I like guns!

[Dave_C]

I actually do. I enjoy shooting on occasion, though I don't own a gun. One of the most interesting rifles I've shot is an old M1 Garand. So I don't fit the typical "liberal" mold of those who want to eliminate guns. I do enjoy shooting but I think the 'pendulum' has swung too far to the right and is broken. There should be a reasonable position somewhere between where we are today and a repeal of the second amendment. Take a look at some gun statistics. It's shocking how prevalent they are in the US and how many deaths occur.

There were 3,438 civilian deaths in Afghanistan due to the war in 2017.

https://www.voanews.com/a/un-afghanista ... 55856.html

Population of Afghanistan: 34,660,000

https://www.google.com/search?ei=MLyFWt ... Smw44pNM-0

That’s 1 out of 10,081 people killed in Afghanistan last year due to the war.

There were 33,636 civilian deaths during 2013 in the US due to guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States

Population of US: 323,100,000

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... -6lrcTYkMU

That’s 1 out of 9,606 people killed in USA due to guns.

So as a citizen living in the US, you are more likely to be killed by gunfire than a citizen living in Afghanistan.

We should stop worrying about ISIS and the Taliban, and start worrying about our own US citizens. They are much better armed and dangerous.

Gun ownership per capita:
The US has the most with 101 guns per 100 people in the USA.
Serbia is a distant second with 58 guns per 100.
Yemen is third with 55 guns per 100.
There’s another significant drop to the fourth country in the world where Cyprus has 36 per 100.
There are only 4.6 guns per 100 people in Afghanistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated ... by_country

Why don’t people in the US have balls enough to live without guns? Why all the fear? One thing the NRA suggests is that people should have guns to protect themselves from other 'bad' people with guns. People don’t trust 'the bad guys' that have guns, but the vast majority of people killed by guns in the US are not killed by ‘bad guys’ with guns. These deaths are committed by people like you and me. Accidents, anger and impulsive decisions take the lives of far too many.

One of the largest categories is suicide. Sadly, we treat the depressed and suicidal like pets we no longer want. We have no compassion for those who ‘put themselves to sleep’ and we make false claims about them such as ‘they will find a way to kill themselves’ so their lives are no longer of any value. And yet, we have solid evidence that shows that if we can intervene and prevent those suicides just as they are about to occur, the chances that these people will try again are essentially zero. Suicide is an ‘impulse buy’, purchased on a whim when depression has claimed just a tiny bit too much influence. There's a nice summary of this in SciAm.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -suicides/

Someone named Erica Buist wrote:
"Why not just ban guns and when people are upset about it, just send them thoughts and prayers? If "thoughts and prayers" are good enough for people who've lost their families then it's good enough for people who've lost their guns."

Feel free to share your own gun statistics, but back up what you provide.

[Forest_Dump]

Well I don't have statistics but I live and work among First Nations people in remote communities where hunting is not just a part of a traditional way of life and protected within the (Canadian) constitution but anot absolute necessity. I also sometimes have to enter homes where people may be intoxicated, very emotionally charged and have access to guns. So I ABSOLUTELY believe in gun control, not unlike the car and Driver control we now have where some kinds of guns are restricted or eliminated (e.g. assault rifles) while others such as shot guns and hunting rifles are simply registered to homes and people (so emergency workers know they are there, etc.). I am equivocal on hand guns because they can be handy to carry in bear country when you are already loaded with other equipment but so far I haven't had a problem and don't have any guns.

[Event Horizon]

I also like military tech and have a tread in personal theories looking at this tech and postulating potential civilian adaptations. Unfortunately the civilian use of rifles is the same as the military useage. For killing the enemy in a direct confrontation.

That doesn't mean they're not great works of engineering which has some appeal.

Dumping the 2nd is never likely to happen, Just getting amendments through is a nightmare.

Perhaps if everyone carrying a gun can be shot legally, you'd end up with just one gunman eventually. That should fix the problem! Many others would likely just give them up and choose life instead!

[TheVat]

This has been so discussed in a couple gun threads, back when Paul Anthony was a regular, that it's hard to see anything new in the basic lines of argument. I see no problem with hunting rifles, if they are regulated as carefully as other lethal devices like cars, and we leave military type assault rifles to those in the actual military who are trained in their use. The second amendment has had its scope modified by case law decisions for a century, e. g. the 1930s ban on sawed off shotgun and other weapons then used by gangsters. The militia of 1788 has been replaced by a professional army, so reinterpreted amendments are a natural response to a vastly different world. It's a false and emotionally manipulative argument that any regulation of mass killing weapons is tantamount to voiding the 2nd amendment.

I have 3 guns, inherited antiques that are not functional. I would gladly be rid of them but am married to someone who wishes to keep them as historical pieces, mementos of how our ranching families lived in remote rural communities.

[JMP1958]

So I don't fit the typical "liberal" mold of those who want to eliminate guns.

Total elimination of guns or the second amendment is no more a typical "Liberal" position than neo-nazism is a typical "conservative" position. The vast majority of people who consider themselves "liberal" just want some common sense gun control measures to be put into place.

[Event Horizon]

Your main problem with firstly limiting types of gun available will get bogged down in endless argument. Secondly, there will be such a big problem with compliance it won't make any practical difference. I suspect folks would just bury or hide them rather than give them up.
If you can create a culture where people do not feel threatened by the state or criminals (is there a difference?) people might be more amenable to giving up certain classes of weapon. I suspect that it will take a very long time to achieve any meaningful results.
Perhaps it would be better to ban certain types of ammunition instead. That could render some types of gun useless once existing ammo supplies are exhausted. Extended mags can also be banned without infringing anybodies rights as well.

[Dave_C]

So I don't fit the typical "liberal" mold of those who want to eliminate guns.

Total elimination of guns or the second amendment is no more a typical "Liberal" position than neo-nazism is a typical "conservative" position. The vast majority of people who consider themselves "liberal" just want some common sense gun control measures to be put into place.

Agreed, very true. I suspect there's a majority of people, some of whom claim to be on either side of the liberal/conservative split, who would agree there's a problem with gun control in the US and want something done. It seems like the NRA has considerable control over politics though and constantly puts out the kind of ridiculous arguments in favor of less gun control and more gun sales. Some of those arguments I keep hearing I've listed in the OP.

[Dave_C]

This has been so discussed in a couple gun threads, back when Paul Anthony was a regular, that it's hard to see anything new in the basic lines of argument.

I'm sure there are many posts on the board referring to gun control, but I also think now is a good time to resurrect the discussion. It seems to me there's a grass roots gun control movement that's growing steadily so part of the timing here is simply to add fertilizer to the new growth.

[Dave_C]

Why shouldn't the federal government, who funds research in virtually every scientific and humanitarian category, also fund research on gun safety? The Dickey Amendment:

In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] ...

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

...

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to their perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts. ...

In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.
...

On March 21, 2018, Congressional negotiators reached a deal on an Omnibus continuing resolution. The 1.3 trillion dollar spending agreement also includes language that codified Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar interpretation of the Dickey Rider in testimony on February 18, 2018, before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.[14] While the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence.[15] It was signed into legislation by U.S. President Donald J. Trump on March 23, 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

Also:

“There’s some evidence that certain types of gun laws, like universal background checks, may be useful,” David Hemenway, a Harvard University professor who has written extensively about injury prevention and guns, told me. “There’s no evidence at all about raising the age to 21. There’s certainly no evidence about arming teachers. There’s evidence [that] arming more people is typically good for the gun industry and bad for society.”

...

“We have to extrapolate from what limited data we have, from different states or countries with different laws. Generalizing from this data is difficult,” Dr. Steven Novella, a professor at Yale Medical School and executive editor at Science-Based Medicine, said in an email. “But we can still craft thoughtful policy based upon the data we have and plausibility. Then track the results of those policies and adjust them as necessary.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... d-shooting

[Event Horizon]

When I was in the army I had an FN 7.62 SLR, a Sterling 9mm submachine gun, A 5.56 bolt action target rifle and a Browning 7.62 GPMG. For each weapon we had to pass proficiency tests that were multi-layered.

When in public I was acutely aware of the huge responsibility. My main weapon was the SLR, and if you make a mistake with that big high-velocity round someone was liable to die. We don't need Armalites and the like in civilian life. Who is the enemy on American soil everyone seems so paranoid of?

We at least had the IRA for an enemy who were highly expert, and possessing military weapons and semtex thanks to NORAID fundraisers in the US. Our alleged Ally. Yet the public never needed weapons of war, never wanted them. We have highly regulated gun controls. I gave up My CP99 and my Beretta mod 98 because there was no need for them anymore. I could go to Serbia and buy a Sig or a Glock illegally, but to what end? Just for the love of firearms?

It is a fact that the more guns that are in circulation, the more killings will occur. QED. More Americans kill each other every year (about 33,000) than die in your military exploits. By far. Is it not time to address the enemy within?
Have you not had enough Columbines or Sandyhooks yet?

Let me know when someone decides to actually seriously address this. Until then no-one can help you, and you know it. More kids will die while people argue semantics..

[wolfhnd]

Of the 33,636 civilian deaths during 2013 due to firearms only 11,208 were killed intentionally by another person. That makes the OP seem somewhat misleading if the comparison with Afghanistan was meant to make a point. The question really needs to be defined by who is getting killed in any case.

52.3 percent of those homicides were black while they make up only
13.3 percent of the population. Black males make up 40 percent of the prison population. Although the numbers don't line up perfectly they due indicate a correlation between criminality and gun homicide. It is also likely that most of the guns used in these homicides were obtained in ways that could not have been regulated and that a large percentage of the homicides were in cities with strict gun regulations.

The U.S. homicide rate declined by nearly half (49%), from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1992 to 4.7 in 2011, falling to the lowest level since 1963. That is despite the number of guns manufactured and most held domestically climbing from 5.5 million in 2010 to nearly 10.9 million in 2013. There seems to be little correlation between gun numbers and gun deaths.

The evidence strongly suggests the U.S. has a violence problem more than a gun problem.

The rate of homicides involving a firearm decreased by 49% from 1992 to 2011, while the percentage of homicide victims killed by a firearm (67%) remained stable. This statistics alone should give pause to anyone thinking that guns are at the heart of the problem. While there is no way to know how the 33 percent of homicides not committed by a firearm relate to gun violence it does show that
there is a considerable amount of deadly violence that has no firearm involved.

I don't want to minimize the gun violence problem but distorting the statistics to fit a narrative is not helpful.

[Event Horizon]

Anyone can go to a gun fair and buy a military grade weapon, no questions asked. If you go to Walmart, you might have to wait 3 days and you can leave with an AR15, mags, ammo and the whole shebang. My fiancee has a .38 revolver, 1938 model and she can't even explain what she wants it for. It makes no sense. She lives on the outskirts of Houston where pretty much nothing happens anyway.
I disagree a little with Wolfhnd inasmuch that violence wouldn't escalate into gun violence if guns were not so available. But having said that, if someone wants a gun badly enough they will acquire one either legally or illegally. This is because in American guns are pretty ubiquitous which brings me back to the point that the availability of guns contributes hugely to gun crime/violence.
Even if only 10,000 of the 33,000 gun deaths are intentional, it still far outstrips American military deaths in multiple campaigns around the world.
America is literally it's own worst enemy. What, I wonder can effect meaningful change in this regard?

[TheVat]

People not being so easily duped by the powerful mass marketing forces of gun manufacturers and their false and emotionally manipulative 2nd amendment arguments.

Also publicize statistics showing how frequently guns purchased for home security (against America's favorite racial bogeyman, the dark skinned marauder) are turned on family members or on oneself. Increase awareness of the rarity of home invasions, especially home invasions where the resident gun owner can actually access his weapon in time to do any good.

Teach people the difference between anecdotes and hard data. Better education and developing critical thinking skills in primary schools.

Regulate gun ownership and guns at least as well as we do automobiles. Have serious testing required for any purchase of a lethal device or compound. Some rights must come with responsibilities.

Demand that all legally manufactured guns, from now on, fire only octagonal bullets (or any configuration such that all manufactured ammo will now only work in these new guns). This will provide some respite as currently illegally held guns will run out of ammo, and guns stolen from homes (that aren't the new octagon barreled) will only be usable until the rounds run out. I'm writing somewhat in jest, but I think there are technical ways possible to reduce the use of old black market weapons.

[TheVat]

Or as comedian Chris Rock famously suggested: you can buy any gun you want, but bullets cost $5000 apiece. :-)

[Watson]

This has been so discussed in a couple gun threads, back when Paul Anthony was a regular, that it's hard to see anything new in the basic lines of argument.

I'm sure there are many posts on the board referring to gun control, but I also think now is a good time to resurrect the discussion. It seems to me there's a grass roots gun control movement that's growing steadily so part of the timing here is simply to add fertilizer to the new growth.

I found Paul was not so much a regular of the forum, but more a monitor of the thread. Even after months of dormancy, I would add a comment and Paul was there immediately to post the nra's silly arguments. On rare occasions he made some sense, but mostly he was just trolling.
I thought there would have been some grass roots movement grow after Sandy-hook. I guess those kids were a bit to young.
Old enough to die, but not old enough to protest.

[Event Horizon]

I think prohibiting all magazine fed weapons would be quite effective. Hunters wouldn't be affected, and you could still have a revolver. It is one way to limit the destructive power of a gun and still allow for home defence or hunting or whatever. You just can't blow dozens of people away with them anymore. Combat shotguns should be included. A traditional 12 gauge would pass the test though.
Compliance though is another matter. It might be very unpopular. Mabe some incentives might be required.

[Dave_C]

Of the 33,636 civilian deaths during 2013 due to firearms only 11,208 were killed intentionally by another person. That makes the OP seem somewhat misleading if the comparison with Afghanistan was meant to make a point. The question really needs to be defined by who is getting killed in any case.

I may not have made a good apples to apples comparison, thanks for pointing that out.

And thanks also for the statistics. There's a lot that can be said about gun control. I guess one of the points however, is that we really need to get those kind of statistics compiled and research done to control accidental deaths, homicides, suicides, etc... The NRA has proven to be an organization that has the single goal of minimizing and/or eliminating gun control and maximizing gun sales regardless of any detriment to the citizens of the country. There are other organizations that take this kind of hard line approach on both sides of the political divide, the NRA isn't alone in employing one sided policies like this.

[Dave_C]

I'm really encouraged by the list of all the companies who have taken a stance against the NRA and pulled their backing for them.
First National Bank of Omaha
Enterprise Holdings Inc
Allied and North American van lines
Avis and Budget car rental
Hertz Corp.
TrueCar
Chubb Ltd.
MetLife Inc.
Symantec Corp.
Simplisafe
Best Western
Wyndham Hotels
Delta Air Lines
United Airlines
Paramount Rx
Starkey Hearing
Lockton Affinity Inc.
D1ck’s Sporting Goods
Walmart
Kroger Co.
L.L. Bean
REI

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

[wolfhnd]

Why start with the NRA, they are little different than any special interest lobby. Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex seems like a hint about how how dysfunctional the system can become.

I understand that some people just don't like guns. It is true that most guns are designed to kill people and have only been redeployed for recreational purposes. I suppose you could look at most guns in the same way as nuclear weapons and feel the world would be better off without them. The question is if reducing the numbers of either will make the world safer. It's a practical question that involves many complexities but the place to start in both cases seems to be in reducing the likelihood they are used to kill the defenseless and limit the desire of the sociopathic to deploy them.

[TheVat]

Unless you walk around in full body armor, you are defenseless WRT anyone who has a gun trained on you. So that's basically most of us. I don't know of any practical means to limit the desires of mentally ill and sociopathic people, but there are ways to reduce gun access by means of better background checks, closing sale loopholes, holding relatives legally liable who give guns to mentally ill or domestic abusers who have had weapons court confiscated, buyback programs on the Australian model, etc. I. E. the many methods described here in a decade of gun threads and hundreds of postings, and which a majority of Americans favor and see as no threat to the Constitution.

Anyone familiar with the term "sealioning"? Worth googling, if you're ever hanging out in a gun chat on the web.

Wow the ads are thick this morning. My cache is filling fast and I have a ton of cookies. So this is the "developing " our new owner spoke of. I had to shut off Java and cookies for SPCF to be able to even type this. Good God.

[Watson]

Yes, I'm even getting redirected to a gambling site. Ads are one thing, but hijacking us off to a different site is more damaging than helpful. I click 'back' and here I am, but how many visitor here would just click 'X' and their gone from both? It is getting hard to take.

Back on topic. The problem is obviously not finding what to do to. The problem is implementing those things mentioned .............

enough with the bouncing fcking screen?