Gun Politics

[Zarathud]

What they are is a tool. It's a method of defending yourself, your property, and other people if a need arises. Whether it's from the "Evil 'Gubmint" or random burglars or stopping a violent assault or destroying rabid animals or protecting yourself after a natural disaster. They are a powerful equalizer, and to gun owners there's a very profound sense of security that comes with having that equalizer.

Myth and hysteria.

Odds of such events are low, and offset by the danger to those in the household from misuse. 62% of gun deaths are from suicide. You are safer without the gun.

[Paingod]

62% of gun deaths are from suicide. You are safer without the gun.

If you're suicidal. Yes.

You're also safer without a bathroom. It's the most dangerous room in your house.

[Zarathud]

You have to poop somewhere. You don't NEED a gun. You only think you do.

[RunningMn9]

But it does deplete your ammunition supply.

ND is free to make a claim that modifying insurance premiums based on ammo would create a black market for ammo.

He (and I) were talking about guns. Guns aren't generally a consumable product. Their use doesn't require that you buy more of them (the way that using alcohol does).

As a general matter, I'm at a point where I've just given up. Nothing is going to change, so I can't spend my time worrying about what would help.

[Rip]

That's what happened in a high demand environment like during Prohibition.

Yeah, no. Guns != alcohol.

The difference between the two and why Prohibition didn't work on alcohol was because the act of drinking alcohol destroys it, and I need to obtain more to drink more. The act of firing a gun does not destroy it. The addition of an insurance premium (to properly account for the additional risk you represent) may or may not affect the utility calculation that each prospective gun buyer makes, but it isn't going to create some Prohibition-era black market for insurance free guns (particularly when the presence of a black market gun in the home voids your homeowner's insurance).

I mean, are we law-abiding gun owners or aren't we?

At the moment, that is no guarantee we will always be.

[Paingod]

You have to poop somewhere. You don't NEED a gun. You only think you do.

We also don't NEED a lot of things we have in our daily lives. To me, personally, alcohol is a larger threat than firearms. It's killed people in my family and drunk drivers killed people I was friends with. I've never known anyone that was killed by a firearm, and have only seen them personally put to useful purpose. I have alcohol in my house, despite knowing what it can do, and knowing it's responsible for more than twice as many deaths in the US as guns.

I can only view these subjects as a matter of statistics, and the statistics don't sway me. For me, firearms are a teenie, tiny problem in the US - statistically. It's only relevant and only hot when something statistically insignificant happens and the media blows it up to become all-encompassing. I'm more worried about smoking, climate change, and obesity as public threats.

[Remus West]

Bump Stocks Selling Out

Just says to me how sick the culture of gun ownership has become. Guns in the early days were tools used to protect not only from hostile peoples but the environment as well. A way to get meat to feed the family. Now, they are simply weapons to be able to kill in way too many owners eyes.

[wonderpug]

I'll also throw in that I think it's foolish for all the focus to be on just gun control in response to an event like this, as if this millionaire who planned this massacre in detail well in advance wouldn't have still accomplished this some other way if we had all the gun control anyone could want.

I find it hard to believe that these mass killings are happening just because the gun count in the country happened to reach some critical mass, and pointing at gun regulations as the root cause and ignoring everything else seems like TSA-style problem solving. Oh great, everyone is taking their shoes off and dumping out bottles of water, now we're safe from airplane terrorism.

[RunningMn9]

to gun owners there's a very profound sense of security that comes with having that equalizer.

I'm only asking this because it's a point that you (and others like ND) reference when it comes to guns being misused. The point has been made that the chances of a gun being used in a suicide / domestic violence / gang / mass-murder event are so low that it's not worth most methods of potentially reducing them.

What are the chances that the average gun owner will need that gun to defend themselves or their property?

I suspect that if we weren't having this conversation, the answer would be something along the lines of "It doesn't matter, it's better to be safe than sorry".

If a legally-owned gun was far more likely to be used by a child to accidentally kill a sibling than it was to be used to defend one's self or one's property, would that matter? I'm not suggesting that it is - I have no idea. I'm just curious if it would matter.

I see a lot of "it virtually never happens" when it comes to guns being used to murder people, but not a lot "it virtually never happens" when it comes to your need to have a gun to defend against whatever you fear will happen to you.

And I don't intend to make a follow up point about it. If having a gun in your home for self-defense makes you feel better, I have no issues with that.

[Paingod]

I honestly don't know how many gun owners have to defend themselves or their property. It's probably one of the statistics the NRA gets to suppress by killing the CDC's gun research funding. Even knowing the statistic was slim to nothing wouldn't dissuade ownership for us.

I never thought of owning a gun when we lived in a populated area. I enjoyed shooting the few times I went out with friends, thought about getting one or two, but never actually made a purchase. Cops were everywhere, but people are everywhere too. If something goes wrong, you start screaming or pounding on a door and someone hears you. I never once really felt like I might run into something I couldn't handle.

Then I got married, moved into the woods to live privately in the quiet, and had kids. My wife dreamed of living on a larger plot of land with privacy and space for as many dogs as she wanted.

Being isolated in the woods made my wife uncomfortable. She's a beautiful woman, and she's noticed other people noticing it - not to the point where anyone needs to get involved and put someone in their place, but it's there. We've had random strangers drive up to our house despite being on a dirt road off a dirt road, lost and looking for someone else. She sells puppies, and that invites strangers to our middle-of-nowhere home and puts us on the map (a stolen puppy probably still sells for the original asking price). There is no one to hear you yell, and no doors to bang on for help.

So we have a few guns. If she ever feels threatened, she has a plan that involves getting the kids inside as quickly as she can and locking them in the bedroom with her, and then calling the police while she loads her revolver and semi-auto pistol, and then wait the 10+ minutes it's going to take for help to arrive. Is it perfect and foolproof? No. Will we ever have to do it? Probably not. Does the illusion of it make her feel safer? Yes. Yes it does.

When I'm home alone, my wife is out of town, and the kids are at a sitter for the night I actually feel better just having a pistol loaded and sitting by my desk, carrying it with me when I'm puttering around the house and outside doing chores. I don't do concealed carry as our guns are for home defense. We keep the guns in one safe and the ammo in a different one.

Being around people makes us feel safer. Being isolated makes us feel less safe. We fill the gap with firearm ownership.

I expect that if 3% of gun owners own 50% of guns, the other 97% are probably like me and my wife.

*Footnote: We live in a very low crime state and area. If we lived in a city warzone that was home to a rash of burglaries and violent break-ins, we'd probably have guns there too. We'd be looking to move out of that area as quickly as we could, but we'd want to feel safer.

[PLW]

Do you mean a tax or an actuarial table?

No, not a tax. I'm saying using the data that insurance and health agencies have available to them to price out the true costs of gun ownership in terms of payouts and/or medical bills associated with accidental discharge or lawsuits - whatever those numbers are. If you do not claim gun ownership on your home insurance, you pay $[x] a year. If you have less than three guns (made that up) it's $[X]+$500. If it's more than three guns it's $[X]+1000. Again, totally made up. Similar features for your healthcare policy as well. After you declare whether or not you're a smoker (and pay the additional fees if you are), you declare gun ownership (and pay additional fees).

The next issue is what happens to that money. Ideally it's not going to be used to enrich private corporations, but I do think it people had to pay additional money to have guns in their homes, maybe demand would dip. Just a theory.

There is actually a really nice paper about the social cost of gun ownership. They estimate a median social cost of about $900/gun-owning household.

[msteelers]

I look at this issue from the benefit that guns and weapons provide to society, just like with most other rights. Freedom of Speech means we have to put up with KKK a-holes, but there's no question that we need Freedom of Speech in order to have any kind of free society. The drawbacks from clan rallies do not outweigh the benefits of being able to speak truth to power.

I feel the same way about most types of guns. While I do not want them in my home, I understand the value of the feeling of safety that people get from having handguns. I understand there are benefits to owning certain types of firearms, and that to most gun owners they are worth the drawbacks. I would never bring a firearm into my home knowing that it's more likely to be used on myself or a family member than it is a stranger trying to do my family harm, but millions of Americans do. And that's fine I guess. I don't want to see those weapons go away.

What I don't understand are the AR-15 and other assault style weapons that are so popular today. Here is a timeline of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history.

• Austin, TX - 8/1/66 - 18 killed, 31 wounded
• San Ysidro, CA - 7/19/84 - 21 killed, 19 wounded
• Edmond, CA - 8/20/86 - 14 killed, 6 wounded
• Killeen, TX - 10/16/91 - 23 killed, 27 wounded
• Assault Weapon Ban takes effect - 9/13/94
• Assault Weapon Ban expires - 9/13/04
• Blacksburg, VA - 4/16/07 - 32 killed, 17 wounded
• Fort Hood, TX - 11/5/09 - 13 killed, 33 wounded
• Newton, CT - 12/14/12 - 27 killed
• San Bernadino, CA - 12/2/15 - 14 killed, 24 wounded
• Orlando, FL - 6/12/17 - 49 killed, 60 wounded
• Las Vegas, NV - 10/1/17 - 58 killed, 500 wounded

Mass shootings have increased both in frequency and in their deadliness since the Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004. Now, I know not all of these mass shootings were committed by people using assault style rifles. And I'm not trying to say that the assault weapons ban was perfect. But I don't think that there's any question that these type of weapons are making these events more deadly.

So what's the benefit of being able to be able to buy an AR-15? Where does society as a whole benefit? Because I've asked family members who own them, heard interviews with gun store owners that sell them, and various other gun enthusiasts who love their AR-15... and the common answer that I've heard is that they are "fun to shoot".

I'm sorry. That's just not good enough. Not for me.

[Carpet_pissr]

I honestly don't know how many gun owners have to defend themselves or their property. It's probably one of the statistics the NRA gets to suppress by killing the CDC's gun research funding. Even knowing the statistic was slim to nothing wouldn't dissuade ownership for us.

I never thought of owning a gun when we lived in a populated area. I enjoyed shooting the few times I went out with friends, thought about getting one or two, but never actually made a purchase. Cops were everywhere, but people are everywhere too. If something goes wrong, you start screaming or pounding on a door and someone hears you. I never once really felt like I might run into something I couldn't handle.

Then I got married, moved into the woods to live privately in the quiet, and had kids. My wife dreamed of living on a larger plot of land with privacy and space for as many dogs as she wanted.

Being isolated in the woods made my wife uncomfortable. She's a beautiful woman, and she's noticed other people noticing it - not to the point where anyone needs to get involved and put someone in their place, but it's there. We've had random strangers drive up to our house despite being on a dirt road off a dirt road, lost and looking for someone else. She sells puppies, and that invites strangers to our middle-of-nowhere home and puts us on the map (a stolen puppy probably still sells for the original asking price). There is no one to hear you yell, and no doors to bang on for help.

So we have a few guns. If she ever feels threatened, she has a plan that involves getting the kids inside as quickly as she can and locking them in the bedroom with her, and then calling the police while she loads her revolver and semi-auto pistol, and then wait the 10+ minutes it's going to take for help to arrive. Is it perfect and foolproof? No. Will we ever have to do it? Probably not. Does the illusion of it make her feel safer? Yes. Yes it does.

When I'm home alone, my wife is out of town, and the kids are at a sitter for the night I actually feel better just having a pistol loaded and sitting by my desk, carrying it with me when I'm puttering around the house and outside doing chores. I don't do concealed carry as our guns are for home defense. We keep the guns in one safe and the ammo in a different one.

Being around people makes us feel safer. Being isolated makes us feel less safe. We fill the gap with firearm ownership.

I expect that if 3% of gun owners own 50% of guns, the other 97% are probably like me and my wife.

*Footnote: We live in a very low crime state and area. If we lived in a city warzone that was home to a rash of burglaries and violent break-ins, we'd probably have guns there too. We'd be looking to move out of that area as quickly as we could, but we'd want to feel safer.

Data and all kinds of historical evidence shows you are less safe with the gun than without. I'm not poo pooing feelings, but something to consider. Do you prefer to BE safer, or merely FEEL safer?

[Rip]

I honestly don't know how many gun owners have to defend themselves or their property. It's probably one of the statistics the NRA gets to suppress by killing the CDC's gun research funding. Even knowing the statistic was slim to nothing wouldn't dissuade ownership for us.

I never thought of owning a gun when we lived in a populated area. I enjoyed shooting the few times I went out with friends, thought about getting one or two, but never actually made a purchase. Cops were everywhere, but people are everywhere too. If something goes wrong, you start screaming or pounding on a door and someone hears you. I never once really felt like I might run into something I couldn't handle.

Then I got married, moved into the woods to live privately in the quiet, and had kids. My wife dreamed of living on a larger plot of land with privacy and space for as many dogs as she wanted.

Being isolated in the woods made my wife uncomfortable. She's a beautiful woman, and she's noticed other people noticing it - not to the point where anyone needs to get involved and put someone in their place, but it's there. We've had random strangers drive up to our house despite being on a dirt road off a dirt road, lost and looking for someone else. She sells puppies, and that invites strangers to our middle-of-nowhere home and puts us on the map (a stolen puppy probably still sells for the original asking price). There is no one to hear you yell, and no doors to bang on for help.

So we have a few guns. If she ever feels threatened, she has a plan that involves getting the kids inside as quickly as she can and locking them in the bedroom with her, and then calling the police while she loads her revolver and semi-auto pistol, and then wait the 10+ minutes it's going to take for help to arrive. Is it perfect and foolproof? No. Will we ever have to do it? Probably not. Does the illusion of it make her feel safer? Yes. Yes it does.

When I'm home alone, my wife is out of town, and the kids are at a sitter for the night I actually feel better just having a pistol loaded and sitting by my desk, carrying it with me when I'm puttering around the house and outside doing chores. I don't do concealed carry as our guns are for home defense. We keep the guns in one safe and the ammo in a different one.

Being around people makes us feel safer. Being isolated makes us feel less safe. We fill the gap with firearm ownership.

I expect that if 3% of gun owners own 50% of guns, the other 97% are probably like me and my wife.

*Footnote: We live in a very low crime state and area. If we lived in a city warzone that was home to a rash of burglaries and violent break-ins, we'd probably have guns there too. We'd be looking to move out of that area as quickly as we could, but we'd want to feel safer.

Data and all kinds of historical evidence shows you are less safe with the gun than without. I'm not poo pooing feelings, but something to consider. Do you prefer to BE safer, or merely FEEL safer?

Your proof doesn't take into account the gun safe and responsible use of the gun(s).

As with most dangerous objects proper handling and storage lowers the risk factor substantially.

The "gun control" initiatives I am most likely to support are those mandating safe storage and handling as well as holding owners more responsible for failing to.

[hepcat]

Your proof doesn't take into account the gun safe and responsible use of the gun(s).

Statistically irrelevant in this day and age.

[Kurth]

What they are is a tool. It's a method of defending yourself, your property, and other people if a need arises. Whether it's from the "Evil 'Gubmint" or random burglars or stopping a violent assault or destroying rabid animals or protecting yourself after a natural disaster. They are a powerful equalizer, and to gun owners there's a very profound sense of security that comes with having that equalizer.

Myth and hysteria.

Odds of such events are low, and offset by the danger to those in the household from misuse. 62% of gun deaths are from suicide. You are safer without the gun.

I read this, and I get your point. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I understand that there's credible data that establishes it is dangerous for gun owners (and their families) to own guns.

The problem I have is, that's not the problem that's causing the gun control issue to rise to the fore again.

It's a mass shooting. And the "myth and hysteria" fueled by our sensationalist media and the near cult-like need to promote these killers and worship their victims. We're on what? Day 5 of the almost constant "breaking news" coverage from CNN and the other major news outlets? I know this is the SINGLE WORST MASS SHOOTING IN US HISTORY as the CNN headlines scream at me, but have some perspective. Should this event really be diverting all of our attention from recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and Houston? Is it more important than our dealing with North Korea? A greater threat to our standard of living than Russian interference in our electoral process?

And at the end of the day, "[o]dds of such events are low . . ." Mass shootings, horrible as they are, are a freak event. No matter what the media may try to scare us into believing, you're better off trying to prevent bricks from randomly falling on your head than you are trying to protect yourself and your loved ones from mass shootings. Gun control will never be a serious issue and will never receive serious attention until the thing motivating it is sound public policy to tackle what is, in reality, more of a public health crisis.

Just like fear of terrorism should not be the basis of our immigration or foreign policy, mass shootings should not be the basis for reasonable gun control policy.

[Smoove_B]

As with most dangerous objects proper handling and storage lowers the risk factor substantially.

Just to clarify: having a gun in your home - regardless of how many and how they are stored - increases risk of death as part of accidental shooting, homicide or suicide for all individuals in that house , as reported here.

There is actually a really nice paper about the social cost of gun ownership. They estimate a median social cost of about $900/gun-owning household.

I hadn't seen that before. Thanks!

[Rip]

Your proof doesn't take into account the gun safe and responsible use of the gun(s).

Statistically irrelevant in this day and age.

Bullshit.

In homes that do have guns, safely storing a firearm locked and unloaded is critical. Laws holding gun owners responsible for the safe storage of firearms reduced unintentional shooting deaths among children by 23 percent. Further, a disproportionately large share of unintentional firearm deaths happen in states where gun owners were more likely to store firearms loaded, and especially in states where owners more often stored firearms unlocked and loaded. This is true even after controlling for factors such as firearm prevalence and poverty.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... e_nra.html

[wonderpug]

I look at this issue from the benefit that guns and weapons provide to society, just like with most other rights. Freedom of Speech means we have to put up with KKK a-holes, but there's no question that we need Freedom of Speech in order to have any kind of free society. The drawbacks from clan rallies do not outweigh the benefits of being able to speak truth to power.

I feel the same way about most types of guns. While I do not want them in my home, I understand the value of the feeling of safety that people get from having handguns. I understand there are benefits to owning certain types of firearms, and that to most gun owners they are worth the drawbacks. I would never bring a firearm into my home knowing that it's more likely to be used on myself or a family member than it is a stranger trying to do my family harm, but millions of Americans do. And that's fine I guess. I don't want to see those weapons go away.

What I don't understand are the AR-15 and other assault style weapons that are so popular today. Here is a timeline of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history.

• Austin, TX - 8/1/66 - 18 killed, 31 wounded
• San Ysidro, CA - 7/19/84 - 21 killed, 19 wounded
• Edmond, CA - 8/20/86 - 14 killed, 6 wounded
• Killeen, TX - 10/16/91 - 23 killed, 27 wounded
• Assault Weapon Ban takes effect - 9/13/94
• Assault Weapon Ban expires - 9/13/04
• Blacksburg, VA - 4/16/07 - 32 killed, 17 wounded
• Fort Hood, TX - 11/5/09 - 13 killed, 33 wounded
• Newton, CT - 12/14/12 - 27 killed
• San Bernadino, CA - 12/2/15 - 14 killed, 24 wounded
• Orlando, FL - 6/12/17 - 49 killed, 60 wounded
• Las Vegas, NV - 10/1/17 - 58 killed, 500 wounded

Mass shootings have increased both in frequency and in their deadliness since the Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004. Now, I know not all of these mass shootings were committed by people using assault style rifles. And I'm not trying to say that the assault weapons ban was perfect. But I don't think that there's any question that these type of weapons are making these events more deadly.

So what's the benefit of being able to be able to buy an AR-15? Where does society as a whole benefit? Because I've asked family members who own them, heard interviews with gun store owners that sell them, and various other gun enthusiasts who love their AR-15... and the common answer that I've heard is that they are "fun to shoot".

I'm sorry. That's just not good enough. Not for me.

First, AR-15s show up in shootings a lot mainly because they're just really popular and really common. There are plenty of other rifles that can perform as effectively as an AR-15. Focusing on just that one gun is like cracking down on Toyota Camrys because they showed up a lot in statistics about speeding tickets. Cracking down on AR-15s specifically is like cracking down on shoes and baby bottles at airport security and allowing laptop batteries through.

As for the chart, I'm skeptical that the 1994 assault weapon ban had anything to do with that period.
The chart leaves out Columbine in 1999, for example, I guess because it ties with Fort Hood but with a smaller injured count. I'm in favor of new gun control legislation being enacted, but the 1994 assault weapon ban is not a good model to try and emulate.

It banned semi-auto rifles with 2 or more of the following features:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher

Of those, the flash suppressor is the only feature that might have a chance of coming into play in a mass shooting scenario, and even that was allowable under the ban as long as you didn't have any of the other features. (I'm ignoring the grenade launcher bullet point just because the grenades themselves were already illegal, and I can't fathom why we wouldn't be able to outright ban grenade launchers instead of putting on a list equal to bayonets.)

The 1994 assault weapon ban results in just one of these two functionally identical weapons getting banned:


The top one doesn't have a black polymer frame, a collapsible stock, a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip. They're both the same gun. If you want new gun regulations to be enacted, don't settle for something as empty as the 1994 ban.

[msteelers]

Columbine didn't make the list because it's no longer one of the 10 deadliest shootings. 12 people died. The tenth deadliest was Fort Hood with 13.

And I only singled out AR-15's because that's literally the only one I can name. That's why I said "AR-15 and other assault style weapons.

You also didn't answer the main question I asked, which is what is the societal benefit of owning a rifle like that?

Edit: I was wrong. Columbine had 13 deaths. I could put it on there, but there are a depressing amount of shootings with 13 dead, and I'm out of time.

[Remus West]

The "gun control" initiatives I am most likely to support are those mandating safe storage and handling as well as holding owners more responsible for failing to.

Never happen since there would be zero way to monitor whether or not they were safely stored. You're just suggesting another punitive law sitting on the books that we could use to punish someone when something bad happens when we need a method to assist in preventing those bad things from happening in the first place. I agree that safe storage is huge but a law regarding it is useless.

[Rip]

The "gun control" initiatives I am most likely to support are those mandating safe storage and handling as well as holding owners more responsible for failing to.

Never happen since there would be zero way to monitor whether or not they were safely stored. You're just suggesting another punitive law sitting on the books that we could use to punish someone when something bad happens when we need a method to assist in preventing those bad things from happening in the first place. I agree that safe storage is huge but a law regarding it is useless.

By that measure most laws are useless.

I'm fine with nothing then. Unless you have some awesome idea that could pass that everyone else has missed?

[RunningMn9]

Even knowing the statistic was slim to nothing

If it was slim to nothing, would you understand why the idea of it giving gun owners "peace of mind" is not a compelling argument? If the peace of mind is an illusion, because you there is no real threat to you anyway?

I'm just trying to see if this works both way. If the chances of your gun being used for ill-purposes is statistically insignificant is a relevant part of an argument against controlling your guns, then it seems relevant that the statistical insignificant nature of the threats arrayed against you and yours is part of a relevant counter-argument against your "need" or "want" to own a gun.

Of course, I'm generally speaking pro-2nd Amendment. I just don't buy into the notion that people need arsenals of weapons at their disposal. Hand gun for personal defense while out and about? Ok. Shotgun for home defense? Sure. Hunting rifle for hunting? Sure.

Enough weapons and ammunition to outfit a Marine batallion? You're starting to lose me.

[wonderpug]

Columbine didn't make the list because it's no longer one of the 10 deadliest shootings. 12 people died. The tenth deadliest was Fort Hood with 13.

And I only singled out AR-15's because that's literally the only one I can name. That's why I said "AR-15 and other assault style weapons.

You also didn't answer the main question I asked, which is what is the societal benefit of owning a rifle like that?

You sure Columbine wasn't 13? Does it matter? What aspect of the 1994 ban do you think helped reduce mass shootings? The reduction in bayonet mounts, the reduction in people holding their wrist vertically instead of tilted forward a bit, the larger shoulder stocks, the reduction in flash suppressors, or the reduction in the number of grenade launchers?

As for the societal benefit question, that's more back to the main debate about the validity of the 2nd amendment that I won't be able to sum up with a pithy reply. But for the general reasons (other than "they're fun") that come up for having a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, my opinions would be:

• home defense - shotguns arguably better in most scenarios, semi-auto rifle maybe better in a rural ranch kind of home
• "securing a free state" or resisting a corrupt government or whatever - semi-auto rifles are a good fit
• shit hits the fan collapse of society scenario - semi-auto rifles a good fit for the needs of people who think such a thing is a thing to prep for
• hunting - bolt action rifles probably better
• varmint control - probably don't need semi-auto rifles for minor critters, but for feral hogs or something that could attack you, I could see an argument for semi-auto rifles being better to have

I'm not saying all these reasons are my own, but those are the most common 'societal benefit' reasons I could think of that come up.

[msteelers]

You were right, Columbine was 13. I'm not sure what criteria was used as a tie breaker between Fort Hood and Columbine. I would think number of wounded, but as you said, it doesn't matter.

As for the main question, you listed 5 reasons. 3 of them you admitted would be better suited with other weapons.

"Securing a free state" is foolhardy at this point. We don't let people have tanks and other weapons that modern armies need, and the technology gap will only widen as we move forward. I don't think allowing people to own tools capable of letting an untrained shooter kill 58 people and wound 500 more in 11 minutes is worth the delusional fantasy of standing up to a corrupt government.

And I really don't think we need to concern ourselves with making sure people have the weapons needed to survive in a world where society has collapsed.

[Remus West]

The "gun control" initiatives I am most likely to support are those mandating safe storage and handling as well as holding owners more responsible for failing to.

Never happen since there would be zero way to monitor whether or not they were safely stored. You're just suggesting another punitive law sitting on the books that we could use to punish someone when something bad happens when we need a method to assist in preventing those bad things from happening in the first place. I agree that safe storage is huge but a law regarding it is useless.

By that measure most laws are useless.

I'm fine with nothing then. Unless you have some awesome idea that could pass that everyone else has missed?

I'm just saying that passing legislation that can not do anything to prevent these events does not really address a need. Acting to say "we acted" is stupid. Its like saying there are hungry people in Africa but I bought myself a donut today so its all good.

We need to step up first in our treatment of mental health issues. Then we need to address how people buy guns. I don't care if you own them but if you own them and have no idea how to properly use them? Problem. We require courses on how to drive, probationary periods during which driving is limited, etc. We require three days to own a object whose only purpose is to cause damage. Gun buyer should be require to demonstrate they are capable of being responsible for their weapon before they are allowed to buy one.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, the idea that we need automatic weapons in order to be ready to revolt against a corrupt government is Red Dawn fantasy horseshit. Unless you've been watching Syria with envy the past couple years. If the government becomes authoritarian, we will need a nonviolent resistance, not an armed revolution.

[El Guapo]

The "gun control" initiatives I am most likely to support are those mandating safe storage and handling as well as holding owners more responsible for failing to.

Never happen since there would be zero way to monitor whether or not they were safely stored. You're just suggesting another punitive law sitting on the books that we could use to punish someone when something bad happens when we need a method to assist in preventing those bad things from happening in the first place. I agree that safe storage is huge but a law regarding it is useless.

By that measure most laws are useless.

I'm fine with nothing then. Unless you have some awesome idea that could pass that everyone else has missed?

I'm just saying that passing legislation that can not do anything to prevent these events does not really address a need. Acting to say "we acted" is stupid. Its like saying there are hungry people in Africa but I bought myself a donut today so its all good.

We need to step up first in our treatment of mental health issues. Then we need to address how people buy guns. I don't care if you own them but if you own them and have no idea how to properly use them? Problem. We require courses on how to drive, probationary periods during which driving is limited, etc. We require three days to own a object whose only purpose is to cause damage. Gun buyer should be require to demonstrate they are capable of being responsible for their weapon before they are allowed to buy one.

I mean, there are ways that you could design a 'safe storage' law that would actually have some effect. Basically you could require a license to own guns (just like you need a license to drive), which could operate at the state level. Part of having a gun license would be submitting to random inspections of your gun storage (and other gun safety) systems by a relevant (again probably state level) regulatory agency. You wouldn't need to inspect every one every year, just have an audit system (like taxes) sufficient to keep people serious.

[wonderpug]

The "gun control" initiatives I am most likely to support are those mandating safe storage and handling as well as holding owners more responsible for failing to.

Never happen since there would be zero way to monitor whether or not they were safely stored. You're just suggesting another punitive law sitting on the books that we could use to punish someone when something bad happens when we need a method to assist in preventing those bad things from happening in the first place. I agree that safe storage is huge but a law regarding it is useless.

FWIW I'm all in favor of getting some laws on the books about safe storage and handling of firearms. I don't want to have to worry as much as I do about my kids going over to a school friend's house and finding a poorly secured firearm. I don't want to regularly have facepalm moments when I'm at a gun store when I see someone buying a gun while actively demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge about basic firearm safety.

I don't know how you'd enact such a law, but I'm in favor of pursuing something along those lines. Aside from reducing accidental gun deaths from children handling firearms, I think it would reduce crimes committed with stolen weapons, and maybe have an impact on at least some potential mass shootings.

FWIW, I'm also in favor of waiting periods on most firearm purchases.

[wonderpug]

And I really don't think we need to concern ourselves with making sure people have the weapons needed to survive in a world where society has collapsed.

Katrina? Puerto Rico? LA Riots? Ferguson? I think there's plenty of debate to be had about the need or role of firearms in such a situation, but I don't think it's impossible to fathom events of societal collapse where someone might need to defend their home and family.

"Securing a free state" is foolhardy at this point. We don't let people have tanks and other weapons that modern armies need, and the technology gap will only widen as we move forward. I don't think allowing people to own tools capable of letting an untrained shooter kill 58 people and wound 500 more in 11 minutes is worth the delusional fantasy of standing up to a corrupt government.

Are you saying that there's no merit in the principles of the 2nd amendment once a country's military gets to a certain level of strength?

[msteelers]

I'm saying the drawbacks of having a heavily armed populace outweighs the benefits.

Presumably you and I both agree that certain weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians. Explosives, tanks, machine guns... We are bickering over where to draw the line.

[msteelers]

Katrina? Puerto Rico? LA Riots? Ferguson?

I don't think the addition of assault style rifles into those situations does anything to help, and only makes them more dangerous.

[Enough]

And here it is, sorry Rip.

After the National Rifle Association on Thursday called for the federal government to look into regulating bump stocks, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre followed up Thursday night emphasizing that the gun rights group did not call for an outright ban.

“We didn’t say ban, we didn’t say confiscate,” LaPierre told Fox News’ Sean Hannity after noting that the NRA urged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review whether bump stocks comply with federal law.

So, the NRA is just asking questions but ban bump stocks? Oh lordie, no way!

[Jeff V]

A gun nut associate of mine just bought a bunch of bump stocks - he's counting on a ban to increase their value and finance buying more guns.

[Paingod]

Of course, I'm generally speaking pro-2nd Amendment. I just don't buy into the notion that people need arsenals of weapons at their disposal. Hand gun for personal defense while out and about? Ok. Shotgun for home defense? Sure. Hunting rifle for hunting? Sure.

Enough weapons and ammunition to outfit a Marine batallion? You're starting to lose me.

I am totally with you there. I just don't know how or where you cross the line without coming across as absurd and arbitrary.

I do understand those 3% gun owners with 50% of the guns. I know one. His collection is impressive, and every single one has a different firing characteristic. He's got multiple versions of every "type" of gun, and favorites in each category. He has brand new guns, and has antiques. He attends tactical training and gun safety lessons each year and loves going to the range with a bag 'o guns and zipping through a couple hundred dollars worth of bullets. He collects them because he loves it. Not because he's going to eventually go up into a bell tower. I can't imagine he'd be any more dangerous with just 3 of his favorite guns over having 30 of them.

I think the single item of focus in this particular incident should be the Bump Stock. The shooter brought enough guns that he could swap them as they overheated from simulated full-auto use. Without that single modification, he wouldn't have had more than a dozen guns up there and would have had to work a lot harder to rain down death.

A gun nut associate of mine just bought a bunch of bump stocks - he's counting on a ban to increase their value and finance buying more guns.

I expect this is a LOT of their current sales. People stocking up to resell later at a profit. It's why this particular item should be illegal and not just production banned.

[Rip]

And here it is, sorry Rip.

After the National Rifle Association on Thursday called for the federal government to look into regulating bump stocks, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre followed up Thursday night emphasizing that the gun rights group did not call for an outright ban.

“We didn’t say ban, we didn’t say confiscate,” LaPierre told Fox News’ Sean Hannity after noting that the NRA urged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review whether bump stocks comply with federal law.

So, the NRA is just asking questions but ban bump stocks? Oh lordie, no way!

Semantics. There isn't an outright ban on automatic weapons, why would there be one on bump stocks? When they ask for a review they are obviously suggesting that bump stocks be regulated in the same way as automatic weapons are. Sounds good to me.

[Enough]

And here it is, sorry Rip.

After the National Rifle Association on Thursday called for the federal government to look into regulating bump stocks, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre followed up Thursday night emphasizing that the gun rights group did not call for an outright ban.

“We didn’t say ban, we didn’t say confiscate,” LaPierre told Fox News’ Sean Hannity after noting that the NRA urged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review whether bump stocks comply with federal law.

So, the NRA is just asking questions but ban bump stocks? Oh lordie, no way!

Semantics. There isn't an outright ban on automatic weapons, why would there be one on bump stocks? When they ask for a review they are obviously suggesting that bump stocks be regulated in the same way as automatic weapons are. Sounds good to me.

A ban vs being able to still manufacture and sell them to the public is not just semantics.

[wonderpug]

And here it is, sorry Rip.

After the National Rifle Association on Thursday called for the federal government to look into regulating bump stocks, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre followed up Thursday night emphasizing that the gun rights group did not call for an outright ban.

“We didn’t say ban, we didn’t say confiscate,” LaPierre told Fox News’ Sean Hannity after noting that the NRA urged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review whether bump stocks comply with federal law.

So, the NRA is just asking questions but ban bump stocks? Oh lordie, no way!

Semantics. There isn't an outright ban on automatic weapons, why would there be one on bump stocks? When they ask for a review they are obviously suggesting that bump stocks be regulated in the same way as automatic weapons are. Sounds good to me.

A ban vs being able to still manufacture and sell them to the public is not just semantics.

It is, though. Currently it's next to impossible for a civilian to legally purchase or own a fully automatic weapon. If identical regulations were placed on bump fire stocks, that'd achieve what's equivalent to a ban but not technically a ban.

[Rip]

And here it is, sorry Rip.

After the National Rifle Association on Thursday called for the federal government to look into regulating bump stocks, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre followed up Thursday night emphasizing that the gun rights group did not call for an outright ban.

“We didn’t say ban, we didn’t say confiscate,” LaPierre told Fox News’ Sean Hannity after noting that the NRA urged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review whether bump stocks comply with federal law.

So, the NRA is just asking questions but ban bump stocks? Oh lordie, no way!

Semantics. There isn't an outright ban on automatic weapons, why would there be one on bump stocks? When they ask for a review they are obviously suggesting that bump stocks be regulated in the same way as automatic weapons are. Sounds good to me.

A ban vs being able to still manufacture and sell them to the public is not just semantics.

They still manufacture and sell full automatic weapons. Are you trying to say bump stocks are more dangerous?

If it takes a $200 tax stamp and other stuff that is required for auto weapons to buy them they won't sell well enough to continue being manufactured. Problem solved.

[em2nought]

They still manufacture and sell full automatic weapons. Are you trying to say bump stocks are more dangerous?

If it takes a $200 tax stamp and other stuff that is required for auto weapons to buy them they won't sell well enough to continue being manufactured. Problem solved.

Can't sell newly built full automatic to citizens, I believe the only fully automatic weapons that civilians can purchase are built before May 19th, 1986.