Gun control

[Crazed_Insanity]

With regard to registering guns... I wish NRA could take the initiative to become the DMV of guns... and do the administering for free for all patriotic americans... rather than waste their money lobbying. Do the job of identifying all the good gun owning citizens... or do the job of "regulating the militia" as a private non-government organization... and hopefully help government identify risk areas so that we can minimize bad things from happening... NRA needs to do a better job bridging the gap between gun lovers and gun haters IMHO.

The other issue is the tendency for folks in our societies to go too extreme for whatever reasons. Forget terrorists for now, even for women, it's either full on feminism or secretly loving 50 shades of gray. Pretty much all mass shooters harbored some sort of extreme ideology. Our society is just sick for whatever reasons. Having gun rights and a society flooded with guns certainly didn't help... Anyway, I do believe the root problem isn't with guns though. There are just more and more broken messed up folks. As Canada has demonstrated, mass killers can kill mass without guns. Vans well do. 911 terrorists used airplanes.

If we keep banning and restricting, we will eventually end up banning all modes of transport... or perhaps make traveling so much hassle that people will simply stay home all the time and just chat with each other in front of their computers... probably end up causing more problems for our culture...

[dodint]

It's common enough right now that we don't seem to be able to get past the "it's too soon to politicize this" stage before the next one happens.

What's interesting is that language, that law-abiding gun owners have done all these things but the anti-2A crowd keeps taking. Like it's this contrived plan to just make life difficult for gun owners, and has nothing to do with people wanting to try to stop people from being shot to death. The fact that you think that I'm being disingenuous because I don't want to see schoolkids get shot is troubling. What do you think my real motivation is?

But, to go back to the car thing, I'd like to see it be way harder to get a license, way easier to lose one's license, and for us to take driving and the law a hell of a lot more seriously in this country, and then regulate guns just as much as that. A hell of a lot of people are allowed to drive cars right now that shouldn't be allowed to.

No one here questions the sincerity of your anger. What's disingenuous is presenting gun violence as a national epidemic when every statistic demonstrates that it's a very unlikely way to die. We've gone through the stats before so I'm not going to bother rehashing it because you're unable or unwilling to contextualize their significance.

You won't be satisfied until there are zero guns; fine. My guess is your position is "a single gun death is too many", which is a sincere and noble position. But the practical reality is that guns are here and even with a full abolition of gun ownership in the country they will exist for generations in the hands of those willing to operate outside of the law (see: small but measurable Australian gun violence). So as long as guns are legal I'll have mine; and I'll use them for the wide array of activities that don't involve killing people because that's what I, as a law abiding gun owner, choose to do with them. Your insistence on stripping all of that away from every legal gun owner in America to forward what would be an ineffective public policy agenda is what's troubling, to me. It is literally "Well I don't do it and so you can't either."

Hundreds of cyclists are killed annually. I'm not a cyclist so I'm okay with banning everyone from cycling to save a small number of lives. Too bad if your livelihood depends on it, we're doing you a favor for the public good.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Helluva lot of folks shouldn't drive.
Helluva lot of folks shouldn't own guns.
Helluva lot of folks shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Where should we draw that line is the difficult question.

Suffice to say we shouldn't just ban vans because of mass van killer or ban elections because of Donald Trump.

What we really need to address is why that guy felt entitled to get laid and if not, he's justified to mow down women with a van...

Also, what caused the rise of the orange ape?

Blaming vans or blaming stupid voters won't solve the root problem. We don't really have a van problem nor an election problem.

Of course, to be fair, we do have a way-too-many-guns in our society problem though. Maybe we can setup some sort of cap and trade system for gun owners?

[Tom Servo]

Your cycling analogy doesn't really work. With a gun, even accidentally, you cause a not insignificant risk to the lives of others as well as yourself. With a bike, you don't. If you had a gun that you could only shoot yourself with, then that might be a reasonable argument.


You won't be satisfied until there are zero guns;

Who's being disingenuous here? I think we should do a hell of a lot more to regulate them, at least as much as we do driving a car (and we should regulate that more too). I literally said that in the next paragraph.

[dodint]

Yeah, you didn't address the premise of my post. And we're talking past each other, as we always do.

I was sucked in by Bills reasonable, thought provoking post, but then he never came back. Lesson learned. :lol:

[TheBenior]

Who's being disingenuous here? I think we should do a hell of a lot more to regulate them, at least as much as we do driving a car (and we should regulate that more too). I literally said that in the next paragraph.
Saying that we should regulate them at least as much as cars tells me that you've never tried to buy one. I never had to have my background checked to buy a vehicle that I wasn't financing, nor did I fill out any federal paperwork. I never had to bring a form saying I was a police officer to not have to wait 72 hours to buy a car. FWIU, most states don't require background checks for intrastate private (non-dealer) sales (Illinois does), but I'd be fine with that. Some states allow concealed carrying without a permit, but most require a class, which one strictly doesn't have to do to get a driver's license. Furthermore, a driver's license lets you drive in drive in every state (and isn't subject to the whim/bribery of your county/municipality like concealed carry is in HI, MA, MD, NY, NJ, and RI). State reciprocity for concealed carry varies quite a bit.

Cars are by necessity more complex than guns, which have existed in small arm form since the 13th Century, and in the current form with convenient metallic cartridges since 1845. Also, in spite of all the regulations for street legal vehicles, if I'm making an off-road only dune buggy (or buying one of these cheap Chinese dirt bikes that are all over the coasts) to hillbilly about with on my cousin's farm, there's pretty almost no regulation whatsoever.

If you want to credibly argue for more regulation, ignorance about current and past regulation is not a virtue.

[Tom Servo]

I'll admit my ignorance on all the regulations regarding firearms. Out of curiosity, do you have to have a license that requires passing a test to be able to buy a gun? Does that license have to be renewed every few years, potentially including passing written and physical tests again? Do you have to register every firearm and renew that registration every year? Do you have to periodically bring the firearms in for inspection to make sure they're still in good working order? Carry insurance at all times indicating coverage in the event that an accident occurs with the firearm? Have a identifying and clearly visible from a distance number plate on all firearms? Can the license be revoked if you use the firearm in a reckless way or somewhere outside the designated places where you're allowed to use it?

Honestly curious.

[Rare White Ape]

https://youtu.be/GwKThyMmi7I

[TheBenior]

I'll admit my ignorance on all the regulations regarding firearms. Out of curiosity, do you have to have a license that requires passing a test to be able to buy a gun? Does that license have to be renewed every few years, potentially including passing written and physical tests again? Do you have to register every firearm and renew that registration every year? Do you have to periodically bring the firearms in for inspection to make sure they're still in good working order? Carry insurance at all times indicating coverage in the event that an accident occurs with the firearm? Have a identifying and clearly visible from a distance number plate on all firearms? Can the license be revoked if you use the firearm in a reckless way or somewhere outside the designated places where you're allowed to use it?

Honestly curious.

No you're not, you're trolling.

None of those things are mandatory towards car ownership in this country, only car operation on public roads.

[Tom Servo]

I'm not trolling. I'm legitimately listing out the regulations I know of for driving, because as far as I can tell there are significant regulations for that, certainly more than you alluded to in your post and I actually want to know if those same regulations apply to having firearms in populated areas. I might also point out that I previously referred to driving, not car ownership, but I'm happy to clarify that I mean "driving on public roads". I honestly couldn't give a shit if you only shot guns out in the middle of nowhere on your cousin's farm, just like I don't expect those same regulations to be the same if you're driving a dune buggy on said farm, but that's not what we're talking about here.

[TheBenior]

Well, for carrying, it varies pretty widely by state, but for Illinois, most questions can be answered here (https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/FAQ.aspx).

[Jason]

What's the point of owning something you can't operate? I mean, I guess there's collectors, but I assume the majority of guns and cars aren't part of a collection, but rather owned in case of being needed for use.

[Jason]

Varying rules/laws from state to state have always bothered me, but that's probably a discussion for another thread.

[TheBenior]

You're missing a key difference between mere operation on private property and operation on the public way.

[Jason]

Fair enough. But in both cases, I'd rather people be trained and licensed before using either, publicly or privately. I know I'm in the minority there.

[Tom Servo]

Illinois' regulations seem decent to me except it seems like you can not have to go through significant parts of the process if you're a non-state resident. Looking at other states, is "carry" synonymous with "concealed carry", or is there another definition? Open carry often seems to be specifically mentioned separately.

[Godson]

Nope, open carrying can be truncated to simply carrying. Concealed carrying is usually truncated to CC, CCP, CCL, or other similarities. Now the fun part is where some states laws are different with the verbiage and such. I'm not going to get into the compacts of who can CC in what states and what states you can't. That's an entirely different discussion.


Many cities in Missouri, including my hometown which lies in the middle of Kansas City Metropolis, allows open carry. Until recently, you had to have a concealed carry permit or license to concealed carry. Now, Missouri doesn't require a CCP to conceal carry. Caveat of this, you aren't allowed to CC in certain areas WITHOUT a CCP/CCL. If caught in those areas, you could lose the firearm, be fined, or even face some legal rammifications.

[TheBenior]

Illinois' regulations seem decent to me except it seems like you can not have to go through significant parts of the process if you're a non-state resident. Looking at other states, is "carry" synonymous with "concealed carry", or is there another definition? Open carry often seems to be specifically mentioned separately.
Apart from hunting, Illinois prohibits open carry.

For out of state permits, Illinois allows you to drive through the state with a pistol on your person or in the passenger compartment of your vehicle, but if you want to go on a day trip, it's supposed to be unloaded and secured in your trunk.

[Tom Servo]

Nope, open carrying can be truncated to simply carrying. Concealed carrying is usually truncated to CC, CCP, CCL, or other similarities. Now the fun part is where some states laws are different with the verbiage and such. I'm not going to get into the compacts of who can CC in what states and what states you can't. That's an entirely different discussion.

I'm looking at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state Open Carry is usually its own line item, and there's "Carry permits required", so that's the one that's confusing me.

[dodint]

Apart from hunting, Illinois prohibits open carry.

For out of state permits, Illinois allows you to drive through the state with a pistol on your person or in the passenger compartment of your vehicle, but if you want to go on a day trip, it's supposed to be unloaded and secured in your trunk.

Was talking to a gun shop owner on Tuesday and he informed me in PA if you have a loaded magazine and firearm anywhere in the vehicle (even separated from each other in a locked trunk, etc) it's considered to be a loaded weapon. Basically I'm going to have to go get a CCW just to transport unless I want to load my magazines at the range.

[Godson]

Was talking to a gun shop owner on Tuesday and he informed me in PA if you have a loaded magazine and firearm anywhere in the vehicle (even separated from each other in a locked trunk, etc) it's considered to be a loaded weapon. Basically I'm going to have to go get a CCW just to transport unless I want to load my magazines at the range.

Yeah, and you need to make sure that your states CCW is legit to even do that.

Missouri and illinois have not in the past. So, when a group of us drove to SC several years ago, we had to move magazines around in veghicles. My Glock mags and 9mm in his car, and his 1911 and 45acp in mine.



Tom, that's the frustrating thing about the current set of gun laws. The verbiage is usually confusing at best, and different everywhere.

[Tom Servo]

My attempts to do some research to try to learn more all about this, combined with a second conversation last night about execution methods worldwide (saw that Japan hanged seven people behind the Sarin gas attack back in 1995) means that I really hope I don't end up caught up in some investigation because my google search history does not look good.

[Godson]

You wouldn't be on a search list. You aren't looking up anything crazy like nfa3 requirements, et Al.

[21Kid]

Sorry Nate... Didn't mean to drag you back in.

I just think there's more that we could do to curb some of the problems that we are facing.

When I hear about all of the warnings that were made about some of the recent shooters it is really frustrating. Because a lot of the people saying that it's not guns, but mental health issues, or missed opportunities in reporting to law agencies, etc... Are the same people taking away mental health funding, and making it more difficult to report and track potential threats.

[dodint]

I was mostly teasing, I'm responsible for my actions. ;)

That's what I'm saying. There are so many failing safeguards already, would be nice to modernize and get them working effectively rather than just writing more ineffective law. A buddy of mine does background checks for the transportation industry for a living and he says the number of different systems/databases that exist and the lack of interoperability of them make it very difficult to do a background check. For my security clearance at work it cost thousands of dollars because they paid a guy to travel around the country digging into my past. Really it should be doable from a single platform.

[21Kid]

Unfortunately if you were to attempt to centralize it, you'd be greeted with cries of Big Govt, etc.

That's another part of the problem... MOST people are in favor of common fixes like that. But when so many attempts to help fix the problem are met with such hostility, and so many innocent people die in the mean time
That's when gun law advocates get frustrated and say "Fuck it, just ban everything!"
Because the gun lobby opposes any sort of solution.

[Crazed_Insanity]

That's why I think NRA needs to do something more, besides defending gun laws, help make owning guns safer for everyone too! If NRA doesn't help fix gun related problems, surely eventually somebody else will...

[Godson]

This is going to sound ridiculous, and even straw man fallacy, but here goes. this is all of the basis of saving people's lives.

but currently more people die a day from opioid overdose then do from guns. I personally I'm all about the lowest hanging fruit on protecting lives. The thing about guns is that it's a very emotional hit. you don't hear anybody crying too much about the current opioid epidemic. Because it's not emotional.

[dodint]

You don't even hear about inner city gun violence. Or suicides. Two issues that make up the huge majority of gun deaths. The news cycle only cares when some white kids are involved.

[Leon]

This is going to sound ridiculous, and even straw man fallacy, but here goes. this is all of the basis of saving people's lives.

but currently more people die a day from opioid overdose then do from guns. I personally I'm all about the lowest hanging fruit on protecting lives. The thing about guns is that it's a very emotional hit. you don't hear anybody crying too much about the current opioid epidemic. Because it's not emotional.

I think it's also because opioid overdoses effect the user, rather than killing bystanders.

[Tom Servo]

On the other hand, I really don't like making people being killed a zero sum game. That one thing kills more people than another doesn't mean it's only worthwhile to pay attention to or do something about one of them.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Another thing to consider that it's just much easier to regulate the relatively newer airline industry than the older auto industry... not to mention the deep rooted gun industry...

Older the habit, harder to change.

[Godson]

I think it's also because opioid overdoses effect the user, rather than killing bystanders.

They affect more than the user. The users family, the social structure around them, the stresses on the city to offer care when they come close to oding and the increase in crime when money to obtain a fix, etc.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think the key difference might also be that one could blame the user for drug overdose. You could even blame lousy driving for some fatal crashes...

However, when it's completely out of your control, then it becomes more unacceptable. Such as being just a passenger in a plane crash, or be killed by a drunk driver thru no fault of your own, or just gunned down for stupid reasons. These are just understandably more unacceptable.

[Jason]

On the other hand, I really don't like making people being killed a zero sum game. That one thing kills more people than another doesn't mean it's only worthwhile to pay attention to or do something about one of them.

This is what always confuses me when people use the "but gun deaths aren't that many compared to..." argument. Great, tell the parents of the Sandy Hook kids that their deaths aren't a big deal because heart disease still exists. I get the idea, that we should concentrate on the biggest killers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address safety of other aspects of life. We still do things to make roller coasters safer, for example, even though car deaths are more common. We are capable, as a society, to address multiple "threats" at once.

[dodint]

The argument is there because of the disproportionate amount of news coverage and discussion dedicated to it. Jim Jefferies career is being held afloat by being anti-gun and anti-Trump. It's presented as every citizen is constantly under threat of impending death by gun, when statistically it's a very low number of incidents. Couple that with the answer being "take all guns away from everyone" and you'll get that reaction.

I suppose another way of putting it is that people claim to care about people dying so much that they'll strip strangers of their rights, but they don't acknowledge other causes of death that are literally 10x more prevalent. Homicide is tied for Parkinsons Disease when enumerating causes of death for people in America, at 0.7%. Where is the Heart Disease Awareness thread?

It's the disproportion that's jarring to gun owners. We do things to make the hobby safer (technological improvements, shooter education, stringent ownership requirements, etc.). And the long term data indicates that gun violence is down. To say that non-gun owners that can't identify at all with the experience (and generally have a disdain for it) have all the answers on how to improve our care and use of firearms is literally insulting. There is always going to be pushback there because legal gun owners are the only ones that have anything to lose in the transaction.

[Tom Servo]

Jim Jefferies career is being held afloat by being anti-gun and anti-Trump.

Can we at least agree that we need more regulation on things flying out of left field like that? Damn near took my head clean off.

[balki]

Parkinson's and Heart Disease mainly affect people 50+
Opioids (and Rx) have been getting a lot more attention in the last few years, plus throwing a bag of heroin at my head won't kill me (that and non-violent marijuana dealers have gotten life-sentences, wtf)

Now, if ARs and handguns were only used for suicides ...

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, we just need to figure out how to make gun ownership safer for everyone. For sure we don't make air travel safer by banning planes.

Banning drug and alcohol have also been proven to not solve any drug related problems.

[dodint]

Can we at least agree that we need more regulation on things flying out of left field like that? Damn near took my head clean off.

I've liked him a lot for years but his show is getting repetitive. It was the first thing that came to mind in the moment. It reminds me of when Tina Fey got a new lease on a career thanks to Sara Palin.

[balki]

Wait, can we derail the thread for a moment to agree that Jim Jefferies is no longer funny (at least his recent stand-up act is too much even for the left-leaning folk)

[dodint]

I miss his show on FX.

[Tom Servo]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I still like him (though I haven't seen his latest standup)

[speedpimp]

I miss his show on FX.

Legit? Loved it.

[Rare White Ape]

Since when would any of you fuckers listen to an Australian’s opinion on gun control?

[balki]

Since when every educated country outside the US knows more about US policies and politics, so ... always

[Jason]

There's not a whole lot of attention for other causes, such as the ones you listed, because we constantly fund, and research ways of preventing/treating them.

https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

If we were "banned" from researching heart disease, and McDonalds was some huge political power, we'd be having a different discussion, imo.

There's also the "natural causes" vs "external" discussion... heart disease doesn't show up at a school and injure/kill a bunch of kids. Then, beyond that, personally, I see our peers in the developed world not really have much in the way of gun violence, and it just seems "obvious" that it's (at least partially) because they have fewer guns.

Again, though, I know it's never going to change here. There's too many people that love the "right", and there's too many guns in circulation at this point. The "best" solution, at this point is to cultivate peace in other ways. But that isn't probable either, because it involves "socialism".

[dodint]

Lawyer and gun advocate (who sits much farther to the right than me in that area) friend on another board posted this:


Very happy with the Kavanaugh pick. Kavanaugh's dissent in the Heller II case before the DC Circuit is exactly what every gun owner and supporter of the RKBA is looking for in a Supreme Court justice; Kavanaugh argued that DC's assault-weapons ban and gun-registration scheme were both unconstitutional.

So that's cool.

[Tom Servo]

In addition, there's not a lot of attention like, say, a thread on the GTX, for other causes because there's not a lot of debate. There's not a contingent saying that we have a right to get Parkinson's and that it's a pretty small number of people that die from it anyway.

[dodint]

Sure. But when a proper analogy is made (cars, bikes, etc) that's shouted down as absurd as well. So what can I do? Guns hold a unique place in our society, that's plain to see and most analogies fail. An intellectual annoyance of mine is that firearms impact is exaggerated by influencers, for lack of a better word, out of a dislike for a culture they do not partake in or to use to advance their own agenda. That's a commentary on the national discourse and not directed at anyone specific.

The Parkinson's comparison was simply an illustration of scale, they happened to have the same death rate of 0.7% of the population.

Here's another way of looking at it. Jason (and others) wants to use an isolated incident from six years ago (Sandy Hook) to kill the firearms industry, a $31.8 billion industry in the United States. That's $31.8B worth of economic force in the form of jobs, safety, recreation, sustenance procurement, etc. Saying that the industry should go away because a very, very small number of people occasionally misuse or abuse the end product is incredibly near-sighted. It's absurd in the same way banning cars is absurd, the utility far outweighs the the tragic but statistically insignificant bad outcomes.

This might be the only ongoing debate I engage in that is completely futile. Absolutists clashing with the Constitution was settled 10 years ago this week with Heller II. I wish we talked about something more compelling and impactful, like Fourth Amendment developments. But nobody gleefully runs to the message board when a police officer violates someone's curtilage before getting a warrant.

[Tom Servo]

I didn't shout it down as absurd. The bike one is a wildly flawed analogy (cycling puts the cyclist in danger not others, and statistically improves your chances at a long life - the health benefits outweigh the risk of being killed by a driver, especially for the #1 cause of early death, heart disease), and the car one I agree with which is why I'd like to increase regulation and enforcement on driving and apply that same regulation to firearms, because I think that the 0.7% death rate is not statistically insignificant. That's one we'll never come to an agreement on as we clearly see it quite differently, but that's more than 1 in 200. To me, that's a lot.

I'd also argue that the Parkinson's comparison is more apt than you think. We do a *lot* to fight Parkinson's. I'd love to see us pour just as much into stopping people from being shot.

I'd be curious to see how much of that $31.8 billion is selling to the military and law enforcement. Leaving aside the distaste I feel for the argument that "yeah, people die, but a lot of people are making money off of it so that's not an option", I don't see even banning all civilian gun use (which I don't know that anybody is arguing here, despite your continuing insistence that that's the argument) as killing an entire industry that's helping arm the largest military in the world.

Total agreement about fourth amendment developments. Again, though, I doubt there are many people on this board that would disagree there, so it tends not to generate the same kind of traffic. It'd be interesting to see if we do have anyone here that's in favor of violating someone's fourth amendment rights in exchange for greater (perceived or real) safety.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think that's the bottom line, how much right are you willing to give up for greater perceived safety.

Suffice to say we're all onboard for greater safety. We just have to do it without sacrificing fundamental rights somehow. If your solution is to attack or compromise 2a, then the gun rights folks will just fight it until they die. Can the lefties figure out way to maintain 2a and make it safer for all?

Both sides need to work together on this. Continued polarization and disdain for the other side will only make matters worse for all.

[Jason]

Sure. But when a proper analogy is made (cars, bikes, etc) that's shouted down as absurd as well. So what can I do? Guns hold a unique place in our society, that's plain to see and most analogies fail. An intellectual annoyance of mine is that firearms impact is exaggerated by influencers, for lack of a better word, out of a dislike for a culture they do not partake in or to use to advance their own agenda. That's a commentary on the national discourse and not directed at anyone specific.

The Parkinson's comparison was simply an illustration of scale, they happened to have the same death rate of 0.7% of the population.

Here's another way of looking at it. Jason (and others) wants to use an isolated incident from six years ago (Sandy Hook) to kill the firearms industry, a $31.8 billion industry in the United States. That's $31.8B worth of economic force in the form of jobs, safety, recreation, sustenance procurement, etc. Saying that the industry should go away because a very, very small number of people occasionally misuse or abuse the end product is incredibly near-sighted. It's absurd in the same way banning cars is absurd, the utility far outweighs the the tragic but statistically insignificant bad outcomes.

This might be the only ongoing debate I engage in that is completely futile. Absolutists clashing with the Constitution was settled 10 years ago this week with Heller II. I wish we talked about something more compelling and impactful, like Fourth Amendment developments. But nobody gleefully runs to the message board when a police officer violates someone's curtilage before getting a warrant.

Not true, I've been anti-gun for much longer than that. I don't see a need or advantage to them in a modern society. Sure, you can argue there's money and jobs in it, but it's not like we can't use the money spent there on other industries, which would then see an increase in jobs. I also disagree that the utility of guns outweighs the bad in the way that vehicles do.

Either way, again, I know banning guns isn't going to happen, so I'd like to see us improve inequalities that often lead to crimes, to at least help further decrease violence.

[21Kid]

Socialism!!!

[Crazed_Insanity]

Socialism is bad whenever the poor feels 'entitled' to the wealth of the rich.

Just as some feel entitled to have sex, when they don't get it, they rent a van or whatever other means to mow women down.

Things such as Universal income sound good on paper, but it also has another dangerous element to it which is robbing folks of meaning or usefulness. Pretty sure suicide rate will go thru the roof when we have universal basic income...

With regard to violent gun crimes, I'm sure that happens to nations without gun rights too.

Narrowing the gap between rich and poor must happen, but rob from rich and give to poor socialism just won't be a good solution. Better solution is for the rich to voluntarily give to the poor. Cause if they don't, either the poor or the govt is going take it from you anyway..,

Anyway, I don't really think wealth gap is what's cause gun problems in America...

[Rare White Ape]

Billi… no. Socialism is not about robbing the rich. It’s about paying a percentage of your income (your fair share) in taxation in order to fund the provision of government services… to build a society. Hence the word socialism! The poor don’t get money from the rich, they get it from everyone.

Chances are that some rich people pay almost zero or an extremely low percentage in tax anyway, because they have the means to manage their money in such a way that they can do it, while still keeping everything perfectly legal and above board. Tax minimisation is not a problem, per se, but people who are well-off have a definite advantage here. And politically, the ones who yell the loudest about how bad socialism is are usually the ones who are the most likely to benefit because the government takes money from revenue and gives it right the fuck back to rich people.

Outside of welfare and healthcare, who are the ones who get the most from government handouts? Go on, look it up. Where does the overwhelming majority of your government’s non-welfare money go?

[TheBenior]

Not true, I've been anti-gun for much longer than that. I don't see a need or advantage to them in a modern society. Sure, you can argue there's money and jobs in it, but it's not like we can't use the money spent there on other industries, which would then see an increase in jobs. I also disagree that the utility of guns outweighs the bad in the way that vehicles do.

Either way, again, I know banning guns isn't going to happen, so I'd like to see us improve inequalities that often lead to crimes, to at least help further decrease violence.
A lot of that is your perception from being a city dweller, presumably in a neighborhood without homicide rates approaching those of the most dangerous Latin American cities. You live somewhere that probably has more police officers per-capita than any other US city, even if a lot of them are glorified security guards or accountants and lawyers with guns. Your potential police response times to in-progress emergency calls are likely to be under 10 minutes, not under an hour. You don't have to worry about your livestock getting attacked by coyotes or them stepping in rodent burrows and snapping their legs. You haven't been involved in one of the 67,000 annual uses of a firearm in self defense, and that's the low-ball FBI estimate. Other studies' estimates range between 500,000 and 3 million uses, most of which never have a shot fired. Some people aren't as comfortable as you are with ceding your safety to those who are the strongest and most aggressive, or the hoped for goodwill of others.

To bring up Latin America again, I'm not sure why near legal prohibition of private firearm ownership in the US would result in Western European crime rates, and not just disarm the vast majority of law-abiding citizens like it's done in Mexico or Brazil.

Probably the biggest thing we could do to reduce crimes committed with firearms is end drug prohibition. A huge amount of, if not most shootings that aren't suicides, are criminals trying to kill other criminals, though more and more are driven by petty social media squabbles every year.

[balki]

Probably the biggest thing we could do to reduce crimes committed with firearms is end drug prohibition.
x2

[Tom Servo]

Probably the biggest thing we could do to reduce crimes committed with firearms is end drug prohibition.

I'm down with that.

[Jason]

A lot of that is your perception from being a city dweller, presumably in a neighborhood without homicide rates approaching those of the most dangerous Latin American cities. You live somewhere that probably has more police officers per-capita than any other US city, even if a lot of them are glorified security guards or accountants and lawyers with guns. Your potential police response times to in-progress emergency calls are likely to be under 10 minutes, not under an hour. You don't have to worry about your livestock getting attacked by coyotes or them stepping in rodent burrows and snapping their legs. You haven't been involved in one of the 67,000 annual uses of a firearm in self defense, and that's the low-ball FBI estimate. Other studies' estimates range between 500,000 and 3 million uses, most of which never have a shot fired. Some people aren't as comfortable as you are with ceding your safety to those who are the strongest and most aggressive, or the hoped for goodwill of others.

To bring up Latin America again, I'm not sure why near legal prohibition of private firearm ownership in the US would result in Western European crime rates, and not just disarm the vast majority of law-abiding citizens like it's done in Mexico or Brazil.

Probably the biggest thing we could do to reduce crimes committed with firearms is end drug prohibition. A huge amount of, if not most shootings that aren't suicides, are criminals trying to kill other criminals, though more and more are driven by petty social media squabbles every year.



True, I live in a nice neighborhood, and not in a place with crime rates approaching Latin American cities. Ideally I'd like to see nowhere in the US with crime rates that high.

Regarding the rural/farm aspects, not sure if I've mentioned it here, but I actually support gun ownership for those situations, and ethical hunting. Don't really care for gun ownership (especially hoarding guns) in more populated areas.

While I haven't experienced firearm in self defense personally, I will say it seems like there's an assumption that I've never been around firearms. The first twenty something years of my life, a good portion of it was spent in rural/farmland type areas where gun ownership was needed for situations you mentioned above, and it didn't seem abnormal to me at all, and frankly still doesn't. My dad also had a gun in the home, when I was in "the city", it was never needed, but felt out of place there. My experiences of gun ownership in "the city" outside of that though were gun shots/ambulances multiple times a week. Also, a couple "kids" who were part of "gangs" that liked to threaten people with guns (including myself a couple times) in high school. This was a couple years before Columbine. Again, not a great "in the city" experience.

It's interesting that your range of "self defense" stats goes from 67k to 3 million. It's hard to really debate such a range as that, but I will say I think this country has the capability to be a country where that level of "self defense" isn't necessary.

I've mentioned before in these discussions (not sure if in this thread or not), that I think the "gun violence" problem needs to be approached from multiple directions. I absolutely agree that simply banning guns without any other changes wouldn't give desired results. We need to do things that change our foundation for the better. I've mentioned recently changes in education and social safety nets. The war on drugs is another. Also we need to back out of for profit prisons, and do a better job of rehabilitation, and better setting up former prisoners to be productive members of society once out. When people aren't desperate, and are given better opportunities for better lives, they generally don't choose a violent and risky lifestyle, imo.

[Tom Servo]

Wait, can we derail the thread for a moment to agree that Jim Jefferies is no longer funny (at least his recent stand-up act is too much even for the left-leaning folk)

Just watched "This is me now" on Netflix, I enjoyed it. I mean, I wasn't like rolling on the floor laughing and having a hard time controlling my bladder or anything, but it was pretty good.

[balki]

I guess it's just the Trump stuff; heard a (... THE?) gun control bit over the weekend, it was also pretty good (certainly not rofl)

[MR2 Fan]

https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1018937289823653888

Maria Butina, the Russian gun advocate tied to Alexander Torshin, who met repeatedly with NRA officials, has been detained, charged by US prosecutors today under FARA (!)

[drew]

I hope, genuinely hope, that the NRA goes down in flames with the rest of the shit bags. Then someone, ANYONE, puts a bill in motion that abolishes corporate lobbying, and super PACs.


Fucking assholes.

[MR2 Fan]

At least to have NRA's propaganda machine shut down and not talk about owning a gun is the manliest, most Christian (however the fuck that works) thing to do

[Crazed_Insanity]

When little boys play, they like to pretend they're swinging swords and shooting guns. Not sure if it's entirely NRAs doing.

If only human can eventually outgrow wars, then maybe someday little boys will grow up thinking playing with guns are stupid...

[SportWagon]

You just made me remember our 1/2 size or so Western-style toy revolvers, which could fire off a whole roll of caps in about a minute. Think a little harder and I can remember that smell permeating our un-made-up basement.

Perhaps came from an Uncle or godmother. They were on my mother's shortlist for encouraging us to donate to charity before Christmas. In a later year my official G.I.Joe suffered that fate too. Along with a fairly big collection of knock-off [G.I. Joe] uniforms and weapons acquired mostly from Kresge's out of my measly allowance. One of my favourites was a sping-loaded medium-sized mortar. It was actually "Action Man" (G.I.Joe marketed in UK while we visited; didn't sell so stuff was cheap).

http://www.actionmanhq.co.uk/action-man-equipment/mortar/index.html

Er, that was a real 12" G.I.Joes.

[Dicknose]

Along with a fairly big collection of knock-off uniforms


While I sit here right now wearing an army shirt that I think actually went to Vietnam.
Had toy guns and my parents were ok with that - both were army officers.
Ive fired guns (in the USA) but never had any desire to own one.

[G'day Mate]

While I sit here right now wearing an army shirt that I think actually went to Vietnam ...

Explain?

[Dicknose]

It’s my dads shirt. He put on weight later in life, so had a bunch of shirts from when I was a kid that didn’t fit, but he never threw them out. So I’m guessing that the shirts I still have now are from the era when he went to Vietnam.
I own mostly tshirts, so i like these are more heavy duty shirts, doing yard work or yesterday it was playing with my fire pit.

Just contrasting the “no gun family” with someone who had a military family. Dad didn’t keep his weapon at home, well he had a couple of ceremonial swords!

[Crazed_Insanity]

Not raised in a military family... as a kid, I loved playing with any moving things... cars, trains, boats, planes, spaceships, robots... yeah, GI joe toys were fascinating to me, but that's because they have cool vehicles! Guns didn't interest me that much...

I think I'm a supporter of the backwards 2A because I don't want only out laws to have access to guns. I think a lot of Christians are like me and are okay with stricter gun control laws.

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5163376/christians-gun-control

But of course there are crazier Christians who love guns more than guns...

[balki]

Since it usually involves firearms:
How do people take their big game home? i.e.; you go a mile into woods and kill a moose, how do you get that 1000lb beast to your trailer?

[Crazed_Insanity]

Why you want to know? Planning a hunting trip?

[tigeraid]

Since it usually involves firearms:
How do people take their big game home? i.e.; you go a mile into woods and kill a moose, how do you get that 1000lb beast to your trailer?

"Real" hunters pack it out, is my understanding. You cut up and clean the animal in the bush, get as much into your backpack as you can, hoof it back to the truck, and repeat until the animal is done.

I dunno but big fat hunters do. Use an ATV I suppose?

[Drachen596]

They make game trailers which can be towed or just pulled around in the woods. I've seen them for vehicles from bicycles to UTV/Side by sides. I do believe generally they remove the internal organs and such on site and then take the rest home.

I believe my friend and his father just took a pole and tied the deer to it and each took an end to get back to their truck.

A lot of it likely depends on what the terrain/forest is and how much you want to bother any other wildlife in the area.

[FaultyMario]

Yeah, balki. I was thinking big game hunting is done by parties and not by individuals.

BTW, is any type of recreational hunting done solo?

[Crazed_Insanity]

What the hell man. This thread is turning into animal control?

[speedpimp]

Yeah, balki. I was thinking big game hunting is done by parties and not by individuals.

BTW, is any type of recreational hunting done solo?

Yes.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Back to topic... NRA is on financially shaky ground and may cease to exist in the future...

Hope it’s true.

Gun owners, do we really need NRA?

[Rare White Ape]

The NRA is in trouble?

I’m sending them my thoughts and prayers.

[Crazed_Insanity]

:lol:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b6573b9e4b0de86f4a1bfd9

Maybe God is finally beginning to answer those prayers...

[speedpimp]

The article (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nra-financial-trouble-706371/) about the NRA.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Switching to air traffic control:
https://usat.ly/2vYO4EU

Suicidal plane jacker could’ve easily become a mass killer too using the commercial plane that he took for a joy ride...

What is wrong with people’s mental health nowadays...

I suspect it’s probably also social media related. Or something is fundamentally/structurally wrong with modern societies...

Anyway, if we can’t figure out the root cause, we could ban guns or completely get rid of guns, and still be murdered by these crazy suicidal mass killers in the future...

On a lucky day they kill themselves, in other occasions, they find innocent folks to die with them. Yesterday was a lucky day in Seattle I guess.

[MR2 Fan]

I do keep hearing that the U.S. is really bad regarding mental health, so what do other countries do better to identify it? Does it relate to healthcare overall, where check-ups also include mental health examinations or something?

[Rare White Ape]

I dunno, but when the heck does a plane hijack have anything to do with gun control?

[Crazed_Insanity]

Just saying this could also potentially end up as another mass murder.

This hijacker also has no apparent reason for doing this... other than identified himself as a broken guy with few screws loose...

Wonder now commercial aircrafts will need to have keys to start, or will aircraft makers fight back to leave commercial planes keyless...

[Tom Servo]

That plane isn't the only thing getting hijacked...

[Crazed_Insanity]

What do you mean?

[Rare White Ape]

Planes aren’t the only thing flying over your head…

[Crazed_Insanity]

Oh, he’s talking about me jacking this thread taking it for a joy ride?

Well, at least like the hijacker, I didn’t hurt anybody. Just a broken guy with a few loose screws...

Anyway, point I was trying to make is that I think we have a bigger problems than gun control. Humanity’s will seems to be losing control more and more...

[Dicknose]

Having other problems doesn’t mean you just ignore a problem.
And it’s interesting to ponder are the guns a problem or mental health in general, again it doesn’t mean that an improvement (rather than solution) might be to restrict guns.
And I think it’s bad to consider “solutions” as if these issues can be completely fixed. You want improvements, not perfection. Certainly don’t ignore improvements because they won’t fix it all.

[Crazed_Insanity]

True. However I think it’s safe to say that most mass shooting incidences happened ‘illegally’. It’s not like we have really really loose laws and allowing these things to happen unchecked. We just have an enforcement problem.

Passing more laws won’t make them more enforceable. Banning gun at this point is also impossible.

I’m pretty sure both sides want to see improvements. Nobody is in favor of more mass crazy shooting.

[MR2 Fan]

Mass shooting at Madden Game Tournament in Jacksonville, FL, 4 dead, 7 injured so far, suspect dead

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/26/us/jacksonville-madden-shooting/index.html

[tigeraid]

Surely a deranged Muslim extrem--nope, I was wrong YET AGAIN.

[Jason]

Just waiting for the narrative to be about videogames.

[MR2 Fan]

update, now only 3 dead including gunman...9 injured, so some minor good news.

Oh there's already people hearing "video game" and blaming it on them, even though it was a FOOTBALL game. Next they'll probably say they didn't virtually kneel for the anthem so they got what they deserved or some B.S.

[MR2 Fan]

also, I'm sick of this right-wing talking point about "it happened in a gun-free zone". No, it happened in a place where they probably have signs saying please don't bring guns in.

A true gun free zone is where they frisk everyone or put in metal detectors.

[tigeraid]

Just waiting for the narrative to be about videogames.


I dunno, I think Madden 2018 would make me want to kill someone too.

[MR2 Fan]

oh crap, can we blame it on EA's seemingly perpetual exclusive NFL license?

[Crazed_Insanity]

For sure we can all agree that dude is a sore loser.

[lostnight]

For sure we can all agree that dude is a sore loser.

Yes, that seemed to be some rather poor sportsmanship.

[Phil_SS]

This was written by a classmate of a person directly related to one of the victims of the attack on Tree of Life. And this person thought it put perfectly into words what Squirrel Hill is and how what happened is affecting the community.
__________________________________________________ ________________

My family has a long running joke: “The corner of Forbes and Murray is the center of the universe.” What it means is that, if you just ask enough questions, eventually, you will probably find out that someone you thought was a stranger is really from Squirrel Hill. At least a little bit. So you should never assume that strangers are strangers. Assume they're mishpucha – family – and act accordingly.

It's often true. Just today, for example, I found out that my long-time friend and colleague here in DC (who is Persian) met her husband (who’s Christian) at a wedding at Tree of Life a few years ago. And I was like, "duh, of course you did." So they’re mishpucha too. That happens all the time.

Growing up in Squirrel Hill means being enfolded by the mishpucha. Everyone upstreet is a teacher, the dentist, a cousin, a grandpa, a grandma, an aunt, an uncle, another aunt, a friend, a neighbor, the rabbi, the pediatrician, a camp counselor, probably like three or four more aunts. The mishpucha cares how you’re doing in school and it wants to know how your grandparents are feeling these days and it wants to make sure you have a sweater just in case it gets cold later. It’s hard to describe knowing that practically everyone you see wants nothing but the best for you.

Safe can be stifling, of course. And so very many of us have left Squirrel Hill to do amazing, astounding things. We write for the New York Times, open world-class restaurants in Philadelphia, start music labels in LA. We’re lawyers and doctors and professors and rabbis and writers and artists and designers and actors and scientists and entrepreneurs and professionals of every shape. The mishpucha said we could do it, urged us to do it, gave us the strengths, and the skills, and the resilience, and the naiveté necessary to accomplish great things. So we did it. Because if no one ever tells you that you face near impossible odds, you don’t even know to fear them.

We are all hurting really badly right now. Violence and hatred invaded our universe. Those who were killed as they settled in to pray were the essence of the mishpucha. The man who did this terrible thing didn’t understand that the mishpucha would have welcomed him that morning, handed him a book, showed him to his seat, asked how we was doing in school and made sure he had a sweater just in case it got cold later. Somehow, he just couldn’t see that he was venting his hatred on the kindest, the gentlest, and the most caring people of all.

It is senseless and it is horrifying and the whole country is watching Squirrel Hill right now. So many are grieving with us, sharing in our pain, and experiencing the horror that we’re experiencing. But the mishpucha prepared us even for this. We are what the mishpucha made us, and it made us good, and it made us strong, and it made us caring. The mishpucha taught us to love unconditionally, to fight for what we believe, and to not forget our sweaters because it might get cold later. We can show our divided, directionless nation what it means to come from the corner of Forbes and Murray. There are no strangers. Assume everyone is mishpucha and act like it. Everyone is from Squirrel Hill. At least a little bit.

[dodint]

:|

[Crazed_Insanity]

Gun violence has infiltrated Mr. Roger's neighborhood..., although we can't stop it legally, but hopefully we can eventually counter it with love. We're all one big mishpucha under Adam and Eve!

[Jason]

Phil, wonderful words

[21Kid]

:up:

[Crazed_Insanity]

Didn't realize California is the #1 mass shooting fatality state! Sigh, yep, another one happened last night.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-thousand-oaks-20181107-story.html

[MR2 Fan]

This is vile and the responses are completely spot-on.

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1060256567914909702

[Dicknose]

So we just had a bad incident, a guy with a knife stabbed someone. Police arrived but a homeless guy used a shopping trolley to ram the guy. In the end the attacker was shot and killed.
Our system is not perfect, we still have issues, people who are angry, people who are mentally troubled. But with much tougher access to handguns they are much less likely to kill someone and certainly much less likely to kill a bunch of people.

Nothing is going to change unless you make changes.

[Crazed_Insanity]

We’ve always had guns... we’ve always had veterans, mentality postal folks, terrorists, etc. Things were never this bad nor this frequent, right?

Yes, advances in gun tech may contributed to this acceleration of death toll, so gun rights will probably be taken away eventually, but I can’t help but wonder that perhaps there’s something else that’s causing this surge of senseless killings.

Anyway, it’s not like we have no gun control laws..., CA probably has the strictest laws and yet I’m not sure we’re able to enforce these laws very well. One day when they ban it, will they be able to truly enforce the ban in a nation full of guns?

Hopefully Australia will become a role model for US to follow in this issue...

[Dicknose]

The high profile mass shootings are more frequent, but the general number of gun deaths probably hasnt changed dramatically in 30 years. I think it actually peaked in the early 90s. Chicago was in the midst of a shooting crisis when I lived there in 1989.

I think the biggest difference now is a change in the victims, more "random"/non-gang related victims. The chance of a typical person to get shot by someone they dont know has probably gone up 10 times (total guesstimate by me). This has moved it from a gang/drug related issue to one that affects more people. The number of school attacks is particularly disturbing.

[Godson]

The school attacks is disturbing.

I think part of that issue revolves around kids who don't feel accepted. We are so damned determined to be "a part of something" that we force those feelings on others who feel different to begin with.

I currently coach a kid who very well could turn into someone who would shoot up a school. I know this. The parents know it. She has been doing great with me since we moved her from another coach who did not put in any work with her.

We need to get back to being kind, including others, and just looking after one another.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Not sure if it’s completely random. Specifically targeting schools, bars, or certain demographics, like driving over women on side walks, beside just describing them as mentally ill, something in our current society pushing this craziness.

[tigeraid]

So we just had a bad incident, a guy with a knife stabbed someone. Police arrived but a homeless guy used a shopping trolley to ram the guy. In the end the attacker was shot and killed.
Our system is not perfect, we still have issues, people who are angry, people who are mentally troubled. But with much tougher access to handguns they are much less likely to kill someone and certainly much less likely to kill a bunch of people.

Nothing is going to change unless you make changes.


Yup. I don't care if "knife attacks go up when guns aren't around" or some such nonsense. A single person with some balls and luck can disarm a single person with a knife. A handful of people can almost certainly disarm that person. A large group of people definitely will. Maybe someone will get cut, maybe a few, maybe, worst-case, one or two people unfortunately die. And in the end, it's still infinitely easier to deal with, and massively lower in statistical fatalities.

And unlike guns, which exist specifically for the task of ending a living being's life, a knife has dozens of other uses.

[Godson]

Don't tell that to Britain...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/knives-ban-london-stabbings-home-delivery-online-government-crackdown-a8293686.html

I could go on...

https://goo.gl/images/EtDn8a

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, something more fundamental is wrong with modern day western cultures these day for sure... wish I know what that is...

[MR2 Fan]

income inequality, pessimism, bad news everywhere...people yelling about blaming others for their own problems on social media, news, etc., the lack of proper upbringing, the "me first" mentality that rose a few decades ago and caused children to have the same mentality, widespread legal and illegal drug abuse.....I can go on.....

[dodint]

And unlike guns, which exist specifically for the task of ending a living being's life, a knife has dozens of other uses.

This is such an absurd assertion it takes you right out of the group of people worth discussing the issue with. Having a different opinion or a subjectively bad opinion is one thing; dealing in objective untruths makes it easy to skip right past you when it's your time to speak.

I'd urge you to be less hyperbolic if you enjoy engaging in this discourse in a meaningful way.

[Tom Servo]

Don't take this the wrong way, but what else are they for? Opening beers? Turning the TV on and off?

(Before that gets taken the wrong way, just a Simpson's reference)

[Godson]

income inequality, pessimism, bad news everywhere...people yelling about blaming others for their own problems on social media, news, etc., the lack of proper upbringing, the "me first" mentality that rose a few decades ago and caused children to have the same mentality, widespread legal and illegal drug abuse.....I can go on.....

*Ding ding ding*

We don't give a fuck about others unless it's cool. We don't try to understand those who are struggling. It's a me first mentality and that's it.

Very little compassion. Start taking interest in others instead of your damn toys.

[dodint]

Don't take this the wrong way, but what else are they for? Opening beers? Turning the TV on and off?

(Before that gets taken the wrong way, just a Simpson's reference)

You're fine. I guess I'm a little terse about it because we've covered this ground in the thread already. I enjoy the discussion but quips like his are barriers, even if the sentiment is ultimately well-meaning.

[Dicknose]

This is such an absurd assertion it takes you right out of the group of people worth discussing the issue with. Having a different opinion or a subjectively bad opinion is one thing; dealing in objective untruths makes it easy to skip right past you when it's your time to speak.

I'd urge you to be less hyperbolic if you enjoy engaging in this discourse in a meaningful way.

Really?

What possible reason would you leave home with a gun other than to use it on another human being?
Wolves attacking you? Putting down injured animals? Shooting bottles that are nearby?

Going to a range - fine, weapon is not loaded on the way there.
Gun locked up in your house - fine.

But if you have a loaded handgun in the city its purpose is to intimidate/injure/kill another human. Thats its sole purpose.
Thats not hyperbole, its pretty much a bleeding obvious fact.

[dodint]

Nothing you said speaks to his assertion; [guns] exist specifically for the task of ending a living being's life.

It's offense because of the implicit inference that all gun owners have murderous intent.

Almost everyone I know is a gun owner.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just jumped to your pre-selected talking points instead of actually thinking about what was said. If not, well, it marks the end of the reserved tone I've been using.

[TheBenior]

Really?

What possible reason would you leave home with a gun other than to use it on another human being?
Wolves attacking you? Putting down injured animals? Shooting bottles that are nearby?

Going to a range - fine, weapon is not loaded on the way there.
Gun locked up in your house - fine.

But if you have a loaded handgun in the city its purpose is to intimidate/injure/kill another human. Thats its sole purpose.
Thats not hyperbole, its pretty much a bleeding obvious fact.

I live in Chicago and have small children and a small dog. Coyote defense is a factor I've considered, given their massive spread across the Midwestern and Eastern US over the past couple decades.

[MR2 Fan]

I live in Chicago and have small children and a small dog. Coyote defense is a factor I've considered, given their massive spread across the Midwestern and Eastern US over the past couple decades.

a valid point, so in that situation I'd say 1-2 guns after lots of standardized training. but you can only have 2 guns, not an arsenal

[Crazed_Insanity]

income inequality, pessimism, bad news everywhere...people yelling about blaming others for their own problems on social media, news, etc., the lack of proper upbringing, the "me first" mentality that rose a few decades ago and caused children to have the same mentality, widespread legal and illegal drug abuse.....I can go on.....

I think in a nutshell, we can attribute these problems to lack of personal responsibility... not only on a personal front, but also be responsible parents, responsible organizations/corporations..., responsible nation, etc. However, it all start at a personal level. Because without it, one can't possibly be that responsible at any other level when nobody's looking...

In a society where consumers can sue companies without proper warning labels... and companies do whatever they want for short term profits... social media also further isolate us with friends fake awesome lives or polarizing us with fake news...

CA already has one of the strictest gun control laws, yet we lead the way in mass shooting deaths.

Somehow I can't believe that if CA were allowed to ban guns, these deaths would all of a sudden go down.

CA should try it with a proposition... voters willingly and temporarily surrender their gun rights and see if it ends up like Australia or UK... would be a good social experiment. CA would be the perfect candidate to try it out... experiment with various different methods and figure out which worked best and then perhaps make it permanent and try to lobby it to become national... if it can't be made to work better, then leave the amendment alone...

[tigeraid]

Nothing you said speaks to his assertion; [guns] exist specifically for the task of ending a living being's life.

It's offense because of the implicit inference that all gun owners have murderous intent.

Almost everyone I know is a gun owner.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just jumped to your pre-selected talking points instead of actually thinking about what was said. If not, well, it marks the end of the reserved tone I've been using.


How can I defend my statement further if I've been removed from the discussion?

[tigeraid]

EDIT: Never mind. We've been at this on this forum for the better part of a decade, so I don't see how any of us can possibly avoid repeating our talking points. Maybe that's why Rob left.


EDIT 2: but for the millionth time, I never once said anyone who goes to a gun range is a murderer. I have two friends who do. And we argue constantly about guns. You reacted the same the last three or four times I said "guns are for killing things" and the statement remains factual. You're either killing things, or practicing to kill things. Surrounding it in a nerdy/tech-loving hobby doesn't change that fact.

[dodint]

My intent was to show you the barriers you put up that make the discussion break down. Then you doubled down on it. You're not worth the effort. That's before acknowledging the fact that you are an outsider but are quick to judge the culture I was born and raised in. If I'm going to spend my time and resources on discussing contentious issues it's going to be someone that has an actual stake it in, not a distant observer making pot shots with no useful experience to contextualize the problem or offer anything approaching meaningful insights.

You're flippant because you do not matter. Do not expect engagement from those of us living it, particularly when you have nothing to contribute.

[Crazed_Insanity]

To be fair to us ‘outsiders’, we’re mostly the ones getting shot by the ‘insiders’...

If only gun owners were the victims, it’s be much easier for the ‘outsides’ to mind our own business.

Somebody or something needs to be done to help people lower their respective barriers.

Gun owners already have the law and the guns on their side. We outsiders can’t really break this barrier if we’ve already decided that a ban is the only solution...

[Godson]

To be fair to us ‘outsiders’, we’re mostly the ones getting shot by the ‘insiders’...

If only gun owners were the victims, it’s be much easier for the ‘outsides’ to mind our own business.

Somebody or something needs to be done to help people lower their respective barriers.

Gun owners already have the law and the guns on their side. We outsiders can’t really break this barrier if we’ve already decided that a ban is the only solution...

Tigeraid lives in Canada, hence the outsider comment. Not from the "outside" of the gun community.

[dodint]

Yeah, T. The scope of the discussion is American gun culture. I give more weight to insider opinions generally. I am happy to hear outside/foreign opinions on policy and other sociological observations from a public policy perspective though. I do draw the line when someone that doesn't live in that culture calls 42% of all American households a home for a murder or would be murder.

[Tom Servo]

I certainly didn't read tigeraid's comment that way. He said that a gun expressly exists for taking the life of other living things. He didn't say gun *owners* expressly exist for taking the lives of other living things. Even if you mean a gun purely for self defense, part of that self defense is the threat of killing the thing threatening you.

[dodint]

I own guns purely for target shooting. I would never put myself in the position of defending myself with a .22 or .410 but I own both, and it would be inhumane to hunt with them (to me).

A gun of any kind is a tool. It doesn't have an absolute purpose for existence. Remember, his full assertion was that knives are okay because they do lots of things, but guns exist only to kill. That translates to "I use knives, but I don't use guns, so you can't use guns."

When attempting to clarify himself he got frustrated and doubled down on it in post 1628; "Surrounding it in a nerdy/tech-loving hobby doesn't change that fact." Without being able to back up his position he resorts to name calling and sarcasm. I have no use for that behavior.

You can engage him if you want but he doesn't bring any value to the discussion, imo.

[Tom Servo]

That's all well and good, but where did he call you and other gun owners murderers again?

[Godson]

That's all well and good, but where did he call you and other gun owners murderers again?

It's along the lines of "guns are solely designed to end a life."

Ergo, if you own a gun and have it outside an extremely specific criteria, your purpose to use gun is to end a life, and by proxy, murder.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Tom Servo]

Is hunting murder? Self-defense?

I took it as "it's harder to justify gun ownership than it is knife ownership, as knives have more uses, many of which don't involve killing things or practicing to be better at killing things." (Same gambit gets used a lot when comparing guns to cars). There's a whole world of healthy debate over whether guns are just "tools" that don't have a specific purpose, and it's fine if somebody does or doesn't want to debate that with someone else. But saying that tigeraid was calling everyone a murderer is, IMHO, disingenuous, especially sticking with that after he explicitly clarified that that's not what he was saying.

[Godson]

It is taking a life, by definition.

[Tom Servo]

By definition it's "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." It's a subset of taking a life. I mean, unless you're going with Morrissey's definition of it, but somehow I don't think that "meat is murder" is the definition we're running with here.

[dodint]

His comments were made in the context of guns being used to cause more murder than knives. It's on this page, you can scroll up and read it yourself in post 1614. He clearly came back and doubled down on it; "You're either killing things, or practicing to kill things." His effort to move it away from murder is backpedaling.

If you choose to interpret his phrase "task of ending a living being's life" outside of the context of mass killings of people with knives v. guns, we can do that. But you have to acknowledge you're moving the goal posts by doing so. Hunting animals is one of the most popular uses for firearms in America (and Canada). I am even happy to acknowledge that for much of the history of firearms they were used almost exclusively for ending life (hunting on the frontier was their primary purpose when the 2A was written); but, I don't live in those times and thanks to the advanced society we live in firearms have a myriad of uses that do not involve killing. The call to ban all guns robs me of that Constitutionally protected right and discussions of blanket bans are fairly blunt and useless arguments. We've covered that ground a lot here. He's entitled to his opinion, but most Americans find it silly.

To recap a back-channel discussion that parallels this one, I'd support anti-2A people more if they were better organized. They should be looking for incremental victories like repealing the Dickey Amendment. When there are blanket calls for gun bans these activists are very easy to tune out. Particularly when they're not even American.

[Godson]

So I'll paint a picture. Again, I'm not looking at this as you are trying to paint me as a murderer. I'm trying to enilghten you guys as to the very real fears that are in other areas of the country outside of what you know. In the huge metropolitan area of LA is completely different from Pleasant Hill, Missouri.

So here we go.

I live smack dab in the middle of Kansas City. My neighbors houses are within 20 ft of both sides. I'm 10 minutes from downtown on residential streets. It's like 3.6 miles from my work.

Even living in the middle of the city, we have pretty large and aggressive racoons, deer, owls that have attacked people walking and jogging, foxes, etc. This isn't even accounting for those animals I am not seeing. A good friend of mine has video of coyotes in his neighbors back yard not even 3 miles from my house to the east.

Murphy is 80lbs, a coyote is only 20-50 lbs. But they usually run in packs of 3 or more when they hunt. I wouldn't put it past a large coyote to try and take Murphy on directly if he hasn't eaten in a while. While I think Murphy could hold his own, I'm not leaving it up to his domestic breeding and size to keep him safe. I carry my firearm with me when I'm at home and outside because of the danger animals can bring.

An outright ban of firearms is illogical and ultimately violate so many laws it isn't funny while positioning people like me and others at a disadvantage against nature and ultimately putting them at a higher unnecessary risk.

[Jason]

I certainly didn't read tigeraid's comment that way. He said that a gun expressly exists for taking the life of other living things. He didn't say gun *owners* expressly exist for taking the lives of other living things. Even if you mean a gun purely for self defense, part of that self defense is the threat of killing the thing threatening you.

Ditto. The gun is a tool, with a specific purpose. That purpose is to harm/kill living things. Does that mean every gun owner is a murderer? Nope. You can harm/kill living things for justified reasons, even I, a liberal can see that.

That being said, I think society is better off without guns in the home/on the streets for the most part. Most situations that you add a gun to ends up being a net negative. Some situations, if you add a gun to, end up a net positive. (imo on both)

But again, guns are part of American culture, so until that changes, the laws will remain unchanged. The best we can do is try to fix other aspects related to "regular" gun violence (usually gang related, or home abuse related), and "mass" gun violence (a variety of social changes needed here).

[dodint]

https://media.giphy.com/media/9jYPWnjZolr4A/giphy.gif

[Jason]

Edit to add to above, because for some reason I can't edit in mobile mode. Yes I understand that even though the gun is generally meant as a harming/killing tool, that you can use it for fun. But at that point, that'd be like saying knives are a juggling tool because some people use them that way, when in reality, they're a cutting tool, that some people use to add "spice" to their juggling routine.

[Godson]

The best we can do is try to fix other aspects related to "regular" gun violence (usually gang related, or home abuse related), and "mass" gun violence (a variety of social changes needed here).

This is where a lot of pro-2A people are at. They aren't against regulation, they are against useless regulation. The shooting which happened in CA this week is evidence we have massive shortcomings. The guy had been flagged multiple times and nothing had been done. This diatribe continues. So instead of chasing out the difficiences of our society, of mental health, et Al. We continue to try to point at objects instead of owning our failures. This is why I am so pissed at times about anti-2a. The vibes I always get are you don't want to fix the problem. You want to take something away without any actual change.

[Godson]

Also, a majority of the laws we have in place aren't followed. So why should we regulate more?

[dodint]

re: knife juggling; That would hold true if the bulk of knives were used for juggling.

Walk through a Dicks sometime and look at the ammo selection. See how much gets bought and sold. Then ask yourself of all that ammo how much of it is going to killing something, and how much is going to a paper target? I would presume that paper targets are getting 98%+ of those rounds. I have no idea what the real number is. In my case I've shot thousands of rounds and never at anything living.

[Jason]

I've always wanted to approach it from multiple angles, personally. Removing guns *and* addressing social issues *and* addressing failures in enforcement *and* addressing economic issues would be great.

Unfortunately we fail to address any of it.

Removing guns is an "easy" answer, since guns enable those who want to cause damage an easy tool, and there's relatively few alternate uses for the gun in a modern society. But again, there's still good reason for some to have guns, and it's still a part of our culture, so it's a non starter (gun bans).

The way our government rules are set up, all but guarantees we'll continue to have massive income inequality and for-profit education and healthcare. Which means many social inequalities will continue to be a problem.

As far as pointless to have new laws/regulations because current ones aren't enforced... Is a dangerous and slippery slope. Just because a mass murder happens, partially due to a failure of enforcing existing laws, doesn't mean those existing laws haven't stopped others from doing similar damage. Just because a law/regulation is broken, doesn't mean all laws/regulations are useless, and that new ones wouldn't do any good.

[Jason]

re: knife juggling; That would hold true if the bulk of knives were used for juggling.

Walk through a Dicks sometime and look at the ammo selection. See how much gets bought and sold. Then ask yourself of all that ammo how much of it is going to killing something, and how much is going to a paper target? I would presume that paper targets are getting 98%+ of those rounds. I have no idea what the real number is. In my case I've shot thousands of rounds and never at anything living.

And my response to points like this has always been, you can practice target shooting with non lethal firearms, if all you were wanting to do is have fun target shooting. I know it's not the same feeling, but it's an option, if we're dialing down to only wanting a gun for target shooting.

[dodint]

As far as pointless to have new laws/regulations because current ones aren't enforced... Is a dangerous and slippery slope. Just because a mass murder happens, partially due to a failure of enforcing existing laws, doesn't mean those existing laws haven't stopped others from doing similar damage. Just because a law/regulation is broken, doesn't mean all laws/regulations are useless, and that new ones wouldn't do any good.

Agree, there. I sent him a link to a book I'm currently reading about law and behavior that discusses that exact problem. https://www.amazon.com/Impact-Lawrence-M-Friedman-ebook/dp/B01LYOPZTJ/

[Godson]

As far as pointless to have new laws/regulations because current ones aren't enforced... Is a dangerous and slippery slope. Just because a mass murder happens, partially due to a failure of enforcing existing laws, doesn't mean those existing laws haven't stopped others from doing similar damage. Just because a law/regulation is broken, doesn't mean all laws/regulations are useless, and that new ones wouldn't do any good.

Totally agree. I'm merely talking in a general and basic point of view. Not at all absolutisms.

[Tom Servo]

If you choose to interpret his phrase "task of ending a living being's life" outside of the context of mass killings of people with knives v. guns, we can do that. But you have to acknowledge you're moving the goal posts by doing so.

Given that I feel I read it and took its literal meaning (he didn't say murder, he didn't say "human being's"), I'll only agree that I moved the goal posts in that I feel like I moved them back to where they were in the first place.

[Crazed_Insanity]

CA has the strictest gun laws: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/04/california-has-the-nations-strictest-gun-laws-here-are-the-other-strictest-and-loosest-states/?utm_term=.8c1d342fd359

We also have way more mass shootings than other states: https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

For CA, yeah, I'd think it's pointless to have new laws and regulations... unless they're laws that can somehow fix or reform current inadequacies...

[dodint]

Given that I feel I read it and took its literal meaning (he didn't say murder, he didn't say "human being's"), I'll only agree that I moved the goal posts in that I feel like I moved them back to where they were in the first place.

Yes, without context you can make any string of text mean whatever you like.

This has been fun, I'm sure we'll do it again sometime.

[21Kid]

What Jason said...

100%

[Tom Servo]

Yes, without context you can make any string of text mean whatever you like.

This has been fun, I'm sure we'll do it again sometime.

Yes, and when you put words in other people's mouths it makes it really easy to take the moral high ground and refuse to talk to them.



EDIT 2: but for the millionth time, I never once said anyone who goes to a gun range is a murderer. I have two friends who do. And we argue constantly about guns. You reacted the same the last three or four times I said "guns are for killing things" and the statement remains factual. You're either killing things, or practicing to kill things. Surrounding it in a nerdy/tech-loving hobby doesn't change that fact.


I'm hoping that we don't do this again sometime but instead actually talk instead of find reasons not to.

[Godson]

Except "unlike guns, which exist specifically for the task of ending a living being's life," is a complete fallacy. Guns weren't designed solely to kill people.

Definition of a being : the nature or essence of a person.

This isn't bring taken out of context. This is flat out saying guns sole purpose for design is to kill a human. This completely ignores the entire target shooting, trap/skeet shooting, hunting, etc. Industry. This industry btw, is part of a massive side of the American economy.

https://business.realtree.com/business-blog/fishing-and-hunting-contribute-billions-us-economy

I do feel there is a dialogue happening. Jason is the one who is actually trying to discuss the topic at hand instead of pointing fingers.

Nate has previously pointed out why a gun ban isn't going to happen legally. He has even given a pathway to make the guns grandfather out in a legal fashion. Oddly enough, nobody even supported the idea. Rather baffling to me really.

[Tom Servo]

But it isn't flat out saying that. Humans are not the only living beings. Hunting with a firearm would also be "ending a living being's life" with a gun. Shutting the conversation down by claiming that he's inferring gun owners have murderous intent is, to me, the opposite of having a dialogue.

[dodint]

Your position is that in the context of knife fights he was saying that guns only exist to kill, and that includes hunting? As if people are taking down whitetails with machetes? Because that's exactly how this started, comparing the lethal efficiency of knives to guns in attacks on humans.

His 'correction' was a backpedal because it's an incredibly stupid position; I can't say I blame him from trying to get out from under it. Normally I'd let it go but I made a pointed decision to run that talking point down to its logical end. It's a silly comment that painted you both into a corner. Instead of just admitting it, he doubled down on it later and you, TS, continue to enable it by desperately searching for outs.

I'm not shutting down dialogue, I am being honest with him that the position is so outrageously bad it undercuts whatever else they may share. There is a reason this thread is almost exclusively anti-2A people. I took on this little tangent as an exercise, most of the gun owners here don't care to take it to that length just to try and make a valid point even if it's largely inconsequential.

The on-point bottom line is firearms have a wide range of uses, some involve killing and some do not, the same way other tools of society like knives, explosives, cars, etc. do. Singling out guns is a tough road for you activists because the 2A does exist and is effectual.

We should all be more like Jason.

[JoshInKC]

Hi. I just have a few things I'd like to get into this - Guns are fun. I own some guns, and have historically owned quite a few.

Guns ARE designed to kill things*. Seriously, you can talk about plinking as much as you want, and yeah - the vast majority of ammunition goes into paper targets, melons, etc, but they are designed with killing something or other in mind, and always have been. Further, the vast majority of guns are marketed in terms of killing (effective stopping power, symbology of the military, "self defense," etc.). Again, very few are sold as putting great holes in paper targets - and if they were, .38s loaded with wadcutters would be a lot more popular.
Talking about enforcing existing regulations is kind of disingenuous when the primary representatives of gun owners at a governmental level do their very best to hamstring those regulations - See numerous articles about the flaws in the FBI background check system (piles of clerical errors, record submissions being voluntary at many levels, etc) and the incredible in-built issues of the National Tracing Center. Overall, the regulations we currently have don't work because people with ideologies and money don't want them to work.
California, like the main anti-gun-control example of Chicago is connected to other states in which it is easy to get guns which might be banned or regulated within CA. or Chi boundaries. This is one of the most irritating and flawed arguments that gun people make. Yeah, it turns out that gun control is a lot harder when there's easy access to sources of uncontrolled guns. Seriously gun owners - it makes us all look like assholes when you spend your time arguing in bad faith like that.

None of this solves the argument, but I thought it might help to have a have another perspective.
* - Except for a vanishingly small percentage - your purpose-built olympic marksmanship pieces, etc

[Tom Servo]

Your position is that in the context of knife fights he was saying that guns only exist to kill, and that includes hunting? As if people are taking down whitetails with machetes? Because that's exactly how this started, comparing the lethal efficiency of knives to guns in attacks on humans.

His 'correction' was a backpedal because it's an incredibly stupid position; I can't say I blame him from trying to get out from under it. Normally I'd let it go but I made a pointed decision to run that talking point down to its logical end. It's a silly comment that painted you both into a corner. Instead of just admitting it, he doubled down on it later and you, TS, continue to enable it by desperately searching for outs.

I'm not shutting down dialogue, I am being honest with him that the position is so outrageously bad it undercuts whatever else they may share. There is a reason this thread is almost exclusively anti-2A people. I took on this little tangent as an exercise, most of the gun owners here don't care to take it to that length just to try and make a valid point even if it's largely inconsequential.

The on-point bottom line is firearms have a wide range of uses, some involve killing and some do not, the same way other tools of society like knives, explosives, cars, etc. do. Singling out guns is a tough road for you activists because the 2A does exist and is effectual.

We should all be more like Jason.

No, my position is that he was saying a similar thing to what you've said to argue the opposite in the past with cars. That there are more "legit" uses for a knife than a gun, and therefore they should be treated differently (whereas you've said that cars kill more people than guns but we aren't talking about banning them, therefore banning guns would be wrong). Or at least that's how I've taken your argument in the past and certainly how I read this one.

But, you're right. Someone who's normally rational and sane here is probably inferring you've got murderous intent. And you're right, I continue to desperately search for outs like *reading the actual words*. That must be it. I stand corrected.

This has indeed been a learning moment, as I have also learned that I am an anti-2A "activist".

[Godson]

I posted the definition of being from Google for the sake of conversation.

Brian, you gave your definition of a being. With that information, the bow and arrow would fall into a similar category as guns. I'm being objective and scientific with the correlation, because a being is referencing a human being. An animal is merely that, from a science standpoint. If you disagree, fair enough.

That being said, my family has always had dogs, they are a part of our family. I have sorrow when I have long days at work and Murphy suffers the separation as a result.

I'm in this discussion because I want to show you "the other side.". Something more personal than "don't take ma gunzzzz" mantra you hear so often. Even thoigh those people totally exist, and I'm friends with some of them on FB. Hell, I roll my eyes at them on those tangents too.

I took the hippacratic oath when I started in nursing school. I take this shit seriously. I've worked with gunshot victims, i have sat in the ED waiting for the nod to get the OR ready for surgery while docs assess to see if there is anything to save. I've done organ harvests from the same patients.

I WANT the US to be a safer place from gun violence. It's some of the hardest and most stressful work environments I've ever worked. It's heart breaking to see what happens when a team of 40+ people can't save a life.

The us doesn't need to lock up the guns, we need to get back to caring about people. Nurturing each other. Helping out when times are tough. This would thwart the want to hurt another person. Instead of the mindset of "well it isn't me."

[dodint]

I was being pedantic and arguing for the fun of it. I rarely use my guns at all, this thread is just better fodder for discussion than the political thread because it's more focused and people generally have well formed opinions about it.

I popped in, saw tigeraid made a really empty assertion, and wanted to see how far people would go to defend it, which is why I was more obstinate than usual.

To clarify something TS said about a prior analogy to cars and guns. I make that analogy to illustrate how readily people jump to ban something when it is dangerous and does not give them a direct benefit. I do not actually advocate for banning guns, knives, or automobiles. Giving one a pass over the others is intellectually dishonest to me, though.

Characterizing TS in the collective of anti-2A activists was wrong, an incorrect label. That happened because, in this conversation on this day, TS aligned directly with someone who clearly projects themselves as anti-gun. I should have been more careful though as I am mindful of how you have stated your position in the past.

Think of me what you will. Just thought it would be worth sharing why I have been active in here lately; generally I avoid these threads because they get out of hand quick. I am not personally invested in anything that has transpired and do not hold anything against any of the participants.

Also, Tyler is drunk.

[Tom Servo]

Here's the definition of "Living being" that comes up on google.


The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

I mean, we could ask Tigeraid what he meant, but I'm pretty sure that horse has already left the barn. That said, I'd assume if he meant "human beings", he would have either said that or "people", and when he has clarified previously it's "backpedaling", not "clarifying".

I'm purposely staying *out* of the gun part of this discussion. I just felt like people were twisting Tigeraid's words, and I still feel that way. I think it's ridiculous to tell him that he's not allowed to be part of the conversation because he lives in the wrong place. I think it's ridiculous that I'm now an "anti-2A activist" because I think it's too easy to get guns in this country, but it's not the first time I've been reduced to a caricature when it comes to this subject.

[dodint]

I certainly do not have any authority to exclude anyone from the discussion. Telling him his message doesn't have meaning for me because it's hyperbolic is me providing feedback. What he does with that information is up to him.

As I said initially, I value outsider input but weigh it less heavily than those that exist inside the society that lives gun culture. I absolutely look to Canada, the UK, Australia, etc., but the good and bad things that occur in those cultures rarely scale to the massive gun culture the US has. Anti-gun people are right to say our culture is exceptional in that regard so it's natural to be reserved about what outside influences have to contribute. It would be as if I had a hot take about England and the NHS and couldn't wait to share it, what authority would it carry? Rightfully very little.

Ignoring an opinion because of nationality alone is bigotry at best and that is not what I am doing here. Tigeraid was being flippantly dismissive and hyperbolic and I wanted to see where it would go; he doubled down and it went nowhere. Noted.

[Jason]

Anyways:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-arrested-on-gun-charge-after-relatives-alert-police-to-his-alleged-white-nationalist-outbursts/2018/11/13/e3a6d2fa-e771-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2ng0XZ8nqWeFOxa m9M2PfYDo0RrCuEWbY2J2emqs7M1DpAH42ndt3LD7c&utm_term=.4b987125089d

Ugly link, sorry.

[mk]

Being:
1. existence.
2. the nature or essence of a person.

For tigeraid wording I'd say that definition changed between 1st and 2nd.
But I'd say that guns were specially invented for killing people.

First cannons were for forts and ships, hand cannons were next and then matchlocks.
I'd say that general hunting didn't exist before flintlock, maybe even that general gun didn't exist before that.

From here the whole issue is obviously purely academical but the main difference seems to be short barrel.
Then when free market is maxed the toys are maxed also, like intellectuels with bump stocks and powdered noses.

I guess there are very few places where pocket pistol is needed but if that need is anything but location based the general situation is guite difficult.
Since to have an effective pocket pistol the general mind must see it there, in your pocket.

[tigeraid]

You could certainly argue "guns are designed for hunting" and for rifles and shotguns that makes perfect sense. For handguns and automatics, definitely not.

If I may permitted to speak, from up here in a country where long gun ownership rivals the United States....

The point of my "flippant remark" is the same point I make every time I make the remark: arguing that guns are tools, so don't fuck with the tools, only fuck with the people/society/mental stability/whatever, gets the conversation nowhere. And then using the casually empty comparison to cars being tools or knives being tools is far more flippant and stupid. One tool has one use (whether on humans or animals), the others have many, vastly more important uses. And I will fucking die on this hill until the end of time--it is a terrible, terrible argument.

As for your 2a rights and your hobby, dodint, I ask a simple hypothetical. This is not a hypothetical that will ever come true and, in fact, I don't even WANT it to happen, but stick with me:

- You have a tool, which provides you enjoyment, and a hobby. It's also a practice of skill, ever-improving marksmanship that gives you a sense of accomplishment. Like any good hobby.
- That tool is also used in a horrible, heinous way to takes thousands of innocent lives a year.
- If we were to suddenly "ban all guns" (and again, not what I'd actually suggest), that would help the problem of gun violence in a very measurable way. Let's throw out a number and say it saves 4000 lives a year.
- Your hobby disappears, you are rightly angry, you're bothered by it. On the flip side, 4000 lives are saved.
- Eventually, you get over it and find another hobby.

Again, this example is way over-simplified and we're talking a complete gun ban which will never happen, nor should it in America's case I think. But from this "outsider's" perspective, this Canadian weak-kneed pacifist's perspective, surely you understand how this looks? On one side you have "saving many lives" and on the other side you have "guy defending his right to enjoy a hobby." If even one life could be saved in return for you never being able to play with a handgun again, is that not worth it?

Now walk it back a few dozen notches to "let's introduce common-sense gun control measures", and maybe now you understand how incredulous we outsiders are that even this doesn't seem to happening? And that maybe our attitudes toward the "hobby" are a little flippant?

[tigeraid]

Being:
1. existence.
2. the nature or essence of a person.

For tigeraid wording I'd say that definition changed between 1st and 2nd.
But I'd say that guns were specially invented for killing people.

First cannons were for forts and ships, hand cannons were next and then matchlocks.
I'd say that general hunting didn't exist before flintlock, maybe even that general gun didn't exist before that.


I'd actually like to know, from a historian on the subject, but I have a feeling no one has pinned down "the first gun was invented for hunting" or "the first gun was invented to shoot people." The first guns are generally attributed to the Chinese, their "fire lances," and those were most definitely not used to hunt animals. But it seems like a lot of "history of firearms" sources don't bother to talk about the intended use of the tool. I have no doubt that archers who hunted with a bow eventually looked over at the soldiers and thought "shit, that would work better."

[Godson]

Anyways:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-arrested-on-gun-charge-after-relatives-alert-police-to-his-alleged-white-nationalist-outbursts/2018/11/13/e3a6d2fa-e771-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2ng0XZ8nqWeFOxa m9M2PfYDo0RrCuEWbY2J2emqs7M1DpAH42ndt3LD7c&utm_term=.4b987125089d

Ugly link, sorry.

Yeah, that guy is doing some time. I would like to see the document where the FBI states he had "kits" to convert an AR15 to full auto. I have multiple reasons, but ultimately, if true and the people being charged did t have the proper documentation supporting the "kits" that's some serious trouble. My description is pretty watered down because the details can be fuzzy and confusing.

This is the sort of thing that needs to happen. When people are tipped off.

Let's see where this goes.

[Godson]

Editing on mobile can suck my ass.

From my reading on the history of the gun, it was first introduced as far back as the 9th century. As a powdered activated spear thrower. Fire Lance came after, around the 10th and 11th century if memory serves me correctly, and was a smaller projectile. Since then it evolved into modern day firearms, etc

I will see if I can find the intended use.

[Jason]

Fire Lance is a much cooler name 👍

[JoshInKC]

From my understanding, the precursors to modern firearms (gunpowder activated projectile throwers) evolved from Chinese cannon and were used pretty much exclusively for warfare. They didn't have great range and were pretty terribly inaccurate, which would make them largely useless for hunting but they did have the advantage of making very loud noises, huge clouds of smoke, and sometimes sprays of sparky fire. I think the first real hunting applications would have been shotgun precursors for birds and small game where the accuracy wasn't as big a concern with multiple projectiles, but I don't know where that mental impression comes from.
I don't think "rifle-spectrum" firearms were tremendously useful for hunting until the matchlock shows up on the scene in the mid-1400s(?) when that mechanism was mated to the shoulder stock allowing for better aiming and greater accuracy.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think Chinese invented gun powders by accident and was mainly used for pretty fireworks..., it was the Europeans who ended up refining that to end up with superior fire power. Don’t blame the Chinese! :p

[mk]

Are we going to nitpick what is a gun.

If early fire lance was for shorter distance than some yari ashigaru spears...

I also think that chinese fire trebuchet is something else than a cannon.
Though a predecessor for sure.

It should be noted that catapults and crossbows were used side by side with cannons and arquebuses.
Also that China made standard crossbow parts a very long time ago.

Counter argument for effectiveness.
Roman scorpion was a true artillery.

[Leon]

The history of the gun doesn't stop the number of mass killings that are taking place in the USA, disproportionate to elsewhere in the world :(

[Cam]

Particularly when they're not even American.

Psst... Your nationalist is showing.

[dodint]

Psst... Your nationalist is showing.

Yes, by design. It's a near universal behavior to be influenced more by those that are closer to you. I stated that a couple of different ways; if you want to hold it up as a negative I'm going to have to put that on you and not me.

[Tom Servo]

It's also a near universal behavior to stomp on the brakes when oversteering.

[JoeW]

I just stumbled upon this lovely discussion...why am I not surprised about dodint's position on this?

I tended to ease into the throttle (or remain at the same throttle position...depending on the situation) upon overtseer and begin countersteer ;)

[Tom Servo]

Heh, I think most of *us* know to do that, but the vast majority of the driving public hits the brakes and just makes the situation worse. It's probably not the best example of counter-intuitiveness, but I figured it was at least on-brand.

[JoeW]

I threw that part in for fun :)

[Jason]

Yes, by design. It's a near universal behavior to be influenced more by those that are closer to you. I stated that a couple of different ways; if you want to hold it up as a negative I'm going to have to put that on you and not me.

At the same time, those "closer to you" don't always have the most objective point of view.

[Crazed_Insanity]

No matter how we argue about it, when my S2000 snaps oversteers, it’ll just snap oversteer. You cannot rationally convince me and my car to snap it back.

[dodint]

At the same time, those "closer to you" don't always have the most objective point of view.

I said from the get go that I am happy to consider opinions from a myriad of perspectives. Cam carved out a snippet and took the low hanging fruit.

Make it personal if it makes you feel better, doesn't phase me.

[Rare White Ape]

From my point of view, y’all need to give up the automatics, the semi-automatics, and the bump stops.

Do what Australia did. We’re still allowed to own rifles and handguns, just no ludicrous tech that can pump 45 rounds per minute of hot lead into a crowd of humans.

We also don’t have a pervasive, top-down culture of hate that gets directed at gay people, immigrants, blacks, people who want abortions, etc, nor do we have a massively industrialised worship of the military, or a nation-wide self righteousness.

Those last two points are harder, almost impossible to change. For now, just be rid of the more destructive arms.

[Jason]

Make it personal if it makes you feel better, doesn't phase me.

I wasn't trying to make it personal, it was just an opinion on said snippet.

[dodint]

I wasn't trying to make it personal, it was just an opinion on said snippet.

The comment was directed at Cam and his characterization, of which I conceded to and clarified when making the argument originally. The question of influence is a social issue that applies to all facets of life, not just the validation of opinions on gun culture. That's why I used the NHS analogy, but it fell on deaf ears anyway.

[Crazed_Insanity]

From my point of view, y’all need to give up the automatics, the semi-automatics, and the bump stops.

Do what Australia did. We’re still allowed to own rifles and handguns, just no ludicrous tech that can pump 45 rounds per minute of hot lead into a crowd of humans.

Perfectly reasonable suggestion. However, enforcement, or lack of funding, probably will remain an issue. Conservatives will shout... 'see! bans don't work!' Liberals will complain about pro-guns folks sabotaging the effort... Take CA for example, we have the strictest gun control laws, yet we suffered the most mass shooting deaths... so I wonder how serious is CA regarding enforcing their existing gun control laws.


We also don’t have a pervasive, top-down culture of hate that gets directed at gay people, immigrants, blacks, people who want abortions, etc, nor do we have a massively industrialised worship of the military, or a nation-wide self righteousness.

Those last two points are harder, almost impossible to change. For now, just be rid of the more destructive arms.
When Australia becomes a superpower capable of printing her own fictitious money, then I'm sure things will change! :p

You know Sydney has other issues, no guy in America has ever touched my butt before. While strolling around the streets of Sydney with a bunch of girls from church(we were doing some ministry work there), a guy sexually assaulted my ass.... okay, he just rubbed it and then gave me a seductive look...

Since that was the 1st time it ever happened to me, I wasn't sure how to feel about that. I was like a deer frozen by approaching headlights... Later, We just prayed and hope Sydney won't eventually end up like another Sodom and Gomorrah. Anyway, for sure God won't throw down anymore fireballs nowadays, but I do hope that dude feeling up my butt was just joking around by messing with chinese tourists... otherwise Australia will have other serious problems to deal with in the future...

[21Kid]

I'd love all of those things to happen RWA. Especially those last two.

Not that many people actually own guns anymore. It baffles me why we coddle to such a small percentage of the population, when it causes such a big problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/07/americans-vastly-overestimate-the-number-of-gun-owners-thats-a-problem/

[tigeraid]

I'd love all of those things to happen RWA. Especially those last two.

Not that many people actually own guns anymore. It baffles me why we coddle to such a small percentage of the population, when it causes such a big problem.




Sort of my point, in a roundabout way.

[JoeW]

A question to those of you not in USA...since I don’t see basic news from outside my country...how often do fatal shootings get reported?

Here in the USA there are reports of shootings every day, and that is no joke. At least once or twice a week there is some sort of mini mass shooting somewhere. And a larger mass shooting pops up at least twice a month it seems like.

[Tom Servo]

Hell, had two yesterday, Chicago and Denver.

[Jason]

Depends on locality too... there's always shootings/murders in most metro areas, those are usually either gang related or personal disputes. The bigger stuff is reported on nationwide though.

[JoeW]

Just curious how often it happens in other countries.

[Rare White Ape]

We might get a shooting once every couple of months, usually as a result of a dispute between known parties. If the shooting is not fatal, it’ll still make the evening news. A fatal one is BIG news.

It’s extremely rare for a shooter to target someone they don’t know. That’s considered apocalyptic by our standards. We did have a man (hopelessly failed terrorist) try and blow up a car full of gas cylinders in the middle of Melbourne a few days ago; the explosion never happened but he did manage to stab a few people, one of them died, and another tried to subdue him by ramming a shopping trolley at him. He was eventually shot dead by police.

Public violence on this scale only happens once every few years. We simply do not have weekly mass shootings, no one has ever shot-up a school. Only once that I can think of has anyone deliberately rammed a car into a crowded area.

Here’s a fully reliable and totally infallible Wikipedia quote for you:

There were 238 reported murder victims in Australia during 2014, compared to 245 in 2013. In Australia during 2014: The murder victimisation rate fell to a five-year low of 1.0 victim per 100,000 persons; ... Over three-quarters (77%) of all murder investigations (184 victims) were finalised by police within 30 days.

[G'day Mate]

In 2016 Australia (13.7 guns / 100 people) had 1.04 gun related deaths per 100,000 people: 0.8/100k suicides, 0.18/100k homicides and 0.02/100k accidents (plus some others)

In 2011 the UK (2.8 guns / 100 people) had far less (0.23 total, 0.06 homidide), and Canada (25.33 guns / 100 people) had a few more (2.05 total, 0.16 homicide)

The USA - where there is almost 1 gun per person at 89 per 100 - in 2016 had 11.96 deaths per 100,000 people, 4.62/100k were homicides, 7.1 suicides, 0.15 accidents. Countries with lower gun death rates include South Africa and Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[JoeW]

Damn. What an embarrassment.

[MR2 Fan]

The USA - where there is almost 1 gun per person at 89 per 100 - in 2016 had 11.96 deaths per 100,000 people, 4.62/100k were homicides, 7.1 suicides, 0.15 accidents. Countries with lower gun death rates include South Africa and Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The problem with this number is that it's not really 89 per 100, it's more like 30 per 100, but those 30 own multiple guns....some own dozens of guns.

[Tom Servo]

The problem with this number is that it's not really 89 per 100, it's more like 30 per 100, but those 30 own multiple guns....some own dozens of guns.

Oh man, thank you for breaking down what that meant. I couldn't for the life of me parse that first sentence.

[JoeW]

Lol

[G'day Mate]

The problem with this number is that it's not really 89 per 100, it's more like 30 per 100, but those 30 own multiple guns....some own dozens of guns.

Yeah, that would be gun ownership rate I suppose, but the same would probably hold true (at least to an extent) in other places.

[mk]

We have few cases annually.
More if gangs have disputes.

Domestics have been up in recent years.
(economics have had a lost decade)

Police have killed 8 since 2000.

For land and population we are something like Colorado.
2,6M households, 27% have 1,5M licensed guns, mostly hunting, 220k hand guns, pre.1890 black powder stuff is free to own, if not used.

[Jason]

So the average gun owner has 3 guns?

[tigeraid]

Just curious how often it happens in other countries.


Once or twice a year in Canada, mostly. Occasionally more, this year we had the Toronto Van Attack (no guns), the shooting in Toronto Greektown, and the guy in Fredericton NB. And yes, it's covered pretty thoroughly on local news. But as I said in this thread ages ago, generally speaking I feel like we mourn, we talk about it a bit, and then we move on. Because a) it happens rarely and b) our gun laws seem to be doing a good job.

EDIT: perhaps as an interesting measure of "massacres" in Canada, the Wikipedia entry is less than one page long, and the first five entries happened in the 18th century. And if you're narrowing down the question specifically to "SHOOTING SPREES", there are nine occurrences. Like, ever.

EDIT 2: and as mentioned before, for what it's worth, Canada has a pretty large population of long-gun owners, farmers and hunters. Handguns and semi-automatics and assault rifles are mostly non-existent.

[MR2 Fan]

So the average gun owner has 3 guns?

I guess it depends on how you calculate.

If person A has 20 guns
Person B has 12 guns
Person C-H has 1 gun
Persons I-whatever have 0 guns, then it will skew the numbers

[JoeW]

Person I-whatever is not part of that question. He said the average gun owner. So everyone owning 1 or more guns would fall into that statistic.

[MR2 Fan]

Person I-whatever is not part of that question. He said the average gun owner. So everyone owning 1 or more guns would fall into that statistic.

But I think he meant my statisic of 30 out of 100 having guns where a majority do not own guns

[Tom Servo]

I think he was matching the "89 guns per 100 people" (and rounding up to 90 to make the math a little easier) to the "30 gun owners per 100 people" to make it an average of 3 guns per gun owner.

[mk]

So the average gun owner has 3 guns?

Possibly.
No idea how it goes inside a household.
Or how many guns have multiple (posession)licenses.



2015

Top county 158%
shotgun 225
rifle 137
combo 18
pistol <10
revolver <10
other 0
gas gun 0
flare gun 0
black powder 0
.22 cal
rifle 99
pistol 14
revolver <10

Capitol 10%
shotgun 19305
rifle 15069
combo 1094
pistol 8028
revolver 2851
other 363
gas gun 214
flare gun 596
black powder 434
.22 cal
rifle 8873
pistol 5599
revolver 1295


Others 2010 overall
cannon 100
bazooka 1
mortar 15
missile/rocket 0
submachine gun 2598
assault rifle 364
machine gun 1312

[MR2 Fan]

so in other words, I think it's perfectly feasible for people to only be able to buy 2 guns and if they want another one, they need to trade one in, in order to do so.

Why? It will provide much better control for people to not build their own personal militia while keeping 2nd amendment gun rights. People who only own 2 guns will probably a lot less inclined to think they're Rambo if they decide to go crazy somewhere. It will also kick the NRA and gun companies down a notch while STILL keeping the 2nd amendment alive. Also, there's nothing in that amendment that states that guns can't be registered and serialized to their owners

Will there be illegal gun sales, of course, but this would be a good step in the right direction.

[Crazed_Insanity]

This is like nuclear disarmament, let’s all agree to have only 2 missiles/bombs/nation..., would everyone keep that agreement?

Bad guys will always win with such agreements.

Under normal circumstances, for sure we don’t need guns or nuclear bombs, but we could easily fall outside of normal when bad guys are in power.

Besides overthrowing corrupted govt, 2a could also potentially save people during power vacuum, when gangs/warlords take over. What’s happening in a lot of South American countries probably won’t happen in US.

We just need better gun control. Passing more laws including banning guns won’t do us any good if we can’t properly enforce these laws. At the moment, CA could legally ban guns and we’ll probably still lead the nation with mass shooting deaths.

[Rare White Ape]

We have few cases annually.
More if gangs have disputes.

Domestics have been up in recent years.
(economics have had a lost decade)

Police have killed 8 since 2000.

For land and population we are something like Colorado.
2,6M households, 27% have 1,5M licensed guns, mostly hunting, 220k hand guns, pre.1890 black powder stuff is free to own, if not used.

Hey mk, please excuse my ignorance, but where do you live?

[Crazed_Insanity]

I always imagined mk lives very close to Mika Hakkinen...

[Tom Servo]

Hey mk, please excuse my ignorance, but where do you live?

One of the great mysteries of our time

[MR2 Fan]

I thought he lived in Outworld

[Tom Servo]

I think he's (she's?) just a manifestation of our collective consciousness, and lives both everywhere and nowhere.

[mk]

Hey mk, please excuse my ignorance, but where do you live?

Eastern Finland.

Fill up in Russia could be <2h.
(there are others)
(here 1,5+ euro/litre, there 1/3 and no ethanol)

[Jason]

I think he's (she's?) just a manifestation of our collective consciousness, and lives both everywhere and nowhere.


Eastern Finland.



Close enough ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Crazed_Insanity]

My imagination/intuition was closer! :p

[SportWagon]

A reasonable day's drive to/from both St. Petersburg and Helsinki. But slightly closer to St. Petersburg. I believe.

[George]

I figured I was the only one who didn't know where mk lives. :)

[Tom Servo]

I'm still not convinced I'm wrong.

[Jason]

https://www.theroot.com/police-point-finger-at-innocent-man-they-killed-by-impl-1830653183

Important to remember in this discussion... you can only be a "good guy with a gun" if you are the right skin color.

The NRA is unsurprisingly quiet about this situation.

[tigeraid]

Indeed.

I always give the example when Pro-2a people argue about that: literally, just stop for a second and think: what if a bunch of African-Americans and Latinos showed up at a restaurant or an outdoor event carrying AR-15s (legal, registered, safeties on, carried correctly, all that stuff)? What would reactions be.

[Crazed_Insanity]

What a racist thing to say!

What if a bunch of Chinese guys show up with guns? You guys won't take us seriously just because we're asians? :p

Anyway, compounding problems on top of problems for sure won't solve any problems.

At least it is possible to physically search and destroy all guns and that's already impossible enough.

How would you search and destroy everyone's emotional gut reaction upon seeing strangers of different races?

[21Kid]

Sad but true

[MR2 Fan]

reminder: the virginia tech shooter several years ago was korean

[JoeW]

Asians don't need guns...ranged ninja weapons ftw.

[Crazed_Insanity]

We know kungfu! That’s why we don’t need no stinking 2a!

[MR2 Fan]

https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1068147578729054208?s=19

[Tom Servo]

That's taking the whole "No Nut November" thing waaaaay too far.

[MR2 Fan]

:lol:

[Jason]

Christ :lol:

[mk]

Nitpicking again.

I tried to figure out what weapons were not killing humans first.

So the list is spear, knife, bow and rocket.
(indirect war machines, like grenade, excluded)
(feodal farm tools also excluded)

Other aspect, a weapon for gender.
War hammer is clearly a male weapon but is there something for a woman?
Closest I found is naginata.

[MR2 Fan]

NRA's TV channel goes even further off the rails


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYwDpiolJ88

[Cam]

I went into a Dick's Sporting Goods store for the first time today. They have great gifts for the family.

3155

[tigeraid]

:(

[mk]

We're sorry to say that due to the General Data Protection Regulation, visitors from your location are unable to browse our web store.
(Dick's Sporting Goods)

[G'day Mate]

Let me fill you in - you can buy a semi-automatic rifle online for $130 (minus $25 and with free shipping for spending over $100)

[Freude am Fahren]

Friend of mine was at a gun shop. Guy in front of him with his girlfriend got flagged when trying to buy a gun. Apparently like big red warning on the screen, red lights and everything. Clerk tells him he can't sell him a gun, but his girlfriend can buy it and give it to him, since you can gift guns without any kind of registration or legal stuffs in Florida. So she bought the gun and they walked out.

[Cam]

:|

[Godson]

Sadly, this happens.

[drew]

'MERICA!

[Dicknose]

Whats the odds his flag was due to domestic violence...

[Crazed_Insanity]

... you can gift guns without any kind of registration or legal stuffs in Florida. So she bought the gun and they walked out.

Why bother flagging anybody then?

Wonder how many states out of 50 are like Florida...

[edit] ok, guess majority are like Florida... except California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and DC...

[Tom Servo]

Why bother flagging anybody then?

I like that that's your takeaway. Not "maybe we should look at that gifting rule."

[Crazed_Insanity]

Glad you like it. Btw, if we’re that serious about gun control, we shouldn’t just be looking at the gifting rule, we shouldn’t even have that rule period. Just go buy a dick’s sporting goods gift card. Absolutely no need for such rule. Even for an existing gun that I have that I want to give away, if I don’t really need to go thru that flagging system to transfer my gun, what’s the point of flagging anybody?

Anyway, we’re basically on the same side of the issue, I like that you still enjoy fighting me about it.

[Tom Servo]

I'll agree with that. Apologies for misunderstanding where you going with the previous post. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

[21Kid]

Friend of mine was at a gun shop. Guy in front of him with his girlfriend got flagged when trying to buy a gun. Apparently like big red warning on the screen, red lights and everything. Clerk tells him he can't sell him a gun, but his girlfriend can buy it and give it to him, since you can gift guns without any kind of registration or legal stuffs in Florida. So she bought the gun and they walked out.
Something, something, better gun laws. :smh: