    Your statistics are misleading. There may have been fewer instances of mass shootings, but the body count has stayed steady.

    And while gun dealers may not be allowed to sell to those who are not supposed to have them, they of course do. "Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms."

    And privacy laws should be exempt in this situation. In order to volunteer at my child's school, I need to fill out a CORI report that has my background. In order to join the military, I cannot take many different kinds of medications that would be prescribed for psychologic conditions. If we can exempt in some conditions, why not to protect people? Lawful gun owners should have no concerns, unless they are in fact mentally unstable.

    So buy lots of ammo, when it is on sale or when you have cash. But again, there's no reason why there can't be a federal database that tracks it. You ammunition is far more likely to have deadly repercussions than my cold medicine, and that's regulated.

    Again I say, if you're decent, law-abiding gun owner, you should have no qualms about doing everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of those who have no business having them. Those who protest, at the expense of the safety of others, I must wonder what they have to hide.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    gun dealers can't sell guns to those that aren't allowed to have them. pass the federal background check, you're clear.

    Yes, but a non-trivial percentage of guns are sold by people other than Federally-licensed dealers. That's the so-called "gun show loop hole." It ought to be closed now.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Interesting graphs and numbers, marsellient. The death rates seem to dominated by suicides, which a lot of people dismiss, thinking that couldn't happen in their family. My personal opinion? No way I'd have a gun in the house if I had a teenage son.
  • KimmyEB
    KimmyEB Posts: 1,208 Member
    I understand the whole "guns don't kill people--people kill people" rationale. However, what that ignores is that there are some potentially huge psychological issues that drive many people to possess guns---like insecurity and paranoia. It is no accident that the most vociferous gun-fetishists are white males--many of whom feel they have been victimized by their loss of privileged status over the past 50 years. Guns make small, weak men feel strong, which is why weak, small-minded men hold on to them with such desperation. And why the election of an African-American President has driven them into such a frenzy. (A strong woman like Hillary Clinton would likely have had the same effect).

    So, while "guns may not kill people" when you have as many unbalanced people running around as we do in the US, to me it just makes rational sense to reduce the availability of the most lethal weaponry. Without his phallic AR-15 at hand, perhaps Mr Gibbon would have made more of an effort to get along with his neighbors so that he did not feel so threatened by their pets.

    I think you have an anti-gun fetish.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    An assault weapons ban is not the only thing being discussed. I happen to agree with you that it would be largely ineffective. How about addressing any of the other measures being discussed instead of continuing the false "BAN! BAN! BAN!" mantra.

    the problem is that this is the only thing truly being talked about in earnest.

    Not at all. The main thing I hear talked about is closing the so-called gun show loop hole. For example:
    Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system that enables 40% of all gun sales to take place without background checks, not only at gun shows, but also with the added anonymity of the internet. As a result convicted felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers can easily purchase guns with no questions asked. Calling it a “gun show loophole” trivializes the problem. “Universal background checks” on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. These policies also tend to enjoy the greatest public support. For example, 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1560/

    Sneering about banning shotguns completely misrepresents the actual debate.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    By the same token, claiming that everyone wanting to discuss improvements to gun laws wants take away all guns or doesn't care about the safety of their family or must never have been in a dangerous situation or should shut up because the issue was settled in 1791 adds little to a discussion.

    At no point have I made any such claim. That's a straw man argument.