gun control rant thread

Morbid, like you, I'm more open to the idea of registration...if it would help. The problem is that it won't.

You've already answered why it would not work (barrel changes). The aurora shooter? He purchased guns just for the task. The sandy hook shooter? He stole them from his mother after he found out that he could not buy his own gun without a background check and waiting period. (The waiting period is the probable issue there...the latest I've heard is that there was an "altercation" at the school, and that three of the four people involved are now dead.)

Also, many gun owners dislike registration lists because they can later be (and apparently have been - see CA example above - to take away weapons that were obtained legally.)

If someone is intent on doing harm to innocents, they will.

May 18, 1927: Bath, Michigan School treasurer Andrew Kehoe, after killing his wife and destroying his house and farm, blew up the Bath Consolidated School by detonating dynamite in the basement of the school, killing 38 people, mostly children. He then pulled up to the school in his Ford car, then set off a truck bomb, killing himself and four others.

Morbid wrote: My thoughts (as a gun owner) on this topic would likely disappoint my parents and my in-laws, and might open me up to ribbing on here, but I'm willing to take that risk. Why not 'track' firearms in the same way we track vehicles, through titling and registration at every point of sale, and, taking it a step further, keeping ballistics data for each and every firearm as part of that process. Firearms are already test-fired at the point of manufacture as a method of quality control, so how much 'extra' time would it take to catalog the ballistics data to that weapon and it's serial number? I realize that aftermarket barrels would make this a moot point in some cases, but it would be a start. Slippery slope to more stringent tracking methods or not, I still think it's a good idea.

If you buy the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is to allow for a citizenry to form a militia to defend itself against tyranny... having the tyrant regulate your arms is a bit like trusting the the other team's coach to call your plays.

If you don't believe that what happened in the last 2yrs in the middle east might someday be necessary here and there is no reason for the 2nd amendment then... it is a valid way to control weaponry. Except for 3D printers. And criminals. And weapon mfgs who don't need to hold to US laws. And smugglers. And crafty people with lathes.

The problem with murderers isn't the tool they choose. It is the bad brains. Statistically speaking , they are such a small contributor that if we did nothing about them at all they still wouldn't be much of a problem (compared to say... driving or breast cancer) but we could go ahead and waste billions and impose piles of red tape... and they would still kill just as many people.

I'll say this: I'm watching Meet the Press, and for the last hour, I haven't heard a single suggestion on what could've been done to stop this tragedy, rather, I've heard Diane Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg using this tragedy to push their political agenda, and it's berkeleying disgusting.

Kudos to all involved in the debate here for using a healthy dose of logic. I'm glad GRM (so far,) is allowing us a forum for this kind of discussion among folks who I believe are generally of above-average intelligence. We should all run for Congress!

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The problem with murderers isn't the tool they choose. It is the bad brains. Statistically speaking , they are such a small contributor that if we did nothing about them at all they still wouldn't be much of a problem (compared to say... driving or breast cancer) but we could go ahead and waste billions and impose piles of red tape... and they would still kill just as many people.

Agreed wholeheartedly on the broken brain front, but that's another topic for another thread, rather than a derailment of this one

Morbid wrote: Agreed wholeheartedly on the broken brain front, but that's another topic for another thread, rather than a derailment of this one

OK, right then. My on-topic response:

I do not feel that any form of gun control will be effective to solve an issue that isn't really a firearm issue but one of criminal intent.

I do feel that it will be an impediment to me legally protecting myself or my family from that criminal element as well as imposing a burden on every tax payer for a problem as statistically relevant to the total death rate as a mosquito is to the progress of a freight train.

I also note that the government has more than one reason for wanting to control things and I do not trust them to act in my best interest where the Bill of Rights or the Constitution is concerned. I'll just cite the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as a recent example of why I'm a bit edgy.

rebelgtp wrote: Face to face transfers are not a black market.

Datsun1500 wrote: People keep saying private sales with no checks are the issue. How many of the mass shootings were done by a gun purchased from a "private sale free for all" or "gun show loophole"?

Private sales aren't the black market but they certainly feed into it. Once sold privately a gun is can be sold to anyone until the next time a commercial dealer sells it.

The guns used in the last mass shooting were stolen if I understand correctly. That comes back to the storage security issue. In my country if a gun registered to you is stolen or misplaced or sold off the record or stored insecurely you are in some serious E36 M3.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Hence the need for education on the subject. Im with everyone else here, it needs to be a HS level course required for graduation.

I keep 14 firearms in the safe, and three outside. The 3 outside are my protection pistols and lever action. And are carried everyday. Ammunition even gets stored in the safe along with everything else gun related.

Education alone isn't enough, we don't educate people not to drive drunk and then set them loose and never check on them again. There's enforcement.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If you don't believe that what happened in the last 2yrs in the middle east might someday be necessary here and there is no reason for the 2nd amendment then... it is a valid way to control weaponry.

The Syrian population seems to be decently well-armed and the Syrian military is a pissant compared to the US military...it doesn't seem to be working out too well for the population...if you're expecting a replay of the Revolutionary War with a modern skin pack you'd be in for a shock.

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm waiting for Nicole Brown Simpson to weigh in on how gun laws make us safer and knives don't kill, I wonder what her feelings on the subject are.....

That's one high profile killing by a weapon other than a gun. Somehow I'm willing to bet the number of murders commited by knife/hammer/chainsaw/poisoning/stoning are a tiny fraction of those commited by gun. Typically (there are always exceptions) a gun makes it easy for a coward out to cause destruction. Take that same person and put a knife/hammer in their hand. I'd bet many of them wouldn't dream of trying to commit such a violent crime. They wouldn't be able to stand 5, 10, 15 feet away and just pull a trigger. It would require physical confrontation.

GameboyRMH wrote: The Syrian population seems to be decently well-armed and the Syrian military is a pissant compared to the US military...it doesn't seem to be working out too well for the population...if you're expecting a replay of the Revolutionary War with a modern skin pack you're in for a shock.

No guarantees you win - the docs just give you a chance to try. If you think millions of angry people with sticks and small arms wouldn't scare the E36 M3 out of an army with tanks and machine guns... google Korean Conflict. You can melt the barrel on a .50 and still only get a small percentage of the hoard before they over run you :)

I think making it really hard for law abiding citizens to buy firearms is going to waste money, infringe on a right already granted to the population of mostly law abiding citizens and not going to do one damn thing to stop criminals from doing bad things.It might even ease the pickin's.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: No guarantees you win - the docs just give you a chance to try. If you think millions of angry people with sticks and small arms wouldn't scare the E36 M3 out of an army with tanks and machine guns... google Korean Conflict. You can melt the barrel on a .50 and still only get a small percentage of the hoard before they over run you :)

Even so, the big army stomped all over the scrappy underdogs until the US intervened.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I think making it really hard for law abiding citizens to buy firearms is going to waste money, infringe on a right already granted to the population of mostly law abiding citizens and not going to do one damn thing to stop criminals from doing bad things.It might even ease the pickin's.

Really hard like how hard it is to buy a car? I don't think any of the things that have been proposed in this thread will be a significant deterrent. The US would still be the gun owner's paradise among countries with functioning governments.

Klayfish wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm waiting for Nicole Brown Simpson to weigh in on how gun laws make us safer and knives don't kill, I wonder what her feelings on the subject are.....

That's one high profile killing by a weapon other than a gun. Somehow I'm willing to bet the number of murders commited by knife/hammer/chainsaw/poisoning/stoning are a tiny fraction of those commited by gun. Typically (there are always exceptions) a gun makes it easy for a coward out to cause destruction. Take that same person and put a knife/hammer in their hand. I'd bet many of them wouldn't dream of trying to commit such a violent crime. They wouldn't be able to stand 5, 10, 15 feet away and just pull a trigger. It would require physical confrontation.

Homicides by instrument

It is pretty consistent at 60-70% BUT I don't see a way to search for multiple homicides that would fit a "spree" killer. I bet there is a lot of gang/drug internal shootings in that number. Those represent the sort of people who will still be shooting each other after I can only legally carry a hammer.

E: Well nevermind, that's what I get for being distracted before hitting post.

I didn't want to quote three pages of stuff so just a quick response to a few points.

I never said Canada was better than the US. Generalizations are not helping thank you.

Some interesting stats on Great Britain . I think the focus is on gun violence specifically though for the purposes of this discussion, not just violence in general. And if we are to use those stats it's possible that despite being more violent, gun murders are statically less because of a lack of access to them.

As for the examples of all the wing nut mass killings around the world, no argument, we are never going to get away from it regardless of region. But again to my point, the US has several of these things a year vs several a year around the world.

As for someone using a 2x4 if they don't have a gun? Silly comparison, good luck killing multiple people from a distance with a 2x4. That argument is ridiculous. Sure they'll find a way but not with a "tool' that was specifically designed to take life.

Picking one single incident where someone uses dynamite is hardly proof positive. Find me several examples of where someone went in with a sharpened tooth brush and killed multiple people in a short span of time.

I'm starting to get on board with the idea of metal health checks being more thorough. You could have a zillion guns but if everyone who has one has all their sandwiches in their picnic basket, your golden.

But for that to happen, the NRA minded folk have to stop completely coming off the handle every time someone even hints at making it harder to legally own a gun. Forest for the trees folks.

I'm not going down the same road as every other one of these threads.

The REASON the amendment exists is clear, valid or not.

If you make guns the scapegoat, you will still have crazy people killing people. With guns.

You cannot fix a handling problem caused by bad dampers with new tires no matter how many times you try. You have to address the real problem.

Simple, tax the crap outta ammo. It would separate the fetishists from the guys like me who just want to punch some paper for fun. Also tax reloading supplies at the same level.

Done.

My take is, it honestly isn't that big of a deal. Both the risk and benefit to safety of firearm ownership are very very low compared to numerous other things we deal with. (I own a firearm. I come from a firearm owning family. I do not concealed carry and have no desire to do so. I do not keep the gun for "home defense".)

I think guns are actually a relatively low threat to our society. They absolutely do make atrocities like what occurred recently a lot easier. I know, "Guns don't kill people. People do," but the gun sure makes it a lot easier. That aside, events like this are ultimately quite rare and the death tolls are very low compared to other threats we face. I'm more afraid of a bear getting used to poking around people's garbage than a crazed gunman. Driving a car or operating farm equipment is much more dangerous. Do you ride a motorcycle? That's more likely to kill you than a gunman.

Maybe for emotional reasons we don't want mass shooting like this to happen ever again. The only way I see of hypothetically doing that would be to take away all the non-sporting weapons out there. Eliminating new sales of firearms wouldn't do much. There are already a lot of guns in this country. You would have to track down and confiscate pretty much all guns. That just is not feasible.

What about guns making us safer? I don't buy that much either. The chance of being in a situation where a firearm will benefit you is about as low as the gunman scenario. Pretty low. If your goal is really to save lives, you'll statistically save more being trained in CPR and walking around with a mouth-to-mouth shield and epinephrine pen. Probably fewer people doing that that concealed carrying.

So people concealed carrying aren't making as much of a safety difference in the world as they think they are. So what? They aren't really hurting anything either. So there isn't much that needs to be done to regulate that.

We are much better off spending our time, money, and energy focusing on more effective solutions to bigger problems. Do we really want to address mass killings like this? Then we need to examine and overhaul our mental health system.

Just on the topic of guns though, I do think the biggest firearms threat is people handling guns negligently. I fully agree that firearms safety should be something included in junior high or high-school health classes. While people are learning about STDs and why drugs are bad, m'kay, they should be learning the 4-rules of firearm safety and other such useful things. It absolutely would not stop mass-shootings, but it would cut down on incidents of someone accidentally killing their family member, friend, or neighbor because they "didn't know they were there" or thought "the gun was unloaded".

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Simple, tax the crap outta ammo. It would separate the fetishists from the guys like me who just want to punch some paper for fun. Also tax reloading supplies at the same level. Done.

But it won't stop the guy who plans on killing himself after the deed is done.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Simple, tax the crap outta ammo. It would separate the fetishists from the guys like me who just want to punch some paper for fun. Also tax reloading supplies at the same level. Done.

Do people who steal firearms purchase ammo? Would I be all "Drat! I just can't pull together enough scratch to load all these stolen weapons up enough to murder the whole office park. H E double-ttohpicks... foiled again!"

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

I don't want to argue with you but, Gabriel giffords shooting, the aurora shooting and this one had legally purchased guns and ammo. Most of these crazy shooting spree murders are committed by legally purchased guns and ammo. Look it up.

I edited this, because I wanted to point something else out. Your response, full of vitrol and snark is exactly the reason why this gun owner has been ostracized by other gun owners. Thanks for driving me away from wanting to talk to you in a calm and even manner. bye.

Klayfish wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I'm waiting for Nicole Brown Simpson to weigh in on how gun laws make us safer and knives don't kill, I wonder what her feelings on the subject are.....

That's one high profile killing by a weapon other than a gun. Somehow I'm willing to bet the number of murders commited by knife/hammer/chainsaw/poisoning/stoning are a tiny fraction of those commited by gun. Typically (there are always exceptions) a gun makes it easy for a coward out to cause destruction. Take that same person and put a knife/hammer in their hand. I'd bet many of them wouldn't dream of trying to commit such a violent crime. They wouldn't be able to stand 5, 10, 15 feet away and just pull a trigger. It would require physical confrontation.

China is having a high number of children being knifed by men going into schools to do their deed. In fact, their latest one was on the same exact morning as the shooting in CT. 22 children were stabbed. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/12/2012121481220620325.html

And it hasn't been limited to knifes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)

poopshovel wrote: I'll say this: I'm watching Meet the Press, and for the last hour, I haven't heard a single suggestion on what could've been done to stop this tragedy, rather, I've heard Diane Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg using this tragedy to push their political agenda, and it's berkeleying disgusting. Kudos to all involved in the debate here for using a healthy dose of logic. I'm glad GRM (so far,) is allowing us a forum for this kind of discussion among folks who I believe are generally of above-average intelligence. We should all run for Congress!

For all the crap you say I disagree with and never post about, I agree with what you say here.

If we are thinking of the children, I decided to look up some statistics. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death in all age groups of children in the U.S. In 2003, approximately 2,500 children under age 15 were killed in auto accidents. This compares to 750 homicides in children under 16 in 2011. Of those, 301 homicides were children ages 1-4, so probably frustrated or negligent parents/family/sitters, not any kind of firearms.

If we really want to cut down on the number of needless deaths in this country, particularly to children, we will look at our driving habits. Drunk driving and distracted driving are bigger killers than firearms.