USA Shootings (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

I would need more information in order to know if there is any relation to there being heavy gun control.  I think you're using a very vague comparison in order to back your opinion.

I don't think this is surprising.  He still seems to be throwing around "mental illness", and just generally saying that we need to target that, but doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the difference in mental makeup of the mass shooters and how different that is from other types of crimes.  Basically just keep saying it's the people just to get the scent off the guns, but provide little thought after that.   

I agree with you that there would have to be more digging around on the suicide/countries thing.  Like I asked above, do we need to look at success rates when we are talking about differences in gun laws?  -fish brought up that some countries allow assisted suicide which inflate numbers.  Not sure which ones those are.  Then we have countries like Japan that are rich is honor culture and suicide is a part of their history.  How much is mental illness, how much is culture.  Long story short, I don't think it's as easy as SC put it above.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

you didn't answer because you know that removing sugary soda's wouldn't impact obesity at all which of course was the point being made

removing guns will not stop someone from committing suicide, or someone committing violent acts .... we have a lot of common sense gun laws right now that bind our free society to doing right things and not wrong things while at the same time not impacting the literally tens of millions of people who are legal law abiding people.

every day, 150 million homes have no issues with the guns in them, 15-20 million people carry concealed, rare is there ever a negative issue with it

home owners using guns for self defense and stopping crime 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-woman-in-georgia-reportedly-shoots-at-suspected-home-intruder-twice

Pretty sure the argument was that while it might not stop somebody's attempt, it would make it less likely they succeed.  

 

[Stealthycat]

Pretty sure the argument was that while it might not stop somebody's attempt, it would make it less likely they succeed.  

I understand that but again, the core problem isn't the method they choose and certainly if anyone thinks someone is suicidal, lock up the guns and prescription meds and knives and use whatever discretion you want ... but until that person is helped, the core problem remains

 

[Stealthycat]

He still seems to be throwing around "mental illness", and just generally saying that we need to target that, but doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the difference in mental makeup of the mass shooters and how different that is from other types of crimes.

mass shooters make up for a small amount of the total gun deaths - to stop those people, you need red flag laws and people turning in people they know are a threat. they're a different mindset than you and I absolutely, and they'll walk through every law and get around every roadblock 

proactive prevention like red flag laws and allowing authorities to act can help - and if it fails then better hope someone is there with a gun to stop them 

 

[Mookie]

Everything is fine.  No cause for alarm.  The Coast Guard has this under control.

 

[Henry Ford]

We went through this before on this thread I think, but it was a while ago.  Per wikipedia the US ranks 34th in suicide rate compared to other countries.  Most of the countries with higher rates have very restrictive gun laws.  Countries of note that are higher than the US: Russia(3), South Korea(10), Ukraine(14), India(19), Belgium(22), Japan(30), Finland(32).

I'm not sure there is a correlation between suicide rate and gun laws.

It's tough to compare those countries because of other factors, of course.  

Countries with extreme poverty, war zones, months of little to no sunlight, etc. can have a massive effect on suicide rates.  Belgium is an incredibly socially inaccessible country - people are really closed off.  Japan is a country with intense social pressures.  That kind of thing.

The best way to see the effect is probably to see the suicide rate in a country before and after gun control, and then track it over time and see if the country adjusts to new methodology.

Australia is a decent example because we have over 20 years since gun reform.

In 1996 sweeping changes were made that initiated a buyback program that really started in 1997.  By the end of the 1990s there should have been some solid changes to suicide rate.  And there were!  But of course that's not the whole story.  Because by 2014, levels were 12 per 100,000, roughly halfway back to 1996/1997 levels, which were an historic spike.  

Numbers from last year indicate 12.6 per 100,000 and rising.  So it's pretty much back to where it was.

 

[Hawkeye21]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/woman-dead-after-driver-plows-into-family-in-suburban-ny

fish aka rover would say that the car did this crime .... I say the guy did it, not the weapon he chose to use

we have lots of common sense gun laws right now - what we need is to stop these criminals that are involved in crime, drugs, gangs and domestic violence ....... those are the bulk of illegal situations that escalate and end with gun violence

stop the core problems - why can't we all get together to do that ?

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.  Where we disagree is that the US has a gun problem.  I like guns, I own guns and I don't want to take all guns away.  I do think we have a problem with the amount of guns we make available to people.  I think the US has an obsession with guns and it's a bit disturbing.

 

[abbottjamesr]

I think the US has an obsession with guns and it's a bit disturbing.

I don't know that it is an obsession or disturbing, but I do agree that the US has deeply rooted history with guns.  Our country was founded by citizens with guns against a superior army.  The west was explored and settled by people with guns, we forcefully removed an indigenous people to claim the lands as our own with guns.  We fought off the Mexicans to claim land for our own with guns.  All of this happened but a handful of generations ago.   It is who we were and still are largely.

My third grade son is learning about the time right after the Revolutionary war right now in school and I thought it was interesting that the writers of the original Articles of Confederation were so distrustful of the a central government that they made the original one too weak to be effective.  They had to rewrite it as the Constitution we know today, but in their unceasing distrust of strong central governments they decided to enumerate rights that should not be infringed upon.  First was the right to speak out against our government and second was the ability of the people to protect them selves against the government.  Just because we as a country have been relatively lucky over the last couple hundred years and haven't had to fight a war on our own soil or that our government hasn't been taken over by a dictator, doesn't mean we will always be so lucky.  Things change quick in this world and we should still be leery of strong central governments, especially one that wants to take our right to own arms.

 

[Henry Ford]

As a gun owner, I definitely understand why non-gun owners are afraid of guns.  It's normal and reasonable to be afraid of a killing machine.

Regulating ownership and forcing people to be responsible with and for their weapons (including a registry of weapons so that a weapon connected with a crime is properly identified with its owner and so that persons convicted of crimes have their weapons confiscated) is an important step in all of this, I think.

 

[abbottjamesr]

It's tough to compare those countries because of other factors, of course.  

Countries with extreme poverty, war zones, months of little to no sunlight, etc. can have a massive effect on suicide rates.  Belgium is an incredibly socially inaccessible country - people are really closed off.  Japan is a country with intense social pressures.  That kind of thing.

The best way to see the effect is probably to see the suicide rate in a country before and after gun control, and then track it over time and see if the country adjusts to new methodology.

Australia is a decent example because we have over 20 years since gun reform.

In 1996 sweeping changes were made that initiated a buyback program that really started in 1997.  By the end of the 1990s there should have been some solid changes to suicide rate.  And there were!  But of course that's not the whole story.  Because by 2014, levels were 12 per 100,000, roughly halfway back to 1996/1997 levels, which were an historic spike.  

Numbers from last year indicate 12.6 per 100,000 and rising.  So it's pretty much back to where it was.

I agree that there are many factors at play here, and that the overall suicide rate is dependent on the rate of attempts as well as the ease of access to effective methods.  I am not an expert on this by any means, it was just an observation that the correlation of gun laws to suicide rate did not appear to be strong on its own. 

 

[msommer]

I don't know that it is an obsession or disturbing, but I do agree that the US has deeply rooted history with guns.  Our country was founded by citizens with guns against a superior army.  The west was explored and settled by people with guns, we forcefully removed an indigenous people to claim the lands as our own with guns.  We fought off the Mexicans to claim land for our own with guns.  All of this happened but a handful of generations ago.   It is who we were and still are largely.

My third grade son is learning about the time right after the Revolutionary war right now in school and I thought it was interesting that the writers of the original Articles of Confederation were so distrustful of the a central government that they made the original one too weak to be effective.  They had to rewrite it as the Constitution we know today, but in their unceasing distrust of strong central governments they decided to enumerate rights that should not be infringed upon.  First was the right to speak out against our government and second was the ability of the people to protect them selves against the government.  Just because we as a country have been relatively lucky over the last couple hundred years and haven't had to fight a war on our own soil or that our government hasn't been taken over by a dictator, doesn't mean we will always be so lucky.  Things change quick in this world and we should still be leery of strong central governments, especially one that wants to take our right to own arms.

240 years of successful self goverment written off as luck.

Interesting viewpoint...

 

[Henry Ford]

I agree that there are many factors at play here, and that the overall suicide rate is dependent on the rate of attempts as well as the ease of access to effective methods.  I am not an expert on this by any means, it was just an observation that the correlation of gun laws to suicide rate did not appear to be strong on its own. 

I'm torn on adult suicide being regulated at all, to be honest.  I think everyone should be given every opportunity to get help and be treated for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, etc. but the decision to end one's own life is, at its base, the ultimate expression of autonomy.  I struggle with the question of how far we as a society should go to "save" someone from him or her self.

 

[abbottjamesr]

I'm torn on adult suicide being regulated at all, to be honest.  I think everyone should be given every opportunity to get help and be treated for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, etc. but the decision to end one's own life is, at its base, the ultimate expression of autonomy.  I struggle with the question of how far we as a society should go to "save" someone from him or her self.

I also struggle with this.

My father had some, not sure what the right term is here, mental issue that were resolved with light medication.  During his initial treatment when the docs were working on dosing and type of medicine, he attempted to commit suicide.  Luckily we were at home with him and he came out ok.  Since his medication has been worked out better and he is a happy normal person and hasn't before or after this had any issues.  I would hate for some one to be successful despite there being help available.  

At the same time, who am I to know what any other person feels or what their life is like.  Who am I to tell some one what they can not do to them selves.

 

[abbottjamesr]

240 years of successful self goverment written off as luck.

Interesting viewpoint...

The Romans said the same thing for 1000 years, then it wasn't successful any more.

The Germans had a good run, then one guy killed off 4 Million of his own people and invaded the neighboring countries.

Our current POTUS has made friends of Putin and N. Korea, has broken treaties with allies, is trying to build a wall between us and our southern neighbor, has verbal insulted the leader of the country to our north, and pulled us out of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  I would argue maybe our luck is starting to run out already.

 

[msommer]

The Romans said the same thing for 1000 years, then it wasn't successful any more.

The Germans had a good run, then one guy killed off 4 Million of his own people and invaded the neighboring countries.

Our current POTUS has made friends of Putin and N. Korea, has broken treaties with allies, is trying to build a wall between us and our southern neighbor, has verbal insulted the leader of the country to our north, and pulled us out of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  I would argue maybe our luck is starting to run out already.

Well, the change in musket technology has made the "we need guns to overthrow a tyrannical government" rather obsolete, don't you think?

When you storm the barricade with your trusted AR-15 and the drone strikes rain down around you?

 

[abbottjamesr]

Well, the change in musket technology has made the "we need guns to overthrow a tyrannical government" rather obsolete, don't you think?

When you storm the barricade with your trusted AR-15 and the drone strikes rain down around you?

At the time of the writing of the Constitution a citizen could own weaponry very similar to what the military at the time used.  Unfortunately today we citizens are no longer afforded that right.  We are forced to only own semi-automatic weapons that our government has deemed not sufficiently dangerous.

Do I plan on individually overthrowing a tyrannical government, no.  But several million citizens with AR15's engaged in guerrilla warfare while living among the passive citizens would be very difficult for a government to stop.  Along with the fact that the US is so big that it would be difficult for a military to actually occupy much of it.  The spread out government resources coupled with a highly armed populace would make it very difficult for a tyrannical government to take hold, even with tanks and drones and fighter jets.

I hate these types of conversations, makes me feel like I come across as a crazy person.  The point is, as a tyrannical gov't, would you rather the populace be armed or not?

 

[jonessed]

I'm torn on adult suicide being regulated at all, to be honest.  I think everyone should be given every opportunity to get help and be treated for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, etc. but the decision to end one's own life is, at its base, the ultimate expression of autonomy.  I struggle with the question of how far we as a society should go to "save" someone from him or her self.

I think there needs to be a legal process.  One that is hopefully not long, tedious, and expensive.

 

[jonessed]

Well, the change in musket technology has made the "we need guns to overthrow a tyrannical government" rather obsolete, don't you think?

When you storm the barricade with your trusted AR-15 and the drone strikes rain down around you?

Not really.  Guerilla action is quite effective.

 

[msommer]

Along with the fact that the US is so big that it would be difficult for a military to actually occupy much of it.  The spread out government resources coupled with a highly armed populace would make it very difficult for a tyrannical government to take hold, even with tanks and drones and fighter jets

So we agree that the argument is obsolete.  

 

[abbottjamesr]

So we agree that the argument is obsolete.  

I don't understand this comment.  It requires a highly armed populace.

 

[msommer]

I don't understand this comment.  It requires a highly armed populace.

Well, you argued that the government couldn't occupy the vastness of the US anyway....

 

[KCitons]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.  Where we disagree is that the US has a gun problem.  I like guns, I own guns and I don't want to take all guns away.  I do think we have a problem with the amount of guns we make available to people.  I think the US has an obsession with guns and it's a bit disturbing.

We have a gun problem because of a small percentage of the population. If there weren't mass shootings over the past decade, nobody would be calling for changes in gun regulation. 

Gang violence, domestic violence and other gun violence has been around for quite some time. Mass shootings have as well. 

The argument always comes back to the slippery slope. If you remove the weapons that people like to categorize as "assault weapons" then we will see an increase in mass shootings with the weapons that are still legal. The approach will then be "we need to ban all weapons". The bi product is that illegal weapons will still pour into this country the same way drugs do. Shootings will still occur. In the end, the changes will have done nothing but remove guns from people that never intended to use them illegally. The criminal element will remain. 

Perhaps instead of stricter gun laws, we make stricter penalties for those caught carrying illegal guns. Perhaps death penalty within 60 days of conviction. 

 

[the rover]

you've been told how guns are used in shooting sports, to deter crimes, self defense

you are repeating Brady Campaign rhetoric because you cannot self think maybe? I dunno .... but refusing to understand guns really hurts any validity to anything you post

How do they deter crimes?   Through the threat of killing someone.  

Guns are a single-purpose object.   That purpose is to be a weapon.  That makes them unlike any other thing that isn’t designed to be a weapon.   

All rational people understand this.

 

[abbottjamesr]

Well, you argued that the government couldn't occupy the vastness of the US anyway....

You parsed my quote and took out a qualifier that it was vastness and heavily armed populace that would make it difficult for the tyrannical govt.

 

[the rover]

As a gun owner, I definitely understand why non-gun owners are afraid of guns.  It's normal and reasonable to be afraid of a killing machine.

Regulating ownership and forcing people to be responsible with and for their weapons (including a registry of weapons so that a weapon connected with a crime is properly identified with its owner and so that persons convicted of crimes have their weapons confiscated) is an important step in all of this, I think.

Don’t fall into the trap that non-gun owners are “afraid of guns.”  It has nothing to do with a fear of guns.  It’s a recognition that guns present a net negative and are unnecessary, except in specific cases like law enforcement or hunting.

I fish a lot.  When we go to Alaska and fish for big barn door halibut, there is always a gun on the boat because you need to shoot those monsters before you bring them on board or they can cause some serious damage.  

At the same time, I want the most stringent gun regulation possible to address gun violence.   Because it is absolutely clear that stricter regulation results in less gun violence.  If I had to quit halibut fishing because regulation would eliminate my ability to shoot a fish in order to save lives, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Henry Ford]

Don’t fall into the trap that non-gun owners are “afraid of guns.”  It has nothing to do with a fear of guns.  It’s a recognition that guns present a net negative and are unnecessary, except in specific cases like law enforcement or hunting.

I fish a lot.  When we go to Alaska and fish for big barn door halibut, there is always a gun on the boat because you need to shoot those monsters before you bring them on board or they can cause some serious damage.  

At the same time, I want the most stringent gun regulation possible to address gun violence.   Because it is absolutely clear that stricter regulation results in less gun violence.  If I had to quit halibut fishing because regulation would eliminate my ability to shoot a fish in order to save lives, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Yeah, that was poorly worded.

Some non-gun owners.  There are definitely people who are just afraid of guns.  And I'm absolutely in favor of gun regulation.  Just saying that even the people who are "just afraid of guns" aren't being irrational.  It's a killing machine.  It's reasonable to be afraid of it.

 

[Stealthycat]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.  Where we disagree is that the US has a gun problem.  I like guns, I own guns and I don't want to take all guns away.  I do think we have a problem with the amount of guns we make available to people.  I think the US has an obsession with guns and it's a bit disturbing.

USA has obsessions with a lot of things. While we could argue that guns is or isn't an "obsession" .... I don't think very many gun owners continually think about guns. To have obsessions really doesn't pair well with guns IMO. 

ob·sess   past tense: obsessed; past participle: obsessed

preoccupy or fill the mind of (someone) continually, intrusively, and to a troubling extent.

what we know is every day, the 500 millions guns in the US and the 150 million homes that have them really do no harm at all. Exceptionally rare overall is when a gun is used wrong, and when it is? Gangs, drugs, domestic violence, criminal activity ..... that's the core problem, not the weapons. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Don’t fall into the trap that non-gun owners are “afraid of guns.”  It has nothing to do with a fear of guns.  It’s a recognition that guns present a net negative and are unnecessary, except in specific cases like law enforcement or hunting.

absolutely NOT a net negative, you've been shown this. Even the most common sensed person can see the value in self defense and deterrent on crime by guns. 

and since when do we see "net negatives" as justification for anything?  alcohol? sugary drinks? smoking cigarettes/tobacco use?  please

At the same time, I want the most stringent gun regulation possible to address gun violence.   Because it is absolutely clear that stricter regulation results in less gun violence.  If I had to quit halibut fishing because regulation would eliminate my ability to shoot a fish in order to save lives, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

lobby to stop criminals and you won't have to give up any guns used in halibut fishing. If I were on the boat with you, I'd not fear you having a halibut gun in your hand at all, why would I ? Heck, use an AR15 to halibut fish, or a .416 Rigby .... don't matter to me because it has NO impact on criminals doing crimes 

 

[Stealthycat]

It's reasonable to be afraid of it.

if I listed the top 200 ways a person is most  likely to die ....... would being afraid of #200 more so than #25 be "reasonable" ?

 

[jomar]

Do I plan on individually overthrowing a tyrannical government, no.  But several million citizens with AR15's engaged in guerrilla warfare while living among the passive citizens would be very difficult for a government to stop.  

it would be difficult for a tyrannical government to stop what, exactly?  

I could possibly see a tyrannical govt not really caring that there are 50 heavily armed people holed up in a compound in Ohio or various places around the US.  but if something makes them care (say some of these 50 people gun down a govt official or two), then the govt could go in and wipe them out in under 15 minutes if they don't surrender immediately.  

 

[Stealthycat]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191954/participants-in-shooting-sport-in-the-us-since-2006/

This statistic shows the number of participants in shooting sport in the United States from 2006 to 2017. In 2017, the number of participants (aged six years and older) in shooting sport amounted to approximately 9.38 million. 

Not killing anything - just enjoying the sport. Shooting sport includes sport/clays and trap/skeet shooting.

 

[Dickies]

if I listed the top 200 ways a person is most  likely to die ....... would being afraid of #200 more so than #25 be "reasonable" ?

Depends on what they are.  I'm sure people dying of meth overdoses is more common than getting killed by a meteorite, yet I'm more concerned with the meteorite (as minuscule as that concern is) because there is no chance I'm touching meth.

 

[Dickies]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191954/participants-in-shooting-sport-in-the-us-since-2006/

This statistic shows the number of participants in shooting sport in the United States from 2006 to 2017. In 2017, the number of participants (aged six years and older) in shooting sport amounted to approximately 9.38 million. 

Not killing anything - just enjoying the sport. Shooting sport includes sport/clays and trap/skeet shooting.

Seems like a perfectly rational justification to take no action on killing machines.

 

[abbottjamesr]

it would be difficult for a tyrannical government to stop what, exactly?  

I could possibly see a tyrannical govt not really caring that there are 50 heavily armed people holed up in a compound in Ohio or various places around the US.  but if something makes them care (say some of these 50 people gun down a govt official or two), then the govt could go in and wipe them out in under 15 minutes if they don't surrender immediately.  

Lets paint the picture differently, say the govt is rounding up people that they deemed dangerous or a problem.  Hard to know why, but it could be for race, religion, they spoke out against the president, what ever it is.  The SS is going through town and rounding people up and they just seem to disappear, never heard from again type a thing.   People in the city decide that they don't like their friends, family or fellow citizens being rounded up so they set ied's to blow up the SS trucks.  Maybe they set an ambush for the SS and kill a small group of them.  Maybe they go and raid the banks supporting the govt.  What ever it is, how do you send in the army to attack a group that looks like everyone else and lives among them.  It's not a winnable war for the govt if guns are prevalent and there is no way to know who owns them.  We have been trying to win this war in the middle east for 18 years now, with out success.  

 

[-fish-]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191954/participants-in-shooting-sport-in-the-us-since-2006/

This statistic shows the number of participants in shooting sport in the United States from 2006 to 2017. In 2017, the number of participants (aged six years and older) in shooting sport amounted to approximately 9.38 million. 

Not killing anything - just enjoying the sport. Shooting sport includes sport/clays and trap/skeet shooting.

you realize that those are simulations of hunting birds, used for practice?  shooting sports just evolved out of hunting, which is a gun killing something.  exactly what it is made for.  its sole intended purpose.   

regardless, no shooting sport would be affected by safe storage regulations, expanded background checks, a national gun registry, prohibition of high-capacity magazines, etc.    the fact that people like to shoot guns is not an argument against stringent gun regulations.   just like hunting, nobody is proposing banning shooting sports.   

 

[Henry Ford]

if I listed the top 200 ways a person is most  likely to die ....... would being afraid of #200 more so than #25 be "reasonable" ?

If you were hanging around #200, yeah.

It's not likely that I'm going to fall off of a cliff and die. But if I'm standing on the edge of a cliff, it's reasonable to be afraid I'm going to fall and die.

 

[-fish-]

absolutely NOT a net negative, you've been shown this. Even the most common sensed person can see the value in self defense and deterrent on crime by guns. 

and since when do we see "net negatives" as justification for anything?  alcohol? sugary drinks? smoking cigarettes/tobacco use?  please

   you've been shown the actual statistics over and over--not fake numbers by Lott or Kleck, not anecdotes.  real numbers.   self-defense and deterrent effect are outweighed by gun violence.   

we analyze the utility of products versus their danger every day.   it's how our laws work.   unreasonably dangerous products are taken off the market and/or their manufacturers held liable.    the US banned lawn darts after 4 children were killed.   4.   

an average of 4 children die from guns every single day.   

 

[-fish-]

If you were hanging around #200, yeah.

It's not likely that I'm going to fall off of a cliff and die. But if I'm standing on the edge of a cliff, it's reasonable to be afraid I'm going to fall and die.

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

Firearms were the second leading cause of deaths among children and adolescents in 2016, according to the researchers. Overall, there was a 28% relative increase in the rate of firearm deaths among U.S. children, likely driven by a 32% increase in firearm homicides and a 26% increase in firearm suicides, the researchers said. They found that the odds of a child being killed by a firearm are 36 times higher in the United States than in other high-income countries.

huh.  turns out it's a pretty substantial problem.   who knew?

I also think that in 2017 gun deaths became the leading cause of death in children and adolescents.  I'll have to double check that, but I believe it's accurate.

 

[abbottjamesr]

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

Firearms were the second leading cause of deaths among children and adolescents in 2016, according to the researchers. Overall, there was a 28% relative increase in the rate of firearm deaths among U.S. children, likely driven by a 32% increase in firearm homicides and a 26% increase in firearm suicides, the researchers said. They found that the odds of a child being killed by a firearm are 36 times higher in the United States than in other high-income countries.

This issue I have with this study is that it includes ages 1 -19.  According to the CDC, over half of all homicides of victims aged 15-19 are gang-related. The same study found that gang-related homicides are more likely to involve firearms than those that are not (95% versus 69%). 

Gang related deaths are still bad, but to include 15-19 yo's engaged in illegal activity in a statistic on children's deaths seems disingenuous.

 

[-fish-]

This issue I have with this study is that it includes ages 1 -19.  According to the CDC, over half of all homicides of victims aged 15-19 are gang-related. The same study found that gang-related homicides are more likely to involve firearms than those that are not (95% versus 69%). 

Gang related deaths are still bad, but to include 15-19 yo's engaged in illegal activity in a statistic on children's deaths seems disingenuous.

I sort of see your point, but gun violence in gangs would be ideally be reduced by stricter gun regulation, so in the context of addressing a leading cause of death, it seems relevant to include these dead kids too.   You can't really address gang-related deaths without addressing guns.   

 

[Stealthycat]

Seems like a perfectly rational justification to take no action on killing machines.

who said no action ?

we've got very sensible gun laws in the USA right now, hundreds of laws in fact, right ? 

 

[Stealthycat]

you realize that those are simulations of hunting birds, used for practice?  shooting sports just evolved out of hunting, which is a gun killing something.  exactly what it is made for.  its sole intended purpose.   

regardless, no shooting sport would be affected by safe storage regulations, expanded background checks, a national gun registry, prohibition of high-capacity magazines, etc.    the fact that people like to shoot guns is not an argument against stringent gun regulations.   just like hunting, nobody is proposing banning shooting sports.   

in other words - guns used for things that don't involve killing anything shooting sports, millions enjoy it

just another wrong thing anti-gun zealots say and then try to crab on later when they're called on 

you say those things but if I want to shoot an AR15 with a 30 round .... you're not going to want me to have that are you ?

https://foac-pac.org/Defense-Stories

2074 Total Defense Stories

 

[Stealthycat]

but gun violence in gangs would be ideally be reduced by stricter gun regulation,

yes because gang's follow the law ?

 

[-fish-]

who said no action ?

we've got very sensible gun laws in the USA right now, hundreds of laws in fact, right ? 

No, we don't.  We have ineffective laws, many of them which were actually written by the NRA.   If we had sensible laws, we'd have a national gun registry, searchable databases, safe storage laws, prohibitions on stalkers and domestic abusers owning guns, restrictions on semi-automatic weapons including handguns...

 

[Stealthycat]

If you were hanging around #200, yeah.

It's not likely that I'm going to fall off of a cliff and die. But if I'm standing on the edge of a cliff, it's reasonable to be afraid I'm going to fall and die.

the point of course, is that its not reasonable to be afraid of things that very likely will NOT get you .... spiders, snakes, lightning ..... while at the same time being very comfortable with obesity, driving down the highway or mixing prescription drugs etc 

you of course, know this already

 

[Dickies]

I sort of see your point, but gun violence in gangs would be ideally be reduced by stricter gun regulation, so in the context of addressing a leading cause of death, it seems relevant to include these dead kids too.   You can't really address gang-related deaths without addressing guns.   

I think legalizing drugs would go further in reducing gang violence.

 

[Henry Ford]

the point of course, is that its not reasonable to be afraid of things that very likely will NOT get you .... spiders, snakes, lightning ..... while at the same time being very comfortable with obesity, driving down the highway or mixing prescription drugs etc 

you of course, know this already

Familiarity breeds contempt.  One could say the same about us gun owners, who aren't afraid of accidentally shooting ourselves or our family members, but many of us bring up the idea of having to use a gun in self-defense, which is far less likely.

 

[Stealthycat]

No, we don't.  We have ineffective laws, many of them which were actually written by the NRA.   If we had sensible laws, we'd have a national gun registry, searchable databases, safe storage laws, prohibitions on stalkers and domestic abusers owning guns, restrictions on semi-automatic weapons including handguns...

false - again

fact - there are more guns now than every in the USA

fact - there are more concealed weapon licensed people than ever 

fact - there are more states that allow carry without a permit than ever

fact - gun violence isn't a result of any of the above 3 and in fact, for 20 years gun violence has trended DOWN

the laws are very effective - a gun registery is easy to get around, criminals already get their weapons by stealing. You know this. Databases fail because of the people who enter the information, you know this too with how people slip through the cracks and how there is never a failed applicant prosecuted. Safe storage laws we've already discussed - don't make the victim of a crime (robbery etc) the criminal. Felons already cannot own guns, you already know this too. 

what you want is massive restrictions on gun owners who literally pose no threat to you

isn't that true ?

 

[Stealthycat]

I think legalizing drugs would go further in reducing gang violence.

surely you don't believe that 

 

[-fish-]

in other words - guns used for things that don't involve killing anything shooting sports, millions enjoy it

just another wrong thing anti-gun zealots say and then try to crab on later when they're called on 

you say those things but if I want to shoot an AR15 with a 30 round .... you're not going to want me to have that are you ?

https://foac-pac.org/Defense-Stories

2074 Total Defense Stories

look, anecdotes!

nobody has proposed a ban on shooting sports or hunting.   we're 277 pages into this thread, but you keep creating straw men that nobody has ever suggested.

yes, if given the opportunity, I would prevent you from even owning a 30 round magazine.   name one shooting sport that requires it.   you certainly don't need 30 rounds to hunt.

drinking beer and firing off a bunch of rounds at some tannerite is not a shooting sport.   the fact that you like to do it doesn't mean it has any value.