Quote :

"The bottom line is that most gun owners, like ^, don't own a gun because they actually ever foresee themselves shooting or threatening an intruder, they own them because they think they are cool."

This proves how much you really don't know about gun ownership. Ask any true gun enthusiast. The guns I own are far from "cool." They're actually pretty laughable.

7/21/2015 1:47:11 PM

Quote :

"The problem is you're focused entirely on gun violence, and not on violence in general. Yes, if the number of guns goes down far enough, the number of crimes committed with those guns goes down. But it does not follow at all that the amount of violent crime also falls."

Of course I'm focused on gun violence. Walking down the street and punching someone in the face, while a violent crime, is not equivalent to homicide by gun. While you're right that both have gone down, we still have an absurd amount of gun homicides per year compared to the rest of the developed (and a lot of the non-developed) world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Quote :

"So I'm assuming you have some statistics showing a widening gap in gun violence rates between the US and other first world nations."

No, but I do have statistics showing that increased gun control leads to less gun homicides, which you also admitted. Other first world nations have implemented increasing controls on gun ownership, whereas we have not, so it stands to reason that the gap has only widened. I guess it's possible that the rest of the world bottom'd out and we're slowly catching up, but I doubt it. Even if I'm wrong, our status as an extreme outlier among the developed world remains unchanged.

Quote :

"qually I'm assuming you have something to show acceptance of mass killings is on the rise?"

7/21/2015 2:03:45 PM

Quote :

"By the way, this is a question for Democrats/liberals, where exactly has the party platform's detente on gun ownership gotten us exactly? It's been over a decade since the AWB expired and longer than that since Democrats made gun control a major part of their platform. "

we almost had substantive new gun controls after sandy hook

... but then democrats went and included a pointless AWB and killed it

7/21/2015 2:41:48 PM

Quote :

"Of course I'm focused on gun violence. Walking down the street and punching someone in the face, while a violent crime, is not equivalent to homicide by gun. "

Sure they aren't equal. At the same time, it makes no difference whether someone is killed by a gun, or killed with a knife, or a bat, or a single punch to the headhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/washington-state-teen-kills-friend-punch-cops-article-1.2054420. If violent crime and overall homicides aren't dropping, you've just traded one problem for another.

Quote :

"No, but I do have statistics showing that increased gun control leads to less gun homicides, which you also admitted. "

So to be clear, you made a claim to support your position, and that claim is entirely pulled out of your ass.

Quote :

"Even if I'm wrong, our status as an extreme outlier among the developed world remains unchanged."

Wouldn't our status as an extreme outlier also suggest that perhaps we have a different problem? Overall, world wide and among first world nations (excluding us) the (weak) correlation between gun ownership and homicide is negative.

Also "shooting don't shift views on gun control" != "only gotten us ... totally complacent towards mass killings" and most definitely doesn't show acceptance is on the rise.

7/21/2015 5:12:10 PM

This thread is like a bunch of people telling Salisburyboy that Jews are actually ok, and that he is both ridiculous and an idiot.

7/21/2015 9:24:19 PM

Quote :

"Also "shooting don't shift views on gun control" != "only gotten us ... totally complacent towards mass killings" and most definitely doesn't show acceptance is on the rise."

It does indicate that acceptance, or tolerance, has increased for mass killings.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/shootings-shaped-gun-control/story?id=16863844

7/22/2015 11:36:27 AM

^^Yeah, 30,000 gun deaths per year so you can keep your adult binky, but I'm the crazy person

Quote :

"Overall, world wide and among first world nations (excluding us) the (weak) correlation between gun ownership and homicide is negative."

That's because other first world nations actually have sensible gun laws. Switzerland has considerably higher ownership than we do, but they also have strict licensing and keep most forms of ammo restricted to military bases and shooting ranges. Basically any country that has higher ownership but less homicides is the same. This is not a coincidence.

[Edited on July 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2015 12:38:19 PM

Switzerland only keeps ammo limited for the militia issued weapons, my understanding is that this has to do more with preventing trafficking to other parts of Europe than crime prevention (but I'm not positive about that)

for ammo for personal use they use a permit system



[Edited on July 22, 2015 at 1:31 PM. Reason : overall Switzerland is a decent model to follow, the registration part may not work here though]

7/22/2015 1:29:04 PM

It looks like Chuck Schumer's proposal will be a few of the reasonable things that most Americans agree about (incentivize reporting into NICS, ask DOJ to give guidance about mental health financing, fund mental health and substance abuse programs)

... let's see how quickly Republicans shut it down

8/3/2015 3:50:11 PM

I don't see anything glaringly wrong with the talking points of the bill, but would want to see it before any discussion happened.

8/4/2015 7:50:47 PM

^ yeah all i know about it is ^^, but all that, in general terms, sounds good. let's hear the details.

[Edited on August 4, 2015 at 8:03 PM. Reason : aside from ideological federalism issues]

8/4/2015 8:02:17 PM

8/12/2015 4:27:09 PM

Jesus turned his cheek and quickly pulled his Glock 27 from his IWB Serpa holster when the Samaritan man got too close.

8/12/2015 8:28:50 PM

(@GOPTeens is a parody account)

8/12/2015 9:38:30 PM

Consider yourself officially #calledout

8/12/2015 11:05:19 PM

bump but let's wait a few days out of respect to discuss political agendas

8/26/2015 10:07:49 AM

Unlike the charelston shooting and the (most recent) theater shooting, I don't think there's any law that could have stopped this guy, assuming he had no history of mental disorder. Just seems like a random act of violence.

If you want to look for a systemic cause, at worst, perhaps the black lives matter protests emboldened him to take personal action for his grievances rather than relying on official systems.

8/26/2015 12:14:20 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj-bryce-williams-parker-adams/

Slain TV reporter's boyfriend asks for dialogue over gun violence

8/27/2015 11:39:06 PM

Guess his gay porn websites didn't give him enough happiness

8/28/2015 12:45:43 AM

^^the ironic thing to me, is the large media coverage is part of the problem. we shouldn't be publishing these nut jobs manifestos in easy to find links

8/28/2015 6:09:30 AM

I'll preface this by saying that I'm very pro gun and pro 2A, I own many guns, and people that blame the gun every time someone gets shot make me sick.

That being said, everyone wants some change. I dont like giving into new gun laws, mainly because where does it stop, however I'll entertain this thought.

How about something like a license system. At age 21 (when you can legally buy a handgun) you go take a gun safety course that includes showing you are competent with a firearm, showing you how to store them safely, how to handle guns safely, and how to identify mental issues. Then you take some sort of test, and if you pass the "tests" you get a gun license. The license is good for a set amount of time (say 4-5yrs), but within that time you can buy whatever you like. AR's, handguns, shotguns etc and you can carry a handgun concealed. You just show your license at a dealer or a private sale and you are good to buy, and having your license with you makes you good to carry concealed. Obviously if you commit a crime in that 5 years you have your license revoked. No license, no purchase of a firearm period. Every 5 years, you renew your license.

Now do I think this would have helped in some of the mass shootings, no. What I do think it would help is making sure people are safe with guns, having some sort of license system to quality you go own a gun, maybe telling people how to store them correctly etc.

What does tdub think of that? I dont even really know if I like my own idea because I think adding more laws to the thousands we already have is stupid.

8/30/2015 1:55:58 PM

Quote :

"people that blame the gun every time someone gets shot make me sick"

Nobody is blaming the gun itself as the problem, but rather the easy *availability* of guns.

Quote :

"mainly because where does it stop"

Same argument against gay marriage, right? WHERE DOES IT STOP? Next thing you know people will be able to marry their dogs!

Quote :

"I think adding more laws to the thousands we already have is stupid"

That's such a cop-out.

[Edited on August 30, 2015 at 3:20 PM. Reason : Are background checks a part of these classes?]

8/30/2015 2:51:19 PM

Or you could focus on my actual idea rather than my reasons why I think adding more laws is useless.

8/30/2015 2:54:56 PM

Quote :

"Clearly, maladjusted and sexually frustrated college kids don't often go on rampages, so there was something in him that moved him to this. Perhaps that was the mental illness. But add up the body counts in the past twenty years. What's in common in mass murderers isn't mental illness, but frustration, impotence (metaphorical) and anger. Or are all those suicide bombers in Israel bipolar? You'll say, "but he wasn't a suicide bomber." His mental framework had much more in common with a suicide bomber than with John Wayne Gacy. But let's put this aside and ask a different question, about us, not him: why do so many people want him to be mentally ill? Because its an explanation that doesn't implicate society, or themselves. It means the world can be divided into "us" and "them," which is always fun. It's the easy scapegoat that seems to be so obvious as to be unassailable. And if it is mental illness, what do we intend on doing about it? My bias implies harsher sentences, societal changes, etc-- we can debate that later. But if it is all mental illness, then what? Do we lock up the "mentally ill" like we do pedophiles and terror suspects, before they even commit a crime, just on suspicion? And who decides who is suspicious? Psychiatrists? Do you trust every psychiatrist to be good at this? Or should it be the government?"

8/30/2015 3:08:42 PM

Quote :

"Nobody is blaming the gun itself as the problem, but rather the easy *availability* of guns."

Quote :

"That's such a cop-out."

It's the same thing.

Quote :

"How about something like a license system."

Yes! Let's have a license system for a fundamental right! Maybe we can follow it up with a voting license. Then maybe require people to be a little bit informed before they speak, via licensing... Hmmm, require a praying license, maybe?

8/30/2015 6:24:41 PM

^^^^
In your scenario, what happens to the gun owner's currently owned guns when the gun owner commits a crime? You mentioned that the gun owner's license would be revoked if he or she committed a crime, but would the gun owner's currently owned firearms be taken away from him or her as well? If not, would the only point of revoking the gun owner's license be to prevent the gun owner from acquiring additional firearms in the future?

8/30/2015 6:38:29 PM

^Same as if he becomes a felon now, he's banned from owning any. And when I mean crime I mean felon. Not having his guns taken away if he/she gets a speeding ticket for example.

aaronburro im not for putting a license on a fundamental right, but if we are going to have to concede some of that right to liberals (and I fear we will eventually) I'd rather do it on my own terms while we can seet the stakes.

[Edited on August 30, 2015 at 6:56 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2015 6:55:45 PM

A license does nothing. Being responsible and skilled goes all out the window when you become mentally ill and people with no prior history are liable to just lose it any day.

From a criminal stand point, gun proliferation is like nuclear proliferation for indivoduals. You carry a gun for mutually assured destruction as a deterrent. You dont actually want to be in a shootout. This means criminals now have to be sure to carry a gun and cant rely on strong arming it like they could if they knew no one had guns.

8/30/2015 7:08:52 PM

^^ You are already losing by conceding before anything even happens. You should instead focus your energy on pointing out the absurdity of disarming law-abiding civilians in order to stop criminals from committing crime.

8/30/2015 7:22:16 PM

Just addressed that

8/30/2015 8:01:40 PM

^^I understand the "not one inch" mentality of pro 2A advocates, I really do. I have that mentality myself. All I'm saying is that if we are going to have to give an inch (and we will, mark my words), we may as well do it on our terms when we can set the stakes.

We all know that adding more laws will do nothing but affect law abiding citizens and will do nothing for criminals. Hell, even my ideal would only stop maybe some unsafe handling of guns and an odd straw purchase here or there.

8/30/2015 8:06:21 PM

Quote :

"Maybe we can follow it up with a voting license. Then maybe require people to be a little bit informed before they speak, via licensing... Hmmm, require a praying license, maybe?"

Hmmm, tell us more about how voting and praying kills people.

8/30/2015 11:26:19 PM

Amend the Bill of Rights then.

8/30/2015 11:34:58 PM

Quote :

" You should instead focus your energy on pointing out the absurdity of disarming law-abiding civilians in order to stop criminals from committing crime. "

This is pretty bad reasoning... everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're a criminal.

The lousiana theater shooting was a law abiding citizen... the sandy hook shooter was a law abiding citizen, the charleston shooter was a law abiding citizen.

I can't imagine there are enough escaped criminals running around where trying to stop them from getting a gun is a meaningful policy initiative... the whole goal of gun control is to figure out why the US has so much more gun crime than other developed countries, and reduce this number. Other countries can do it, why can't we?

If the problem isn't actually guns, then there should be a solution to this problem that doesn't involve changing any gun laws right? Why don't gun nuts ever actually talk about this aspect, if they're so confident the existence of gun tech isn't the problem?

Seems like they are content to let other people pay the price of gun deaths so they can have the freedom to practice their hobby, but none of them want to do anything to solve the problems related to guns.

People should just admit that gun violence is the cost of gun freedom, if they don't care to actually help offer solutions.

8/31/2015 12:56:54 AM

So the 3 mass shooting shooters you mentioned were law abiding citizens prior to going on their rampages. Sounds like your post is to stop mass murders, whereas the vast majority of gun violence is actually carried out by criminals who get their guns illegally. Not a very good argument by a gun control nut.

8/31/2015 1:07:38 AM

That's a good start, so how do we stop people from getting guns who shouldn't have them?

8/31/2015 2:02:06 AM

Stop-and-frisk policies on everyone? No real good solution unless you're willing to give up a ton of your freedoms. I tried to get a purchase permit many years ago when I had a somewhat recent marijuana charge on my record. Thankfully, the authorities didn't approve my permit since I was in their databases from The Pot. Meanwhile Tyrone Billy Bob uses a gun bought off the streets to rob Jaqu'an Cletus for a pound of herb in a setup.

How do we stop people from getting drugs who shouldn't (ie, don't legally buy) have them? Seems like a pretty difficult task.

I wasn't around in the 1920s, but I don't think prohibition stopped people from getting alcohol. And almost a century later, we still have people who get alcohol illegally. So there is no foolproof solution. And obviously a kid shooting another kid is different than a kid sneaking a drink before he's old enough. But unless you want to live in Soviet Russia, deal with it I guess.

[Edited on August 31, 2015 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 31, 2015 at 2:26 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2015 2:21:06 AM

^ you're acting like i want to prohibit guns, i've never personally espoused that viewpoint.

Seems like you're saying though that we should accept Sandyhooks, gang related shootings and other gun violence, so you can have as easy a buying process as possible to shoot your pistol every few weeks at a gun range.

8/31/2015 2:29:04 AM

You act like I'm pigeonholing you in some extreme corner, then you come right back at me the exact same way.

If you're really about stopping gun violence, you might want to consider that 99% of gun violence doesn't come from "law abiding" citizens in mass murder rampages. It's everyday violent crimes committed by individuals who purchase firearms illegally. Seems like you're just regurgitating unrealistic talking points to make yourself feel like you're doing the right thing.

If me saying "deal with it" is too real for you, I don't think you're ready for this discussion

[Edited on August 31, 2015 at 2:32 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2015 2:31:14 AM

Quote :

"Yes! Let's have a license system for a fundamental right!"

This is hardly novel. There's government paperwork involved in setting up a business, which is about as fundamental a right as you can find in American thinking. Permits are required for certain kinds of demonstration, which fact does not seem to have put a damper on Americans protesting. We have a boatload of requirements that come with selling food, but there's no shortages of restaurants or grocery stores. And of course in NC there already is a permit required to buy a handgun, which does not seem to have caused a massive decline in handgun ownership.

A license is not an unacceptably onerous burden when it comes to public health and safety, even when it pertains to a right. All the more so because a gun license would not need to expand its scope beyond:

1) Are you a violent criminal? (We don't let them vote, usually)
2) Are you crazy? (We'd ask the same question before letting someone drive a forklift)
3) Can you actually use that thing? (Nobody minds that we ask this of people who want drivers' licenses)

Quote :

"You should instead focus your energy on pointing out the absurdity of disarming law-abiding civilians"

How does a license requirement do this? Drivers' licenses don't dis-car law abiding civilians, except for those who have no business driving.

Brandon1 impresses me with his pragmatism. I wish more of my former partisans in the GOP had the same sense to realize that sometimes things are unavoidable and it's best to move on and make the best of it. Some degree of increased gun control will take place; best to make it on reasonable terms, and in such a way that gun ownership comes off looking normal and acceptable.

Quote :

" 99% of gun violence doesn't come from "law abiding" citizens in mass murder rampages."

But those events bring down 99% of the heat on guns, and if we want to continue having guns, these big-news incidents are the first thing we need to stop. It comes down to the same sort of pragmatism. Nobody cares about violent crime that happens between criminals. They only care a little bit about run-of-the-mill homicides. These things can go on, and the furor over gun control will be manageable. But people care a lot about mass shootings, which dominate headlines for days and are getting to be frequent enough that they're never far from the news cycle.

Then of course there's the fact, which seems to be instantly overlooked by most of my pro-gun comrades, that when a bunch of people get killed with a gun, that's bad. It is desirable that we should avoid that.

---
The GrumpyGOP position: all firearms legal with reasonable licensing to ensure that the buyer isn't a violent criminal or crazy, but is capable of competently using the firearm in question. Also make it a gradient, more or less like we already have in NC. That is, lax requirements for a shotgun, stricter for handguns and concealed carry, maybe stricter still for assault weapons (I know that the threat here is overrated, but again, pragmatic), and so on. For all I care, a private citizen can own a stinger missile, but for that there had better be a background check bordering on TS clearance and the applicant better have a gun safe that looks like a bank vault.

[Edited on August 31, 2015 at 7:09 AM. Reason : ]

8/31/2015 7:02:59 AM

Quote :

"these big-news incidents are the first thing we need to stop. "

don't see how you could stop them with gun laws. it's a mental health issue and its already against the law for known mentally ill people to have guns

8/31/2015 7:32:49 AM

^I'll agree to that. Dont think most mass shootings could be stopped with any kind of laws short of all guns in the world disappearing. Then there is the age old argument (which is valid) "if he didnt have a gun he'd use a knife/bomb/car/stick etc".

The license system like mine would stop some accidental deaths from maybe a stupid gun owner not knowing how to clean his gun or how to handle a firearm properly. Short of that, my idea wouldnt stop most of these mass shootings.

I'll also add that in my new license system, suppressors are no longer NFA. I want a suppressor, so I make it easier for myself to get one.

[Edited on August 31, 2015 at 8:04 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2015 8:04:28 AM

Thats why gun owners cant and wont ultimatley be part of the conversation. People are growing tieed of compromising lives with recreational fantasies. Airsoft guns look real.

Also, the best way to limit illegal guns is to stop legal ones. Ammo will eventually run out.

8/31/2015 10:30:29 AM

Quote :

" Airsoft guns look real."

What does this have to do with anything?

8/31/2015 10:49:34 AM

Quote :

"Then there is the age old argument (which is valid) "if he didnt have a gun he'd use a knife/bomb/car/stick etc"."

So by that logic since Australia enacted their sweeping gun control measures nearly 20 years ago, and firearm related homicides have since plummeted, murders by knifes, bombs, cars, and sticks must have increased proportionally, right?

8/31/2015 10:50:30 AM

^Do you not think that if the guy in the WDBJ7 shooting had not of had access to a gun he would have still killed the 2 reporters?

8/31/2015 10:59:08 AM

Quote :

"don't see how you could stop them with gun laws. it's a mental health issue and its already against the law for known mentally ill people to have guns"

Mental health is the bigger issue, I agree. But I didn't exactly say that gun laws would prevent crazy people getting guns. I can see how that was the takeaway, though, given that "we should stop mass shootings" happened in the same post as a bunch of talk in favor of reasonable gun laws.

I think it might be doable to have a flagging system where employers or close relatives could put a red flag by your name that triggers a more detailed check if you try to buy a gun. If the claim is baseless or unsupportable, the would-be buyer could sue. (This thread does a good job of preventing frivolous "he's nuts" claims, and in fact employers are reluctant to share even if one of their former employees really is bonkers)

8/31/2015 11:00:32 AM

nah, that list would become so huge that it's pointless (like the no-fly list)

[Edited on August 31, 2015 at 12:22 PM. Reason : that particular list would be pointless, not the effort to find a solution]

8/31/2015 12:21:53 PM

^^^ I may be missing your point, but yeah, I do think the chances of that guy killing the WDBJ reporters would be MUCH less if he hadn't had access to a gun. The gun makes it a hell of a lot easier; isn't that common sense?

8/31/2015 12:36:45 PM

I don't see it that way (not just because I'm a gun owner either). If you wanted to kill 2 people, you are going to kill those people by any means necessary. Whether with a gun, knife, sword, car, pipe etc. Wouldn't it have been easier to hit them both with a car than walk up stairs and shoot them? I know that's an extreme comparison, but still.

8/31/2015 1:12:38 PM