What do Mustachians think about Gun Control?

[Lski'stash]

No, I am not proposing forcing private companies to do anything. Starbucks has a policy of banning open carry, not licensed concealed carry. Places that ban concealed carry, like Whole Foods, don't get my business. But public places like schools & post offices should either allow licensed concealed carry or provide full scanner security.

The later please. I will move out of the country or quit teaching if people in schools can have guns. Here's why: I'm not worried about the person actually carrying the concealed weapon, I am worried about the many unstable kids who are completely misinformed or mentally ill or congitively or emotionally impaired possibly lifting one of those guns from the person. I teach in a school that houses an emotionally impaired program...I do NOT want guns to enter that equation in any way. It is for everyone's safety- especially the kids.

[justajane]

In general, I think vehement gun ownership relies on a level of hubris. Many, many of the individuals who end up shooting their families, friends, strangers and/or killing themselves thought they were the law abiding, non-violent citizens. It turns out that they were......until they weren't.

I guess I just know the depths of sadness, anger, and other powerful emotions that can overtake myself and others. I struggle with depression. Anyone like me should never have a gun in the house. This is extremely unwise. Even if I didn't struggle with depression, how am I to know if ones of my sons won't when they are older? I know someone whose child killed themselves with a shotgun. Why was the gun in the house in the first place? I never got the whole story and wasn't going to ask, but I really, really hope the daughter obtained the gun herself and they didn't know. She had struggled with depression for years. A gun should not have been anywhere near her.

The massacres are thankfully less frequent than the tragic cases I outline above, which happen weekly, even daily, all over this country. They just don't make the big, front page headlines. And someone above also brought up how many children in this country are killed yearly by unsecured firearms. That's the biggest tragedy of all.

As far as how I deal with this personally, since clearly I can't do anything about all the people around me who have guns, is that I know that my and my family's likelihood of becoming victims of gun violence is dramatically lowered by the fact that we ourselves do not have guns, our extended family does not have guns, and by and large our friends do not have guns. We could certainly be unlucky and be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but most gun violence either occurs in disadvantaged urban areas or in families with guns.

[regulator]

know if the concealed certification requires yearly renewals? I'm just wondering if people keep carrying even while their eyesights degrade...

I tried to shoot before, I couldn't hit a target from 5 feet away... only time I went to shoot so I wasn't "trained", just went to see what was fun about it. Decided guns aren't for me, but I don't hold it against anyone else. But I do view guns as a hobby/sport/hunting, IE not needed for "defense" walking down the street. I just can't wrap my head around that because if someone was shooting, I would do everything I could to avoid drawing their attention, meaning I would not be pulling a gun out while they are pointing a gun at me. If they aren't looking my way, I'd just make a run for safety...

I try to avoid being in a shoot out, works well since I haven't had it before. I understand people wanting it to protect themselves/family but is it realistic to shoot at someone in a crowded area? I'd feel bad if I missed and killed someone else...

But I'm more interested in controlling revolvers/pistols (small guns) over rifles. I don't care much about assault rifles, those don't cause as many death as hand guns in my opinion (not talking about mass shootings, just everyday shootings...)

Depends on the issuing body.  In my state you have to renew every 5 years.  A training course is required for the first issuance, but after that just a background check.  I suppose it is theoretically possible that declining eyesight and whatnot could be a problem, but practically speaking CC permit holders tend to be far more law abiding than the general populace and I have not ever heard of problems.

I have a permit, but rarely carry.  I got one because if I happen to be on my way to a hunting grounds I want no legal issues stemming from having a sidearm on hand, plus I usually carry in the back country and in my state you may not open carry in state parks unless you are actively hunting.  That said, I live in a state with a "make my day" law on the books and I would not hesitate to ventilate an intruder in my home (not that that is likely).

As for the rest, in the US we have a Constitutional right to bear arms.  The rest of the world does not.  That is their choice and IMO they should butt out of this issue for US citizens (not that they will).  We already have many restrictive/control laws on the books in the US.  I view what problems we have with weapons as stemming from a total lack of even an effort to deal with mental health issues (i.e. crazy people who we drug up and allow to roam the streets or simply add to the general prison population), and from a failure to enforce the laws already on the books.  Passing more laws simply harasses law-abiding gun owners, so nobody should be shocked if that results in a nasty political throw-down.

[Left]

Depends on the issuing body.  In my state you have to renew every 5 years.  A training course is required for the first issuance, but after that just a background check.  I suppose it is theoretically possible that declining eyesight and whatnot could be a problem, but practically speaking CC permit holders tend to be far more law abiding than the general populace and I have not ever heard of problems.

and they can be law abiding and blind too... you said they only need to pass a training course once, then just pass background checks afterwards. So someone could be blind/senile and still have CC and be "law abiding"... do I want them to carry one thinking they can still hit their target? I'm not sure I agree with you on a "law abiding" person knowing when to call quits based on their shooting skills/or lack of. This opinion is based on how reluctant people are to giving up their drivers license when they can't see well enough to drive, I'm not sure someone would give up their guns if they wouldn't give up their car.

I have no issues with how you carry it, I said it above, but most of my issues are in the urban areas and not out in the national parks/out in rural areas. It doesn't sound like you got the CC for the purpose of "self defense", more because it is practical for you. I just don't consider a fear of strangers as "practical" to always carry a gun for "defense".

That is their choice and IMO they should butt out of this issue for US citizens (not that they will).

you mean like how the US imposes on other countries with our military? I'm not sure you can make an argument to tell the other countries to butt out when the US is in everyone else's business...

[stripey]

As for the rest, in the US we have a Constitutional right to bear arms.  The rest of the world does not.  That is their choice and IMO they should butt out of this issue for US citizens (not that they will).

Okay, so Australian firearms policy frequently gets referred to in the US media, and firearms-related murder/manslaughter/injuries statistics are cited (and mis-used sometimes too) so why can't an Australian comment in kind?

[davisgang90]

I find it interesting that the same people who think it would be impossibly hard to deport 11 million illegal immigrants think that ridding the US of an estimated 300 million firearms is a reasonable goal.

If you want to decrease the number of mass shootings you need to do two things, ensure currently unavailable HIPPA mental health information is available during a NICS check and allow properly licensed concealed carry holders to carry in gun free zones that don't provide proper security (metal detectors and armed security).

[Pigeon]

As far as I'm concerned the stricter gun control the better, the fewer guns the better.  There is no good reason for anyone who is not in law enforcement to have anything other than a hunting rifle and even then, unless you are actually hunting for food, you don't need a rifle.

I'm all for revising the second amendment, and think the founding fathers absolutely did not intend the horror show we have now.

We absolutely need better mental health services.  Pretending that mental healthcare is the opposite of gun control is a false dichotomy.  And the same people who are offering it up as the alternative are the same people who would cut funding for it every chance they get.

[UnleashHell]

I think its funny that the people who want rid of all illegal immigrants think its easy to do and a wave of the wand will achieve it are also the ones that say that we can’t get rid of all the guns because it’ll be too difficult.
Always good to have a stick to beat Obama/muslims/islam/liberals/commies with though.
The constitution doesn’t give a right to bear arms – an amendment to it does. It can be changed. That’s a discussion that is needed.

I vote that no male under 30 be allowed any firearms unless its necessary to perform their job (IE police and army).

[Left]

I find it interesting that the same people who think it would be impossibly hard to deport 11 million illegal immigrants think that ridding the US of an estimated 300 million firearms is a reasonable goal.

realistically, we don't have to get rid of the guns themselves directly...

just restrict the ammunition would do and run concurrently a gun buy back program on handguns... once people aren't able to get gunpowder to make it themselves or buy them, the gun doesn't do much good.

Yes I realize people stockpile bullets, but I don't fear "preppers" as they tend to keep to themselves...

[alsoknownasDean]

I know the culture in the States is different, but IMO the idea of requiring a gun licence to own guns (as is the case here) seems to make perfect sense. It seems far smarter than selling them to any Tom, Dick or Harriet in Walmart, anyway.

That and the idea of needing to carry a gun everywhere to protect oneself just seems depressing.

I don't see the gun laws changing in the US, as the culture is so entrenched and the supporters of the status quo (or an even more laissez-faire approach to gun control) are so enthusiastic in their support.

[regulator]

Depends on the issuing body.  In my state you have to renew every 5 years.  A training course is required for the first issuance, but after that just a background check.  I suppose it is theoretically possible that declining eyesight and whatnot could be a problem, but practically speaking CC permit holders tend to be far more law abiding than the general populace and I have not ever heard of problems.

and they can be law abiding and blind too... you said they only need to pass a training course once, then just pass background checks afterwards. So someone could be blind/senile and still have CC and be "law abiding"... do I want them to carry one thinking they can still hit their target? I'm not sure I agree with you on a "law abiding" person knowing when to call quits based on their shooting skills/or lack of. This opinion is based on how reluctant people are to giving up their drivers license when they can't see well enough to drive, I'm not sure someone would give up their guns if they wouldn't give up their car.

I have no issues with how you carry it, I said it above, but most of my issues are in the urban areas and not out in the national parks/out in rural areas. It doesn't sound like you got the CC for the purpose of "self defense", more because it is practical for you. I just don't consider a fear of strangers as "practical" to always carry a gun for "defense".

That is their choice and IMO they should butt out of this issue for US citizens (not that they will).

you mean like how the US imposes on other countries with our military? I'm not sure you can make an argument to tell the other countries to butt out when the US is in everyone else's business...

I am not privy to the procedures of the state bureau of investigation which does the periodic background checks for CC permits, but I would be pretty surprised if they did not look up the driver's license of the permit holder (which would show if they had a license and if it was taken away because they could not see or drive).  You also have to show up at the county sheriff's office in person, so I imagine the deputy taking your application would say something if you were a blind person.  Given the absence of problems with elderly permit holders randomly spraying bullets, I suspect this is a non-issue/red herring.

On the US military incursions, I am about as close to an isolationist as you will find on these boards.  I would agree we should butt out of dozens of countries' affairs and let them carry the burdens/figure stuff out for themselves.  Since I don't trust my gubmint, I imagine they will keep doing the stupid things they do internationally.

[davisgang90]

The constitution doesn’t give a right to bear arms – an amendment to it does.

I don't think you understand how the constitution works.  The amendments are part of the constitution, that's how we change the constitution, we amend it.

If you don't like the second amendment, there's a process to change it.

[UnleashHell]

The constitution doesn’t give a right to bear arms – an amendment to it does.

I don't think you understand how the constitution works.  The amendments are part of the constitution, that's how we change the constitution, we amend it.

If you don't like the second amendment, there's a process to change it.

which is why the words that followed the bit that you quoted were important.

unless you wanted to take it out of context to show what a constitutional hero you are. Oh yeah - you did. muppet. MOD NOTE: Personal attacks are not allowed as per our forum rules.

[bacchi]

If you want to decrease the number of mass shootings you need to [...] allow properly licensed concealed carry holders to carry in gun free zones that don't provide proper security (metal detectors and armed security).

You're assuming that the bad guy is thinking logically. Gunners with a mission don't care if everyone is trained and packing. If they did, we wouldn't see mass shooting at army bases or in front of police stations. Chris Kyle was killed at a shooting range by an unhinged vet and he was a SEAL.

[davisgang90]

The constitution doesn’t give a right to bear arms – an amendment to it does.

I don't think you understand how the constitution works.  The amendments are part of the constitution, that's how we change the constitution, we amend it.

If you don't like the second amendment, there's a process to change it.

which is why the words that followed the bit that you quoted were important.

unless you wanted to take it out of context to show what a constitutional hero you are. Oh yeah - you did. muppet.

You said the bill of rights wasn't part of the constitution.  Hard to get past that bit of stupidity.

[RangerOne]

    Unfortunately discussing the removal of most guns in the US is not a discussion we are ready to have... In addition to that as one person mentioned we have around 300 million plus guns in the US. 1 for every member of the population and about 45% of the world wide distribution of guns. It will be a long hard road to disarm.
    The mindset is slowly shifting, but our media makes big money playing liberals against conservatives and they are really perpetuating a continued division on the issue that makes quick change unlikely. I don't think we will see the issue resolved in my children's lifetime...
    A lot of headstrong people in the US would actually argue that having more people with concealed carried weapons in more places would make us safer. They interpret this as freedom. Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.
    I think we need a more progressive states to continue to move forward with gun control.

[davisgang90]

If you want to decrease the number of mass shootings you need to [...] allow properly licensed concealed carry holders to carry in gun free zones that don't provide proper security (metal detectors and armed security).

You're assuming that the bad guy is thinking logically. Gunners with a mission don't care if everyone is trained and packing. If they did, we wouldn't see mass shooting at army bases or in front of police stations. Chris Kyle was killed at a shooting range by an unhinged vet and he was a SEAL.

Military bases are gun free zones for the most part. 

[UnleashHell]

The constitution doesn’t give a right to bear arms – an amendment to it does.

I don't think you understand how the constitution works.  The amendments are part of the constitution, that's how we change the constitution, we amend it.

If you don't like the second amendment, there's a process to change it.

which is why the words that followed the bit that you quoted were important.

unless you wanted to take it out of context to show what a constitutional hero you are. Oh yeah - you did. muppet.

You said the bill of rights wasn't part of the constitution.  Hard to get past that bit of stupidity.

Constitution was sent for ratification in 1787.
Amendments started in 1789.

I think you'll find that the amendments weren't part of the constitution.



beat around the bush however you like. That's the normal tactic of someone who wants to derail points raised.

[davisgang90]

Maybe if you'd said the 2nd amendment wasn't part of the original constitution.  Your implication is that amendments don't carry the same weight as the original constitution.  They most certainly do.  Just ask women who can vote, blacks who are no longer slaves etc. 

My intent was not to derail the topic, but words matter.  Carry on.

[golden1]

See, I think most of where you fall on this issue depends on your gut feeling about guns.  People who grew up around them or have family who own them tend to be gun supporters and then find and cherry pick data to support their feelings.  People who have a visceral dislike of guns do the same thing on their end.  These very strong emotions tend to overtake critical thinking on both sides, and it makes it very difficult to have any sort of constructive debate when one side starts with "Get rid of the second amendment!" and the other says "Everyone should carry a gun!".

Gun control in the US isn't a gun problem.  It's a cultural problem.  Our country has codified into it's foundational documents a distrust of any tyrannical government, and the definition of "tyrannical" is widely open to interpretation.   The gun problem is an unintended consequence of that ethic combined with a very broad interpretation of 'well armed militia".   How do you function and find solutions to complex problems when the left hand doesn't trust what the right hand is doing?  IMO Mass shootings and the high suicide rates are a sign of a sick, flawed society with people fundamentally unhappy and disconnected.   The mass shooters take it out on others and the suicidal turn it on themselves, but the instinct is the same.   

So what, let's revamp how we deal with mental health, right?  That's far less realistic than banning guns, and you all know it.  Honestly,  putting people back into institutions isn't going to do it.  Most of the mass shooters would not have been institutionalized anyway.  I think the whole mental health angle is largely a cop out and a rationalization.  "Hey, I'm not crazy.  let's just round up all the crazy people."  (Psst.  Most of the crazy people don't know they are crazy.)  We are in the infancy of mental health research right now; we don't even begin to understand many mental health illnesses, and our diagnostic tools are mostly crap.  Hell, until 50 years ago we were sticking pokers through people's eyes and causing brain damage as a treatment, and giving insulin comas to schizophrenics.   Besides, who defines "mentally ill"?  How depressed do you have to be before you can't own a gun?  Where is the diagnostic test to determine "levels" of mental illness and which types cause dangerous behavior? 

[Kris]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

[Heywood57]

Even if all firearms were removed and sales stopped, there will still be people out there
who decide that a homicidal rampage is the only solution to their perceived problem.
They will carry out their rampage by whatever means they can.

They are terrorists who have no respect for the lives of others and no respect for the rule of law.

[votu]

Yes to much stricter gun control laws, plus requirements similar to car ownership and make them very expensive e.g.: license, insurance, registration renewal, yearly fees, etc...Also throw in a yearly psychological evaluation.  Local police would be able to confiscate all guns as well as assess a fine if owner fails or misses any of the above. I especially would like laws that hold the registered owner of the guns accountable for the crimes committed with their guns.

No to banning guns.

[regulator]

Yes to much stricter gun control laws, plus requirements similar to car ownership and make them very expensive e.g.: license, insurance, registration renewal, yearly fees, etc...Also throw in a yearly psychological evaluation.  Local police would be able to confiscate all guns as well as assess a fine if owner fails or misses any of the above. I especially would like laws that hold the registered owner of the guns accountable for the crimes committed with their guns.

No to banning guns.

But of course what you would like to see happen is tantamount to a ban.  Good thing it is unconstitutional.

[Kris]

Yes to much stricter gun control laws, plus requirements similar to car ownership and make them very expensive e.g.: license, insurance, registration renewal, yearly fees, etc...Also throw in a yearly psychological evaluation.  Local police would be able to confiscate all guns as well as assess a fine if owner fails or misses any of the above. I especially would like laws that hold the registered owner of the guns accountable for the crimes committed with their guns.

No to banning guns.

But of course what you would like to see happen is tantamount to a ban.  Good thing it is unconstitutional.

Huh.  So you're telling me that there's a ban on cars in the U.S?

Geez.  Good to know. 

[regulator]

Yes to much stricter gun control laws, plus requirements similar to car ownership and make them very expensive e.g.: license, insurance, registration renewal, yearly fees, etc...Also throw in a yearly psychological evaluation.  Local police would be able to confiscate all guns as well as assess a fine if owner fails or misses any of the above. I especially would like laws that hold the registered owner of the guns accountable for the crimes committed with their guns.

No to banning guns.

But of course what you would like to see happen is tantamount to a ban.  Good thing it is unconstitutional.

Huh.  So you're telling me that there's a ban on cars in the U.S?

Geez.  Good to know.

Maybe things are different where you live, but in my state the police will not confiscate my car if I miss my annual psych exam.

[Fishindude]

I like my guns, have a bunch of them and haven't ever harmed anyone.   I hunt and target shoot with them and generally have one handy in the event I get an unwanted four legged varmint in the yard, or that outside chance of a criminal threat.   Same deal with millions of other law abiding, responsible gun owners.   Why take away the rights of millions of well behaved citizens due to the acts of a few nutcases?

Heck, the Boston Marathon bomber killed three people and injured a bunch of others with stuff you could probably obtain at WalMart.  He was finally sentenced to death this spring, and who knows how many years it will be before they actually execute him?   They knew without question he was guilty within hours of the crime, yet it will take years and millions of our tax dollars dealing with him before they actually snuff him out.  Most will have forgotten about the crime by then.

Killing innocent citizens has always been a crime, no matter what the method of choice.   Maybe we ought to get a little tougher on the real criminals and deliver the punishment for those crimes a lot more swiftly.

[Left]

I don't think you want to count things you buy at walmart... they sell guns too :) only place I can get food, dippers, guns and oil change in one place

[Proud Foot]

I don't think gun control needs to be the complete elimination of guns.  But I do think there need to be more/better checks in place for purchasing a gun.  The NY Times had an interesting article today (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?mabReward=A4&moduleDetail=recommendations-2&action=click&contentCollection=Economy&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article ) about the 14 most recent mass murders in the US.  Reading through it my  take was that 7 of them could have been prevented from purchasing the weapons used through better background checks or different restrictions - mainly related to diagnosed mental health issues.

The other thing found interesting was the weapons which were used.  The vast majority of them used pistols and not the A/R style rifles the media and politicians seem fond of calling to be banned. 

[justajane]

Same deal with millions of other law abiding, responsible gun owners.   Why take away the rights of millions of well behaved citizens due to the acts of a few nutcases?

But that was my point above - you're a law-abiding and responsible gun owner until you aren't. I know many of you on here have a low information diet and don't see all the stories about the "perfectly normal" uncle or father who up and kills his family or himself. Are you labeling those people nutcases also? If so, we have an awful lot of them in this country, or maybe, just maybe the presence of guns in one's life makes it easier in periods of anger or crisis to lash out in ways you regret or are uncharacteristic of you. People all the world over get stressed, lose their jobs, lose a loved one, etc. etc. Why does this type of extreme violence seem to happen more frequently here than elsewhere? And, if I am in error, and murder/suicides are rampant all over the world, please correct me.

I'm semi-exaggerating/joking here, but I wouldn't want to have a gun in the house if I found out that my husband was cheating on me with my best friend. And that shit happens. It's even happened in our extended family. Thankfully no guns were used, but they could have been. People were that angry.

I'll grant you that most people with guns are very unlikely to become true nutcases like those who commit the massacres on strangers in public places. But the garden variety gun violence in families and the accidental shootings happen rather frequently.

[shelivesthedream]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

YES. THIS.

How free do you feel if you believe there's a violent criminal just waiting to get you as soon as you're without a weapon? I would argue that we without guns are much more free, because freedom is a state of mind.

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

[GizmoTX]

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

Criminalizing gun owners is thankfully not allowed in our Constitution. It makes about as much sense as banning all cars to prevent drunk driving & other driver caused deaths.

[regulator]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

YES. THIS.

How free do you feel if you believe there's a violent criminal just waiting to get you as soon as you're without a weapon? I would argue that we without guns are much more free, because freedom is a state of mind.

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

All of the above is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would be met with extremely stiff opposition by a significant fraction of the electorate (especially the part that is already armed).  Practically speaking, it would also result in a massive boom in sales of firearms, ammunition and reloading components.  Hmmm, perhaps I should revisit the idea of some Ruger stock...

On another note, I know that this is hard for you to grasp, but I and millions of other Americans feel safer with a firearm available.  We do not trust the government to protect us and we know that the police have no legal duty to protect us.  Many of us are in places where police response times are upwards of 30 minutes, often measured in hours.  Many of us do not believe it is wise to allow only the government to be armed.  We also frequently have a use for our firearms for hunting or sport.  We are not giving them up.

[firewalker]

You forgot: "Until you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

[Kris]

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

No, it describes CITIES.

[Kris]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

YES. THIS.

How free do you feel if you believe there's a violent criminal just waiting to get you as soon as you're without a weapon? I would argue that we without guns are much more free, because freedom is a state of mind.

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

All of the above is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would be met with extremely stiff opposition by a significant fraction of the electorate (especially the part that is already armed).  Practically speaking, it would also result in a massive boom in sales of firearms, ammunition and reloading components.  Hmmm, perhaps I should revisit the idea of some Ruger stock...

On another note, I know that this is hard for you to grasp, but I and millions of other Americans feel safer with a firearm available.  We do not trust the government to protect us and we know that the police have no legal duty to protect us.  Many of us are in places where police response times are upwards of 30 minutes, often measured in hours.  Many of us do not believe it is wise to allow only the government to be armed.  We also frequently have a use for our firearms for hunting or sport.  We are not giving them up.

And again, I would posit that your feeling of safety has an underlying cause that is less about any real threat and more about something rooted in the collective psyche.

[Sailor Sam]

...maybe, just maybe the presence of guns in one's life makes it easier in periods of anger or crisis to lash out in ways you regret or are uncharacteristic of you.

I see what you are saying JustaJane, that there is a connection between guns and impulsivity. But I wonder if the garden variety violence you’re talking about would really diminish if handguns were banned. It seems like there is a psychological idea that guns are the go-to method of killing someone. Take guns away, and suddenly knives become the go-to for violence.

I’m not slamming your theory. Just thinking in type. I did attempt a little research, but the only link I could find was from an nutjob-y site. Linked for your enjoyment, but not something I'm endorsing as my credo.

[beltim]

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

Fact check time.  Despite rhetoric on both sides, there isn't convincing evidence either way.  See http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ for a long explanation, but here's a few blurbs that show that your statement is completely wrong:
Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Lowest 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).

For those who don't know, the first list tends to have loose firearm restrictions and vote Republican, and the second list tends to have stricter firearm restrictions, and are more likely to vote Democratic.

[Kris]

...maybe, just maybe the presence of guns in one's life makes it easier in periods of anger or crisis to lash out in ways you regret or are uncharacteristic of you.

I see what you are saying JustaJane, that there is a connection between guns and impulsivity. But I wonder if the garden variety violence you’re talking about would really diminish if handguns were banned. It seems like there is a psychological idea that guns are the go-to method of killing someone. Take guns away, and suddenly knives become the go-to for violence.

I’m not slamming your theory. Just thinking in type. I did attempt a little research, but the only link I could find was from an nutjob-y site. Linked for your enjoyment, but not something I'm endorsing as my credo.

I'm not sure if there could be any credible research, but I agree with Justajane.  We tend to believe that "mentally ill' people are a different species than we are.  But how many people in your lives are diagnosed with a mental disorder of some sort? And I think we have a tendency to believe we are a lot more rational and in control of ourselves than we actually are.  My entourage thinks of me as extremely calm and unflappable (I know this because I have been told it many times.) It has never occurred to me, in a moment of anger at a betrayal, to grab a knife to do violence to someone. But I believe that there are extreme circumstances that could occur in my life that would cause me to at least flash on the gun in my drawer.  I have even said to myself numerous times when I'm behind the wheel that if I had a gun on me when the road raging jackass puts my life in danger, I would at least momentarily contemplate drawing said gun and brandishing it. 

Emotions escalate quickly. I am sure everyone on this board, if they were honest with themselves, can think of a time in their past when they have lost their cool and done something they regret. The presence of a gun at the ready makes those situations all the more dangerous, for all concerned.  And that is not safety.

[Kris]

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

Fact check time.  Despite rhetoric on both sides, there isn't convincing evidence either way.  See http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ for a long explanation, but here's a few blurbs that show that your statement is completely wrong:
Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Lowest 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).

For those who don't know, the first list tends to have loose firearm restrictions and vote Republican, and the second list tends to have stricter firearm restrictions, and are more likely to vote Democratic.

Thank you, beltim, for doing the research that I suspected was true but was too lazy to search for.

[regulator]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

YES. THIS.

How free do you feel if you believe there's a violent criminal just waiting to get you as soon as you're without a weapon? I would argue that we without guns are much more free, because freedom is a state of mind.

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

All of the above is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would be met with extremely stiff opposition by a significant fraction of the electorate (especially the part that is already armed).  Practically speaking, it would also result in a massive boom in sales of firearms, ammunition and reloading components.  Hmmm, perhaps I should revisit the idea of some Ruger stock...

On another note, I know that this is hard for you to grasp, but I and millions of other Americans feel safer with a firearm available.  We do not trust the government to protect us and we know that the police have no legal duty to protect us.  Many of us are in places where police response times are upwards of 30 minutes, often measured in hours.  Many of us do not believe it is wise to allow only the government to be armed.  We also frequently have a use for our firearms for hunting or sport.  We are not giving them up.

And again, I would posit that your feeling of safety has an underlying cause that is less about any real threat and more about something rooted in the collective psyche.

And I would suggest your hoplophobia stems from some kind of underlying cause that I would rather not know about.  See where that gets us?

[Kris]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

YES. THIS.

How free do you feel if you believe there's a violent criminal just waiting to get you as soon as you're without a weapon? I would argue that we without guns are much more free, because freedom is a state of mind.

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

All of the above is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would be met with extremely stiff opposition by a significant fraction of the electorate (especially the part that is already armed).  Practically speaking, it would also result in a massive boom in sales of firearms, ammunition and reloading components.  Hmmm, perhaps I should revisit the idea of some Ruger stock...

On another note, I know that this is hard for you to grasp, but I and millions of other Americans feel safer with a firearm available.  We do not trust the government to protect us and we know that the police have no legal duty to protect us.  Many of us are in places where police response times are upwards of 30 minutes, often measured in hours.  Many of us do not believe it is wise to allow only the government to be armed.  We also frequently have a use for our firearms for hunting or sport.  We are not giving them up.

And again, I would posit that your feeling of safety has an underlying cause that is less about any real threat and more about something rooted in the collective psyche.

And I would suggest your hoplophobia stems from some kind of underlying cause that I would rather not know about.  See where that gets us?

Hey, I learned a new word today! Cheers!

And I'm not hoplophobic. I even have a gun in my house right this second.

[Cressida]

See, I think most of where you fall on this issue depends on your gut feeling about guns.  People who grew up around them or have family who own them tend to be gun supporters and then find and cherry pick data to support their feelings.  People who have a visceral dislike of guns do the same thing on their end.  These very strong emotions tend to overtake critical thinking on both sides, and it makes it very difficult to have any sort of constructive debate when one side starts with "Get rid of the second amendment!" and the other says "Everyone should carry a gun!".

I don't think this framing is correct. Gun-control supporters don't have a visceral dislike of guns; they have a very rational dislike of people dying.

[GizmoTX]

Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Your statistic has lumped in all gun deaths, including suicide. It's also not corrected for the number of residents per state. Illinois/Chicago, the gun murder capital of the US, isn't on either list.

[Kris]

See, I think most of where you fall on this issue depends on your gut feeling about guns.  People who grew up around them or have family who own them tend to be gun supporters and then find and cherry pick data to support their feelings.  People who have a visceral dislike of guns do the same thing on their end.  These very strong emotions tend to overtake critical thinking on both sides, and it makes it very difficult to have any sort of constructive debate when one side starts with "Get rid of the second amendment!" and the other says "Everyone should carry a gun!".

I don't think this framing is correct. Gun-control supporters don't have a visceral dislike of guns; they have a very rational dislike of people dying.

I agree. I grew up around guns.

[yuka]

(road rage being an obvious example)

road rage isn't even the tip of it...
people shoot at cars these days... news reports about guys waving guns at people too. They gave up flipping the middle finger these days and go straight to gun waving....

Where else besides US does anyone driving on highway see a sign asking for tips on a shooter?

Where do you see people shooting at cars or waving guns around? I must be living and traveling in sheltered parts of the country..

[regulator]

This perfectly describes Chicago, New York, California & other Democrat controlled places that have the most gun laws AND sky high murder rates.

Fact check time.  Despite rhetoric on both sides, there isn't convincing evidence either way.  See http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ for a long explanation, but here's a few blurbs that show that your statement is completely wrong:
Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Lowest 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).

For those who don't know, the first list tends to have loose firearm restrictions and vote Republican, and the second list tends to have stricter firearm restrictions, and are more likely to vote Democratic.

But there are a lot of confounding issues.  The biggest one to me is that the first list is basically a collection of the poorest states in the country and the second is the wealthiest.  Hard to believe that would not massively influence this (and every other statistic) given that income is pretty much the determinant of everything in the US.

[Sailor Sam]

...maybe, just maybe the presence of guns in one's life makes it easier in periods of anger or crisis to lash out in ways you regret or are uncharacteristic of you.

I see what you are saying JustaJane, that there is a connection between guns and impulsivity. But I wonder if the garden variety violence you’re talking about would really diminish if handguns were banned. It seems like there is a psychological idea that guns are the go-to method of killing someone. Take guns away, and suddenly knives become the go-to for violence.

I’m not slamming your theory. Just thinking in type. I did attempt a little research, but the only link I could find was from an nutjob-y site. Linked for your enjoyment, but not something I'm endorsing as my credo.

I'm not sure if there could be any credible research, but I agree with Justajane.  We tend to believe that "mentally ill' people are a different species than we are.  But how many people in your lives are diagnosed with a mental disorder of some sort? And I think we have a tendency to believe we are a lot more rational and in control of ourselves than we actually are.  My entourage thinks of me as extremely calm and unflappable (I know this because I have been told it many times.) It has never occurred to me, in a moment of anger at a betrayal, to grab a knife to do violence to someone. But I believe that there are extreme circumstances that could occur in my life that would cause me to at least flash on the gun in my drawer.  I have even said to myself numerous times when I'm behind the wheel that if I had a gun on me when the road raging jackass puts my life in danger, I would at least momentarily contemplate drawing said gun and brandishing it. 

Emotions escalate quickly. I am sure everyone on this board, if they were honest with themselves, can think of a time in their past when they have lost their cool and done something they regret. The presence of a gun at the ready makes those situations all the more dangerous, for all concerned.  And that is not safety.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I wasn't arguing against the connection between guns and impulsive violence. It obviously exists. I also wasn't using it as an argument against banning guns. Just a thought experiment to wonder if that impulsivity could end up being transferred to knives, if a culture is given enough time to shift it's collective unconscious. Maybe, maybe not. You're right that it would be hard to research.

May I ask what you DO think is safety? Personally, I urge everyone important to me attend a short course in effective self-defense movements. I see it as more effective, and longer term. Guns can be taken away, but everyone's got a groin! I see this as particularly useful to women, who generally feel unsafe(er) while moving about in the world. 

[Kris]

Top 10 States by Firearm Homicide Rate:
Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).

Your statistic has lumped in all gun deaths, including suicide. It's also not corrected for the number of residents per state. Illinois/Chicago, the gun murder capital of the US, isn't on either list.

Source?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/14/despite-recent-shootings-chicago-nowhere-near-u-s-murder-capital/

[regulator]

Living in a society filled with people carrying lethal weapons for protection is not freedom, that is a society trapped by fear.

This.

I find it kind of interesting that we are on a forum that is about realizing that spending lots of money mindlessly is not freedom, it's enslavement.  Most people in our society think that money buys happiness, but in fact, equating happiness with purchasing power is voluntarily enslaving ourselves. 

Believing that the inviolable right to bear any damn weapon we feel like is about freedom and not something else seems similarly mindless to me.

YES. THIS.

How free do you feel if you believe there's a violent criminal just waiting to get you as soon as you're without a weapon? I would argue that we without guns are much more free, because freedom is a state of mind.

Also, it really would not be that hard to get gun ownership down to a negligible level in the US.

1. Ban carrying guns in all public spaces, open or concealed. (So you can't take the gun out of your home.)
2. Ban the sale of ammunition. (Can't shoot with no bullets!)
3. Levy outrageous fines on those found with a gun.
4. Offer an incentive (financial, funded by the aforementioned outrageous fines?) for people to hand in their guns.
5. Allow shooting clubs to keep guns on their premises for use on their premises by members, and have some kind of crazy-ass licensing requirements for farmers/hunters who need a shotgun.

Sorted. And no, I'm not that bothered that this means that the only people who have guns are criminals and preppers. Preppers don't want to draw attention to themselves so will keep their guns under lock and key until SHTF and only criminals (and farmers) have guns in the UK and our gun violence is minimal. Organised crime will find a way to traffic guns but organised crime is not a threat to my personal safety because I am not even on their radar, so no way will they bust into my house will all the proverbial guns blazing.

All of the above is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would be met with extremely stiff opposition by a significant fraction of the electorate (especially the part that is already armed).  Practically speaking, it would also result in a massive boom in sales of firearms, ammunition and reloading components.  Hmmm, perhaps I should revisit the idea of some Ruger stock...

On another note, I know that this is hard for you to grasp, but I and millions of other Americans feel safer with a firearm available.  We do not trust the government to protect us and we know that the police have no legal duty to protect us.  Many of us are in places where police response times are upwards of 30 minutes, often measured in hours.  Many of us do not believe it is wise to allow only the government to be armed.  We also frequently have a use for our firearms for hunting or sport.  We are not giving them up.

And again, I would posit that your feeling of safety has an underlying cause that is less about any real threat and more about something rooted in the collective psyche.

And I would suggest your hoplophobia stems from some kind of underlying cause that I would rather not know about.  See where that gets us?

Hey, I learned a new word today! Cheers!

And I'm not hoplophobic. I even have a gun in my house right this second.

Heh, cheers!

Don't you think you should surrender that firearm to the nearest police station or Democratic party facility?