Gun Control discussion

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Are you kidding?  "Inflate the numbers"?  Like, they are actual dead people, it's not just making it up out of thin air.  There's already a poster in the thread who has discussed how the suicide numbers may be much higher as sometimes law departments will classify a gun suicide as a gun accident. 

Suicides by gun are more likely to be successful. The same is not true with all other methods.  Suicides tend to be on impulse.  We're not talking about self-euthanasia, which is another discussion altogether. We're talking about people who are feeling desperate.  Few people can come back from a gunshot to the brain.  It has everything to do with the gun debate considering the gun debate focuses on dead people.  

Because gun owners honestly feel that the gain of saving someone else from suicicide is not greater than the cost to gunowners of depriving them of some of their rights. They should not have to change their lifestyle because someone else is depressed.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because gun owners honestly feel that the gain of saving someone else from suicicide is not greater than the cost to gunowners of depriving them of some of their rights. They should not have to change their lifestyle because someone else is depressed.

I'm guessing it doesn't dawn on you that the "someone else" tends to be a gun owner who has become depressed.

But yeah, that's the issue.  You think you are more important than everyone, including dead children.  It's why there needs to be a fundamental change in the culture and identity of Americans.  Individualism is toxic.  

[James Arryn]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because gun owners honestly feel that the gain of saving someone else from suicicide is not greater than the cost to gunowners of depriving them of some of their rights. They should not have to change their lifestyle because someone else is depressed.

The best part is that both sides of this discussion could say this almost word for word and mean it in totally different ways; gun owners honestly feel that lives are not worth changing their lifestyle. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/7/2017 at 1:19 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because gun owners honestly feel that the gain of saving someone else from suicicide is not greater than the cost to gunowners of depriving them of some of their rights. They should not have to change their lifestyle because someone else is depressed.

One thing here.

I’ve already carried guns. And what I know is they are a big responsibility. If you have one you’ve always got to think about the safety of others. All the time.

It’s a big responsibility. And I rather not deal with it. I don’t want to have to carry a gun to McDonalds when I get coffee in the morning to feel safe.

If current gun laws are making it difficult to not carry a gun in order to feel safe, do gun owners ever consider my right not to carry a gun when I go out in public?

It would be nice to go to public event, without worrying about some maniac with a high powered rifle in a concealed and elevated position, shooting the place up. I’d rather not have to carry assault rifle just to go to some public sporting event or a concert.

[Free Northman Reborn]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

One thing here.

I’ve already carried guns. And what I know is they are a big responsibility. If you have one you’ve always got to think about the safety of others. All the time.

It’s a big responsibility. And I rather not deal with it. I don’t want to have to carry a gun to McDonalds when I get coffee in the morning to feel safe.

If current gun laws are making it difficult to not carry a gun in order to feel safe, do gun owners ever consider my right not to carry a gun when I go out in public?

It would be nice to go to public event, without worrying about some maniac with a high powered rifle in a concealed and elevated position, shooting the place up. I’d rather not have to carry assault rifle just to go to some public sporting event or a concert.

Fair point. I can't speak for all gunowners. I'd imagine the response would be that they agree and empathize with your desire, and would actively like to help pursue ways to make that possible that don't involve depriving them of their rights.

EDIT

Let me haste to add that I posted even the above couple of comments against my better judgment. I don't want to be part of this debate in this forum. It achieves nothing and just becomes a black hole that sucks in all of one's time. Just posting my thoughts as and when I have the inclination. But please don't now make me the token gun owner on the board who needs to become the target of the hundred anti gun activists around here. I am not going to try and convince you guys of anything. I already feel the pain of the few fools who entered into the fray without realizing what it would unleash. Eventually their energy will run out and they too will withdraw.

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's why there needs to be a fundamental change in the culture and identity of Americans.  Individualism is toxic.

Well, well, well -- an openly stated truth for a change. But surely you realize that this attitude is why the Second Amendment people will fight you so unyieldingly?

[SerHaHa]

Quote

It's why there needs to be a fundamental change in the culture and identity of Americans.  Individualism is toxic.

This is what I've been alluded to all along - more than alluded, I've essentially said much the same thing. Until there is a fundamental shift in culture - including, in fact mostly in the "gun" culture, these mass shooting events will never stop.  Disarmament, a massive culture/attitude shift, or likely BOTH, will be required IMO.  I realize that many see hope in new forms of restricitions and laws.  Who knows, maybe they will have some effect on the culture, it's possible.  I still maintain that this alone will still leave the window open for more mass shootings.  Nobody is willing to restrict bolt action/basic weapons, that's always a "non starter", but I'm telling all of you, and I can prove it, that such a weapon is ALL someone needs, even an untrained someone, to kill 50+ people over, and over, and over again. Until we're ready to face the facts that even the most basic firearm is capable of mass destruction versus unarmed civilians, nothing will change. Certainly the risk for more mass shootings won't, and that's what should be concerning us all, more than hunting safety and other related subjects.

It's not going to stop unless we as a society and culture decide it's worth taking drastic action over, and by drastic I mean more than just training, restrictions (like Canada/Australia) and so forth.

That, in my humble - not humble, but trained and experienced opinion, is what is going to HAVE to happen.

Or it'll just be same time, same channel, thoughts and prayers and we're sorry for your loss, catch you at the next event!

Over, and over, infinitum. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, SerHaHa said:

Or it'll just be same time, same channel, thoughts and prayers and we're sorry for your loss, catch you at the next event!

Over, and over, infinitum. 

Until it gets to a point that you can't sell tickets to these types of events. 

[SerHaHa]

 

 

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Until it gets to a point that you can't sell tickets to these types of events. 

Even then, there are still areas where people in the "free West" congregate in large groups at scheduled/regular times.  The malls, churches, etc etc - it doesn't need to be a concert or sports event to give a nutjob a large soft target.

If you were speaking metaphorically, I do believe that some in the media are complicit with this, while paying lip service and wringing their hands on air, they certainly aren't donating the extra $ in add revenue they get from the increased CPM views to things like the victims groups of the very events they are covering. 

If we don't start taking action, and fast, freedoms we enjoy in the West, even the very nature and fabric of our societies, can, and will, rapidly unravel.  I've seen it in other places.  Nobody who saw Sarajevo in 84 would in their wildest dreams have guessed what it would look like 10, 15 years later.  I do NOT want that happening here, not that firearms were necessarily the primary cause of the collapse/war in Yugoslavia, but they certainly could be here, and it all looks the same once it comes tumbling down, the reasons don't matter.  We have a reason.  One we CAN stop, but it'll require radical action and change.

 

[The Mance]

3 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

None of them have met me; none of them know me, yet they're so certain to determine that I'm lying about my mental capacity as if guns are these incredibly complex devices.

No.  The only person in this thread who has claimed to know with any certainty how you would respond in an unexpected life or death combat situation, is you.  All anyone else has been trying to convey is that it is absurd for you to claim to know how you would react.  And I'm not sure how you can take away any sort of support for your opinion from SirHaHa's post.  Even the parts that you bolded only reiterate the point that combat is stressful and reactions are varied and unpredictable.

Also, I'm not sure what understanding the mechanical complexities of a weapon necessarily have to do with the stress of combat.  I mean, sure, a completely unfamiliar device is going to add a different element of stress to an encounter, but there is a lot more to fighting for survival than just being able to operate a device.  

People freeze up and react badly when all they have to operate are their fists, or a club.  And the whole point of what everyone has been saying to you (even sirHaHa) is precisely that it can be the unfamiliar stress of combat that makes some people forget all of that carefully learned proficiency.  

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, SerHaHa said:

Even then, there are still areas where people in the "free West" congregate in large groups at scheduled/regular times.  The malls, churches, etc etc - it doesn't need to be a concert or sports event to give a nutjob a large soft target.

If you were speaking metaphorically, I do believe that some in the media are complicit with this, while paying lip service and wringing their hands on air, they certainly aren't donating the extra $ in add revenue they get from the increased CPM views to things like the victims groups of the very events they are covering. 

I suppose, but if the "new hawtness" with these sorts of killers is setting the new record for hunting humans, then I don't see how you're going to have a larger softer target than a concert/music festival. 

To the metaphoric angle, yeah, money is an important factor for sure. If these types of shootings start to seriously hurt some corporate bottom line, then I would have to imagine we would start seeing some corporate money thrown in behind the gun control side of things. 

[Relic]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Well, well, well -- an openly stated truth for a change. But surely you realize that this attitude is why the Second Amendment people will fight you so unyieldingly?

Is that why, REALLY? 

[Kalbear]

I think that there really isn't a great idea to regulate guns based on mass shooting events. 

They're terrible and scary and disastrous, but they're exceedingly rare, even in the US. They're more common to happen as far as a non-politically motivated event, but they're not particularly preventable, only less likely. I don't want to craft legislation as a rule to stop them any more than I want to craft regulation to have massive security theater at the airport. It's useless and will likely cost a lot of money. (Though getting rid of bumpfire and trigger cranks seems sensible if you're already going to ban fully auto weapons). 

Now, I'd like to see more reasonable flags raised when someone buys, say, 33 guns in a year. Or a crazy amount of explosive used for target explosion. That might have slowed down this guy - but it won't stop Dylann Roof or the guy in Sandy Hook. I think background checks are totally fine. I'd love to see more mandatory training for gun owners, but that won't happen, so we'll continue to get tough guys who think that they know what to do in firefights and end up killing people like Trayvon Martin. And one more thing - I'd like to see liability in the case of gun accidents go WAY up, encouraging (hopefully) proper gun safety and treatment. 

Here's the real truth - as sad and depressing and furious as guns often make me, the gun deaths in the US are so minuscule by comparison to so many other things that they aren't worth worrying about to the degree that we do. No, we don't have 1.3 million deaths from cars yearly, but we do have well over 40,000 - work on that. I'd love it if Democrats simply dropped gun control at the federal level, encouraged gun control at the state level, and let it be as a national issue - or even embraced it and said that they're a proud gun owner and encourage training and safety. Take that division out of the equation, let everyone have their guns already. 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Because why does it matter if you take your own life with a gun, rope or a bottle of pills. It has nothing to do with the gun debate. Its only to inflate numbers.

And on this - because it is much harder and requires a lot more planning to kill yourself with a rope, and most people don't have a bottle of pills that they can take which will kill them (it's hard to OD on most anything without getting very sick first). Gun suicides are very often quite impulsive. We know that the rate of suicides drops dramatically by culture when gun availability is restricted.

So it has quite a lot to do with the gun debate; the only reason it might not for you is that you believe that everyone should be able to kill themselves whenever they wish, which likely means you've never dealt with anyone suicidal in your life.

[Relic]

59 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're terrible and scary and disastrous, but they're exceedingly rare, even in the US.

 

Define "rare". 

"According to data from the Gun Violence Archive, a total of 275 mass shooting incidents have occurred as of October 5, including Sunday's deadly attack in Las Vegas and Thursday's incident in Casa Grande.

Comparatively, 2016 saw a total of 483 mass shootings."

http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-over-270-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-2017

 

10 gun deaths per 100,000 citizens doesn't strike me as a minuscule number, either. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Relic said:

Define "rare". 

91 total events in the last 25 years. (see below for a link)

Just now, Relic said:

"According to data from the Gun Violence Archive, a total of 275 mass shooting incidents have occurred as of October 5, including Sunday's deadly attack in Las Vegas and Thursday's incident in Casa Grande.

Yep - but those largely include things like gang violence or things where a person murders their family with a gun - not something like a random shooting in a public place to kill arbitrary people. When most of us hear 'mass shooting' they don't think of a murder-suicide of a family or a gang war - but those are classified as such in the above data. 

Mother Jones did a more in-depth study on this and found that they're pretty rare. Again, 91 total events in the last 25 years.

Just now, Relic said:

Comparatively, 2016 saw a total of 483 mass shootings."

http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-over-270-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-2017

10 gun deaths per 100,000 citizens doesn't strike me as a minuscule number, either. 

Sure, but of the 10 gun deaths per 100k citizens, 2/3rds of them are suicides (which comprises about half of all suicides yearly in the US). It's not a small number at all, and I think it should be prevented or worked on, but stopping that and stopping mass shooting events requires very different kinds of laws.

[Kalbear]

And on the suicide thing, here's sobering data:

Quote

 

An estimated 8.3 million adults (3.7 percent of the adult U.S. population) reported having suicidal thoughts in the past year

An estimated 2.2 million adults (1.0 percent of the adult U.S. population) reported having made suicide plans in the past year

An estimated 1 million adults (0.5 percent of the U.S. adult population) reported making a suicide attempt in the past year

 

There were 1 million suicide attempts, but only 40k total actual suicides. I know from experience that psychiatrists and doctors take suicidal ideation quite seriously - but they especially take it seriously if you mention your ideation involves using a gun, because it works. Very few people try suicide with a gun and fail. 

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

91 total events in the last 25 years. (see below for a link)

Yep - but those largely include things like gang violence or things where a person murders their family with a gun - not something like a random shooting in a public place to kill arbitrary people. When most of us hear 'mass shooting' they don't think of a murder-suicide of a family or a gang war - but those are classified as such in the above data. 

Mother Jones did a more in-depth study on this and found that they're pretty rare. Again, 91 total events in the last 25 years.

Sure, but of the 10 gun deaths per 100k citizens, 2/3rds of them are suicides (which comprises about half of all suicides yearly in the US). It's not a small number at all, and I think it should be prevented or worked on, but stopping that and stopping mass shooting events requires very different kinds of laws.

I guess when it comes down to raw numbers we can say that gun deaths account for a small minority of all deaths, in general, but...isn't that a defeatist attitude? These are deaths we CAN mitigate. These are deaths that ARE mitigated by every other developed country in the world.  Is half of America simply going to give up, and accept gun culture as a permanent fixture? And is so, is this a place you want to live in long term, knowing that gun technology is going to make them even more efficient at killing people? Cuz I don't.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Relic said:

I guess when it comes down to raw numbers we can say that gun deaths account for a small minority of all deaths, in general, but...isn't that a defeatist attitude? These are deaths we CAN mitigate.

Probably not in the US, at least not for a generation or more. 

Just now, Relic said:

These are deaths that ARE mitigated by every other developed country in the world.  Is half of America simply going to give up, and accept gun culture as a permanent fixture? And is so, is this a place you want to live in long term, knowing that gun technology is going to make them even more efficient at killing people? Cuz I don't.

Well, to my knowledge you don't and haven't lived in the US for a long time, so you've already made your vote clear. It's certainly weighing heavily on my mind as a reason to move. 

But realistically yes, gun culture in the US is very much a permanent fixture, at least as presented. Sandy Hook didn't change the conversation, Vegas isn't appearing to, San Bernadino didn't, Pulse didn't. If I'm  going to change that in the US I have to do it with the blessing and desires of the actual gun owners, which is why I would rather appeal to gun safety, background checks and gun training - all things that responsible gun owners tend to believe in and care about. I'd rather ostracize those blow-hards who believe that they don't need training and because they once barely merged on I-45 that they know how they'll be able to handle themselves with a firearm in a life-or-death situation. I'd rather mock them the way we used to mock bad drivers.

Because the other way - trying to take away gun rights from people - doesn't appear to be working. 

[Clegane'sPup]

No American citizen needs to own 30-40 fire arms. Home protection can be taken care of by a revolver with hollow tip bullets.

Farmers, ranchers and hunters do not need automatic fire arms. The purpose of target practice is to hit the bulls eye not spray the target.

Any gun over the 357 caliber revolver needs to be regulated. Federal law needs to require that gun store owners finger print the purchasers of extremely high powered weapons and register them with a nationwide data base or shut them down.

Problems come in with illegal purchase, theft and various criminal traffickers’.

What got me started on this rant is a NY Times article trying to explain the shooter’s motivation. It does not matter what his motivation is/was. It does not matter what his intent was. I type his because I refuse to acknowledge his name. He killed and maimed hundreds of people at a peaceful gathering.

No one needs to own as many guns.as he did.

Let’s talk about gun manufacturers who sell and distribute these military grade weapons of mass destruction to the shop owners who in turn sell the weapons to unhinged American individuals. True the shop owners don't know they are selling to an unhinged individual. Finger printing and a federal data base will alert the someone to the buyers hoard.

A law abiding citizen no matter their location or lifestyle needs 30-40 military grade weapons.

Who manufactures these weapons that the shooter used? Who sells them? And why is it so easy to get the weapons that this man who I refuse to name had in his procession.

Silly as it may seem the price of a 357 magnum revolver ranges from $109 to $730. Good enough for home invasion. A rancher on the other hand needs a rifle to protect his animals. Good luck with that search.  I got the hebbie jebbies checking that out.

Senseless mass murder of innocent individuals is beyond my comprehension. A federal data base with finger prints for any fire arm sold beyond the 357 caliber is my stance.

I don’t need a carry permit. I’m not walking into a potential dangerous situation. A real-estate agent might though.  A small business owner or their employee might need personal protection.  Again, a single action revolver, rifle or shotgun will serve the purpose.