Gun Control discussion

[Mother Cocanuts]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

Haha! I remember that episode.

[S John]

16 minutes ago, baxus said:

This is the part I've never understood but I guess I'm a Eurocommie so I never will.

EDIT:

A couple of questions for pro-gun people of this thread:

• Do you personally own a gun and, if you do, what is the reason for that?
• What do you actually use that gun (or guns) for? Do you have some target practice, organized gun training, do you engage in tactical drills or whatever?

I wouldn't call myself pro-gun, I believe in a lot stricter limitations than we currently have.  I think it's fine for most people to own certain types of guns, but that it should be at least a little bit difficult for a private citizen to get any gun and we should ban certain accessories.  

Anyway I am technically a gun owner and I have a lever action Winchester 30/30 because my dad gave it to me several years ago.  He sent it to me because I was going to northern Alaska and I was going to be out on the tundra and it was a precaution against becoming a bear snack.  I ended up not even bringing it after reading that bear spray is at least effective, if not more, at thwarting a bear mauling given that it might take multiple rounds to drop an angry bear and you'll be shitting your pants as you try to aim and fire and therefore stand a pretty good chance of missing altogether and getting eaten anyway.  

Now I use it for taking up space in it's case at the back of my bedroom closet, buried underneath a few boxes of various junk.  In any case it's a gun much more suited to killing game than preventing government tyranny and is something that would fit in the category of a reasonable thing to own, imo.  

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, S John said:

I wouldn't call myself pro-gun, I believe in a lot stricter limitations than we currently have.  I think it's fine for most people to own certain types of guns, but that it should be at least a little bit difficult for a private citizen to get any gun and we should ban certain accessories.  

Anyway I am technically a gun owner and I have a lever action Winchester 30/30 because my dad gave it to me several years ago.  He sent it to me because I was going to northern Alaska and I was going to be out on the tundra and it was a precaution against becoming a bear snack.  I ended up not even bringing it after reading that bear spray is at least effective, if not more, at thwarting a bear mauling given that it might take multiple rounds to drop an angry bear and you'll be shitting your pants as you try to aim and fire and therefore stand a pretty good chance of missing altogether and getting eaten anyway.  

Now I use it for taking up space in it's case at the back of my bedroom closet, buried underneath a few boxes of various junk.  In any case it's a gun much more suited to killing game than preventing government tyranny and is something that would fit in the category of a reasonable thing to own, imo.  

Wouldn't it only be a reasonable thing to own if it were used for it's intended purpose instead of sitting open in your closet able to be found by anyone who gains access to your home?

[S John]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Wouldn't it only be a reasonable thing to own if it were used for it's intended purpose instead of sitting open in your closet able to be found by anyone who gains access to your home?

It has a cable lock and I don't have any ammo.  The only person who can use it as something other than a club is me.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, S John said:

It has a cable lock and I don't have any ammo.  The only person who can use it as something other than a club is me.

But even then, what makes it a reasonable thing to own?  It's not used for hunting, it's less helpful than other options in self defense against animals (and I'd argue definitely humans).  You've publicly told where it sits, unprotected.  A cable lock isn't full proof.  It's not like this is a pair of expensive shoes that you never wear in the back of your closet.  So why's it a reasonable item to own?

I think this is a large part of the gun part of American identity.  Probably many gun owners think this way, that it's just a gun in the back of their closet, fairly useless for anything in their typical lives, no big deal.  But why?  What's the point of owning such an item?  What's the point in fighting for a constitutional right to own such an item?  Would your life be harmed if you no longer owned it or no longer had a right to own it?  Would your life be any different at all if there weren't an unsecured or minimally secured gun in your home?

[Darth Richard II]

@Dr. Pepper could you maybe run for president in 2020 so I can vote for you?

[Rippounet]

@Dr. Pepper It's power. Even without ammo, the promise, the potential is still there: the power to kill. Some people say it's about political power, specifically. Others say it's the power to protect yourself or your family. Or the power to hunt and be autonomous or whatever.
Whichever way it's formulated, it always comes back to power.
While I don't think it's necessarily the case of @S John (hey dude, I know nothing about you), I'm pretty damn certain this is what it's about for most gun owners. And why they will keep a gun somewhere in the house, just to feel a bit better.

As a boy in the US, I stil remember the fascination, the awe that I had for firearms. My dad would take me to shoot pellets at soda cans in our backyard. My mum disapproved, but I didn't care. I loved it. I yearned for one. Walking around with a gun at my belt would have been a dream come true.
And when it's legal, and it's in the Constitution, and it's American, why the heck not? And damn the consequences, you'll always find ways to rationalize it as you grow up.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Up to and including nuclear weapons, most likely. 

(because we all need to laugh once in a while)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

@Crazy Cat Lady in Training & @Tywin et al., I think Kalbear said it best, right or wrong, people resist any to gun restriction because it's deemed a right. 

Tywin, you are right, guns, like wealth, is controlled by a small percentage; but I doubt those guys would hand over any weapons.

We put tons of restrictions on people's rights. And yes, I very much doubt that the people with a ton of guns would willing give them up, hence why I don't think @zelticgar's plan would ever work.

[S John]

59 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But even then, what makes it a reasonable thing to own?  It's not used for hunting, it's less helpful than other options in self defense against animals (and I'd argue definitely humans).  You've publicly told where it sits, unprotected.  A cable lock isn't full proof.  It's not like this is a pair of expensive shoes that you never wear in the back of your closet.  So why's it a reasonable item to own?

I think this is a large part of the gun part of American identity.  Probably many gun owners think this way, that it's just a gun in the back of their closet, fairly useless for anything in their typical lives, no big deal.  But why?  What's the point of owning such an item?  What's the point in fighting for a constitutional right to own such an item?  Would your life be harmed if you no longer owned it or no longer had a right to own it?  Would your life be any different at all if there weren't an unsecured or minimally secured gun in your home?

Do I personally need to own it? No I do not really.  If guns were banned and a buyback or something was implemented I wouldn't have a big problem parting with it.  If a law was passed that only ranchers and licensed hunters could own any kind of gun I wouldn't have a problem parting with it.  If there was a law implementing a cumbersome licensing process I would probably get rid of it rather than get the license.  I'm not going to go to my grave defending it's right to sit in my closet.  It's locked, I don't have kids, if I sell it I don't know who might end up getting it, and it was a gift from my father anyway, so the best option for now is to keep it.  The point was, though, that I think that this particular rifle is an example of reasonable thing for a law abiding citizen to own in general.  

It is a lever action, has to be re-cocked after every shot, and can only hold a handful of rounds before you have to reload.  It is not a semi-automatic rifle that can be converted to full auto or equipped with high capacity magazines.  If we want to start limiting gun availability in the US, or the damage that can be inflicted in these mass shooting incidents, that is where we need to start.  Then maybe look at handguns which are also often semi-auto, often can be fed with high capacity magazines, and all are concealable.  Eliminating the 2A altogether is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future but there are places you can draw a line and say that things below a certain threshold of lethal capability are reasonable to privately own and still maybe stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting enough support.  My position is that that line sits somewhere below semi-automatic handguns - and that I think that it should be more difficult to own or possess any gun at all.  

[Relic]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Same reason that same sex marriage is legal across the land. Once enough states have a right, chances are good it's too onerous to make it not a recognized right everywhere. 

It's just ironic that the right would want that when half of their shtick is decrying big government. 

[Ice Queen]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

We put tons of restrictions on people's rights. 

Yep. They just voted for the 20 week abortion ban. They have no problem regulating our uteruses and restricting our constitutional right to a safe abortion, but talk about regulating guns even a little bit and they lose their damned minds.

At least my congressman was forced to resign over his hypocrisy. Good riddance.

[Ice Queen]

44 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

@Dr. Pepper could you maybe run for president in 2020 so I can vote for you?

Seconded. 

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, baxus said:

This is the part I've never understood but I guess I'm a Eurocommie so I never will.

EDIT:

A couple of questions for pro-gun people of this thread:

• Do you personally own a gun and, if you do, what is the reason for that?
• What do you actually use that gun (or guns) for? Do you have some target practice, organized gun training, do you engage in tactical drills or whatever?

I personally don't own one anymore. I used to own a .38 Special but for a couple of reasons got rid of it: My ex husband was mentally unstable,  and I had young children in the house. I flatly refused to have them in the house and took everything to my in law's where they were locked up. My father in law took safety very seriously. 

Having guns in my family is as natural as breathing. We come from a rural background where hunting for food was and still is perfectly normal. In fact, my grandmother's sister was killed in a hunting accident in the 50s.

Keeping that in mind, I'm not in favor of a total ban, but there have to be restrictions on the types and number of weapons and ammo allowed, and a way to track and evaluate who has them.

[Liffguard]

Here's something I've always found odd about the protection from tyranny angle. Whilst guns seem quite widespread across the states, it seems like the people who maintain large arsenals and actively shoot on a regular basis tend to fall into the right-wing camp, and often pretty far to the right. I reckon (and I could be totally wrong here) that if you were to draw a venn diagram of american gun enthusiasts and those with sympathies towards white supremacy and/or christian theocracy, well, there'd likely be a large overlap. If tyranny ever does come knocking in america, my hunch is that a large proportion of private gun owners would play a significant role in supporting it rather than resisting.

[Mother Cocanuts]

3 hours ago, baxus said:

EDIT:

A couple of questions for pro-gun people of this thread:

• Do you personally own a gun and, if you do, what is the reason for that?
• What do you actually use that gun (or guns) for? Do you have some target practice, organized gun training, do you engage in tactical drills or whatever?

• Yes. Reason being that when I face an immediate threat, heading to my drawer is quicker and more efficient than waiting for the cops.
• Security. Collecting. Pleasure. Sometimes it makes for a good paper weight. I regularly go to the range and fire off a few shots.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

• Yes. Reason being that when I face an immediate threat, heading to my drawer is quicker and more efficient than waiting for the cops.
•  

 Like when someone runs a car into your house?

[Mother Cocanuts]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Like when someone runs a car into your house?

If you've seen my house, you'd know that's not possible. Not that your cheek is informed.

[Week]

10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Like when someone runs a car into your house?

Bro, my house is too huge for that. I'm kind of a big deal.

[TerraPrime]

40 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

• Yes. Reason being that when I face an immediate threat, heading to my drawer is quicker and more efficient than waiting for the cops.

The irony is that statistically, people with guns in their households are much more likely to die from guns than those who are not. 

The argument that the presence of guns help safeguard households is rather unsupported, by its own nature, since we don't have ways of confirming the success rates of these deterrent effects in any statistically meaningful way. in other words, how would we monitor the absence of crimes, let alone the reasons behind the absence? Like, my household has never had a firearm in it, and we've never been harmed as a result of the absence of guns. So, does that add strength to the opposing argument that you need guns to protect yourself? There are plenty of personal accounts, often impossible to verify, where guns did make a difference, and that's what sustains this narrative for the pro-gun side.