The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: whiskeystache89 on July 11, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
-
A gun thread on the Internet; what could possibly go wrong? ;)
Like with a work vehicle, guns can quickly cross from utility into wasteful spending. They can be utilized to hunt and provide entertainment and variety to your diet. They can be a few hundred dollars worth of peace of mind if you think that's the best way of protecting yourself. What I wanted to take a few minutes and laugh at is how quickly they can become a spendy pants habit.
I always chuckle at the dissonance of people protecting their homes from burglars by collecting $1000+ worth of highly movable goods that can fenced with minimal or zero paperwork. It's like being afraid of losing your jewelry and responding by replacing it with loose diamonds.
-
Anything can become a spendypants wasteful habit. Firearms are nowhere near the top of that list. Once purchased, they hold their value fairly well as last forever... unlike a truck, which depreciates like a rock.
And your comparison to loose diamonds is nonsense. A loose diamond held to bear on a burglar isn't going to stop anything. Have you ever sold a gun? Minimal paperwork is not how I'd describe the transaction.
-
I once heard the AR-15 called "Legos for grown men," because of how many accessories are available. Resale value aside, it seems pretty similar to cars. You can get a basic, solid piece of equipment that does what you need and not much else. Or you can get an Escalade. Or you can get something in between. And you can modify any of them until you're bankrupt.
-
And your comparison to loose diamonds is nonsense. A loose diamond held to bear on a burglar isn't going to stop anything. Have you ever sold a gun? Minimal paperwork is not how I'd describe the transaction.
I almost hate to reply because I hate threads that devolve into argument... and this one is likely to do that. But yes: I just sold several guns about a month ago. Required paperwork: 0. We did write up bills of sale just to keep in our files (with names/ID numbers of the buyers) in case something went wrong 20 years from now. It wasn't required, was just a CYA.
I'm not a gun nut nor am I anti-gun in any way. We have several in the household. Most of them are my wife's guns.
-
Anything can become a spendypants wasteful habit. Firearms are nowhere near the top of that list. Once purchased, they hold their value fairly well as last forever... unlike a truck, which depreciates like a rock.
And your comparison to loose diamonds is nonsense. A loose diamond held to bear on a burglar isn't going to stop anything. Have you ever sold a gun? Minimal paperwork is not how I'd describe the transaction.
The firearm itself might not loose that much value, but ammo on the other hand? Pretty much the value is shot once it leaves the barrel. Remember, that a responsible owner should be spending time at the range periodically and putting rounds through the firearm as well.
Also, just because something doesn't lose value doesn't mean it gains in value. This has been examined by The Motley Fool (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/11/23/ar-15-rifle-price-drops-is-this-gun-a-good-investm.aspx) and they found that an AR-15 is worth pretty much what you paid for it, which means it's loosing value compared to inflation and you'd be better off putting the money into something else if we are talking investment vehicles.
*insert consumable product*'s value is pretty much shot once it's consumed, though if you reload your own ammunition the spent brass has substantial value.
-
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later. No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.
That said, most gun owners actually go through a different process.
It usually involves getting a rifle to hunt with. Then a handgun for personal defense. Then a different handgun because the cost of ammo. Then another rifle because it was a good deal. Then a safe because now there's quite a lot of guns in the house. Then another handgun to fill out the slots in the safe. Then enough ammo for ten years because of a guy on the radio talking about the ammo shortage.
And then they never get sold. So it doesn't matter if they held their value or not, it was spent money.
But regardless if you spent the money on brewing equipment or guns or art or anything, as long as you do truly get some enjoyment out of it its probably fine. And do it in the most economical way you can, like paying cash on really good deals buying used.
I really like the look of certain guns, they appeal aesthetically to me, so I have picked up a few where I could find them in salvage condition. A little bit of polish and paint and you've got something pretty that, while it won't actually work, you can still hit people with it.
-
In moderation a gun hobby is fine for mustachianism; going out on occasion to shoot .22 LR isn’t expensive. I agree however that they can “quickly become a spendy pants habit.” I’m friends with 3 guys who own north of 50 guns each, but none of these people are frugal in any other part of their lives either.
Guns are tools. Just like tools for the house or car, many people own what they would occasionally use and some buy just in case or to have a collection.
-
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later. No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.
That said, most gun owners actually go through a different process.
It usually involves getting a rifle to hunt with. Then a handgun for personal defense. Then a different handgun because the cost of ammo. Then another rifle because it was a good deal. Then a safe because now there's quite a lot of guns in the house. Then another handgun to fill out the slots in the safe. Then enough ammo for ten years because of a guy on the radio talking about the ammo shortage.
And then they never get sold. So it doesn't matter if they held their value or not, it was spent money.
I'm on both sides of this. My grandfather "collected" guns, never sold any, hunted maybe once with a few, never fired most. When he passed, my uncle paid me to sell them for him. With the profit, I bought a few of the guns, and kept the ammo and the cheaper gun case. So my grandfather paid a pretty penny for his collection, but mine just required some hours of work, and except for paying for the shooting range, it's not going to cost me a penny for a long time.
-
My job supplies the gun, the ammo, the range, and encourages me to practice on the clock. Super mustachian!
I do own a handgun, which I don't practice with enough. Mostly because I can't be arsed, and not because I resent the money.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
-
Have you ever sold a gun? Minimal paperwork is not how I'd describe the transaction.
Have you ever sold a gun as a criminal, to a fellow criminal? While I am merely speculating here, not having had that experience, my sense is that "minimal paperwork" is actually an overstatement.
-
My Mossberg is one of the few things I've purchased in the last decade that is made locally. One of the downsides to purchasing weapons with the thought that you'll recoup the cost later or turn a profit is the looming threat of "assault weapons bans" being enacted in your state which makes resale a hassle. You could be stuck with those guns for a lot longer than you anticipate, and you can only shoot so many of them at the same time so why get more than you can carry? Hoarding weapons never seemed logical to me, but a lot of hobbies appear that way to outsiders.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
I know. It's the same way with brewing beer. Many, many dollars into supplies and equipment, and then it goes (litterally) down the drain. It'd be much more mustachian to stop drinking beer (who really needs beer, anyway?), cuddle up with your NW spreadsheet and bask in true frugal bliss.
Or travel. Some people spend hundreds or even THOUSANDS OF STACHE DOLLARS per year flying around the globe, burning fossil fuels and consuming local resources only to then fly back home on a couch that MOVES THROUGH THE GODDAMNED SKY. Just because 'they need a break from work' or something silly. Don't they know it'd be much more mustachian to let go of those needs, sit on their front xeriscaped lawn with a glass of beer tap water and enjoy the nature all around them?
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
Or bicycles, or travel, or pets, or children, or homebrewing...
-
I once heard the AR-15 called "Legos for grown men," because of how many accessories are available. Resale value aside, it seems pretty similar to cars. You can get a basic, solid piece of equipment that does what you need and not much else. Or you can get an Escalade. Or you can get something in between. And you can modify any of them until you're bankrupt.
Cars typically decline in value, simply due to age. Guns don't do this. If they are kept in good working condition, they are as stable as anything else you could physically buy as an investment. And I know several people who do buy guns & ammo as an off-market investment. If yo think about what ammo actually is; gunpowder, lead, brass for the casings, ecetera; it becomes pretty obvious why a well stored case of ammo keeps up with inflation. It's basically a commodities play with a predefined alternative use.
-
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later. No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail. I'd like to know how you think that this can be done, and then I'd like to see you try it.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
Or bicycles, or travel, or pets, or children, or homebrewing...
or tools, or kayaking, or hiking/camping equipment...
everybody knows that hobbies aren't allowed.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
Or bicycles, or travel, or pets, or children, or homebrewing...
or tools, or kayaking, or hiking/camping equipment...
everybody knows that hobbies aren't allowed.
The OP is new... perhaps they didn't know?
-
Cars typically decline in value, simply due to age. Guns don't do this. If they are kept in good working condition, they are as stable as anything else you could physically buy as an investment. And I know several people who do buy guns & ammo as an off-market investment. If yo think about what ammo actually is; gunpowder, lead, brass for the casings, ecetera; it becomes pretty obvious why a well stored case of ammo keeps up with inflation. It's basically a commodities play with a predefined alternative use.
Except for the fact that the vast majority of them don't appreciate in value either, as per the article I linked to already earlier in the thread. The rule of thumb with most investments is that you want something that is not still being manufactured if you want it to appreciate in the value. If you buy a firearm now for $1000 and turn around and sell it ten years from now for $1000 you actually lost money to inflation even if it subjectively was worth the same.
I know some folks who own arsenals for the manliness points, and others who have some genuinely old guns that will be worth quite a bit in another decade or two. It's when the former group talks about their "investment" in modern AR variants that I scoff. It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. After 20 years of holding onto mint condition X-Men titles from the early 1990s I realized I'd have to lug them around and keep them perfect for another 40 years before they were actually worth something more than face value. The catch is many of the titles I owned were extremely popular and millions of copies are still in circulation making them effectively worthless for the foreseeable future. If someone wants to own a bunch of firearms for their utility, or as a sport hobby, or just because they look pretty I'm not too concerned (assuming they can afford the hobby). It's when they pretend they're worth more than they are or will likely be in the near future that I think their argument falls apart.
-
Cars typically decline in value, simply due to age. Guns don't do this. If they are kept in good working condition, they are as stable as anything else you could physically buy as an investment. And I know several people who do buy guns & ammo as an off-market investment. If yo think about what ammo actually is; gunpowder, lead, brass for the casings, ecetera; it becomes pretty obvious why a well stored case of ammo keeps up with inflation. It's basically a commodities play with a predefined alternative use.
Except for the fact that the vast majority of them don't appreciate in value either, as per the article I linked to already earlier in the thread. The rule of thumb with most investments is that you want something that is not still being manufactured if you want it to appreciate in the value. If you buy a firearm now for $1000 and turn around and sell it ten years from now for $1000 you actually lost money to inflation even if it subjectively was worth the same.
I know some folks who own arsenals for the manliness points, and others who have some genuinely old guns that will be worth quite a bit in another decade or two. It's when the former group talks about their "investment" in modern AR variants that I scoff. It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. After 20 years of holding onto mint condition X-Men titles from the early 1990s I realized I'd have to lug them around and keep them perfect for another 40 years before they were actually worth something more than face value. The catch is many of the titles I owned were extremely popular and millions of copies are still in circulation making them effectively worthless for the foreseeable future. If someone wants to own a bunch of firearms for their utility, or as a sport hobby, or just because they look pretty I'm not too concerned (assuming they can afford the hobby). It's when they pretend they're worth more than they are or will likely be in the near future that I think their argument falls apart.
It's possible to get lucky with market timing (i.e. if you sold AR15's after Sandy Hook, you'd make a massive profit) - but in that case many people don't want to sell because they think they won't be able to buy them anymore.
-
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail.
Where are you from?
I'd like to know how you think that this can be done
Most states don't require anything on private party sales. And often people don't bother in the ones that do.
and then I'd like to see you try it.
Done many times over.
-
Cars typically decline in value, simply due to age. Guns don't do this. If they are kept in good working condition, they are as stable as anything else you could physically buy as an investment. And I know several people who do buy guns & ammo as an off-market investment. If yo think about what ammo actually is; gunpowder, lead, brass for the casings, ecetera; it becomes pretty obvious why a well stored case of ammo keeps up with inflation. It's basically a commodities play with a predefined alternative use.
Except for the fact that the vast majority of them don't appreciate in value either, as per the article I linked to already earlier in the thread. The rule of thumb with most investments is that you want something that is not still being manufactured if you want it to appreciate in the value. If you buy a firearm now for $1000 and turn around and sell it ten years from now for $1000 you actually lost money to inflation even if it subjectively was worth the same.
The typical gun will keep up with inflation, because it's just as valuable 10 years later. The exception to this rule is whenever there is an improvement in the manufacturing methods of very similar weapons. Granted, just keeping up with inflation doesn't make it a good investment, but it does make it comparable to the current rates for short term to mid term bonds. With all of the other advantages to owning the gun.
However, I agree that there is the collector factor here too, old guns in perfect condition; particularly those that are no longer available new, tend to do better. The same conditions apply to gold & silver coins; they all have their base value, but some have a numismatic value too. It's difficult to predict which guns will have a collectors' value in the future, but it's a fair bet that a $1000 into quality guns today will sell for about $1000 in 2016 purchasing power in the future. There aren't many hobbies for which the gear keeps it's value in the same way.
-
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail.
Where are you from?
I'd like to know how you think that this can be done
Most states don't require anything on private party sales. And often people don't bother in the ones that do.
and then I'd like to see you try it.
Done many times over.
I'm not a gun person, but you can buy them off my local facebook sales group for all cash and zero paperwork. Legally. It's only illegal if the seller has provable knowledge that the buyer is a felon. Even with FB's recent change in policy which does not allow these kind of private sale gun advertisements, my local swap shop group has a workaround: put the gun on top of some other item and claim the sale is for the non-gun item.
So yeah, Missouri checking in: zero paperwork necessary for a private sale of a weapon or ammo.
-
As with most things there is a spectrum.
Should someone decide that they have a need for a firearm (or more than one), it is easy enough to satisfy those needs for a reasonable cost.
It is also very easy for someone add additional "requirements" on to those basic needs. This is why $3,000 1911's and $60,000 trucks exist.
The point about ammunition is excellent. Shooting is a very efficient way to turn money in to noise and kinetic energy. Reloading can help to reduce the cost per round, but there is a limit to how low you can go. This, and paying for range time are the primary reasons I don't shoot as much as I used to.
-
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later. No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail. I'd like to know how you think that this can be done, and then I'd like to see you try it.
In the United States, most states allow private sale of guns without a background check or paper work. I've done it many times, and it's done thousands of times a week in this country.
-
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail.
Where are you from?
Kentucky
I'd like to know how you think that this can be done
Most states don't require anything on private party sales. And often people don't bother in the ones that do.
A gun show doesn't count as a private party sale inside the venue. You'd have to do that outside.
and then I'd like to see you try it.
Done many times over.
Inside a gun show? I've seen guys try this and get arrested.
-
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later. No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail. I'd like to know how you think that this can be done, and then I'd like to see you try it.
In the United States, most states allow private sale of guns without a background check or paper work. I've done it many times, and it's done thousands of times a week in this country.
Again, Inside of a gun show venue?
-
In the United States, most states allow private sale of guns without a background check or paper work. I've done it many times, and it's done thousands of times a week in this country.
And rightly so.
-
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail.
Where are you from?
Kentucky
I'd like to know how you think that this can be done
Most states don't require anything on private party sales. And often people don't bother in the ones that do.
A gun show doesn't count as a private party sale inside the venue. You'd have to do that outside.
and then I'd like to see you try it.
Done many times over.
Inside a gun show? I've seen guys try this and get arrested.
Yep that's the basis of the whole "gun show loophole" People here often bring guns to the show to sell to dealers or other patrons. In the later, no paperwork required.
-
Yep that's the basis of the whole "gun show loophole" People here often bring guns to the show to sell to dealers or other patrons. In the later, no paperwork required.
If that is the gun show loophole, it's not much of a loophole in Kentucky, which is a pretty damned pro-gun state. If you are inside the venue, then sales must either be to or from a licensed dealer, or facilitated by one; otherwise you have to leave the venue. Granted, that's not difficult to do either, but in my experience, patrons are more than a little wary of a guy standing near the entrance trying to sell a shotgun.
-
"Unqualified activity, of whatever kind, leads at last to bankruptcy." Goethe
-
In my state you can buy, sell or trade guns with any private individual without a paper trail, same in many other states.
Don't get why they call this a "gun show loophole" because you damn sure don't need to go to a gun show to do it. At the gun shows I attend, private sellers are generally only a small percentage of those selling, most are dealers and standard paperwork is required.
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later.
As a long time gun nut, collector, I am calling B.S. on this statement however. If it was that darned easy, we'd all be gun dealers, all gun dealers would be rich, and there would be a lot more gun stores. Fact is, it's harder now than ever to get great deals on this stuff due to the access to information available to the average buyer / seller.
Are there some deals to be had? Sure, but the above statement is a huge exaggeration. The best deals I've run across are guys in a pinch for quick money, going through a divorce, etc.
-
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later. No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.
I would be very impressed to see anything close to this happen. No paper trail means you're doing person to person sales on both ends with no dealers involved (unless you don't consider the background check a paper trail), and those actually don't happen very often at gun shows I've ever been to.
Much less do they happen where you can mark something up 1000% and sell it an hour or two later in the same location. Usually the people I've seen trying to sell their personal stuff are asking for more $ than it's worth (as is the case with sales of pretty much any personal stuff), and people buying person-person want crazy good deals.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
It's certainly possible for a hunting rifle to be mustachian. A 30-06 pretty much pays for itself after your first moose.
-
As with most things there is a spectrum.
^^ very true
I have pals with the one gun they are convinced they need 'for safety'
Others who have no interest whatsover
Others who just love to shoot! shoot shoot shoot, guns guns guns!
Others, like my dad, who loves the gun not so much for shooting itself, but because it's a very clever and precisely made machine, which he can tinker with and optimize. A side hobby of his is old military 'Mauser' rifles, of various manufacture. He has several 100+yr old Swedish Mauser rifles, iron sights, which make a 1" group at 200yds. Impressive for something he purchased for $80 at a show and spent a few hours working on.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
It's certainly possible for a hunting rifle to be mustachian. A 30-06 pretty much pays for itself after your first moose.
One of my coworkers may not be mustachian, but he's definitely economical with his gun collection. He only buys from pawn shops, and for guns that he's grown tired of he'll either sell back to a pawn shop or a private party so his overall costs for his hobby aren't terribly high. Every now and then he'll hit a home run if the shop owner doesn't realize he's holding onto something very valuable. He was also kicked out of a pawn shop once for outbidding the shop owner with a selling customer right at the register knowing he was still getting a good deal. At the end of our deployment together a few years ago we were offered a customized 1911 with our unit logo on the slide and grips. For a 1911 it was a good price, but he surmised several young soldiers would jump on it and have to pawn it later to make their shiny new car payments and he'd pick up one of theirs for half price.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
It's certainly possible for a hunting rifle to be mustachian. A 30-06 pretty much pays for itself after your first moose.
Indeed. I have two guns: a .30-06 and a 12 ga. pump. Both were presents from my parents when I was in high school. I don't use the 12 ga. much any more, but the .30-06 has paid for itself many times over in venison.
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.
I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.
-
I want a 1911, but I don't want to spend that much money on a toy.
I have enough expensive hobbies...
Also, I live in California, so it's mildly annoying to own anything here. Can't carry it either in my county (no concealed carry permits unless you bribe the sheriff, sorry, contribute to his campaign).
-
I grew up in a veritable arsenal in Michigan and learned to shoot at quite young an age. And I completely agree with the OP, as my dad is living proof of this (so much so that I wrote a whole blog post about it (https://evgeniagotfi.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/of-hoarding-and-hindrance/)).
There's no need to read the entire post (which is about reasons my dad does not have a paid off house and should). Here's the part about the guns (of course, it's not only the guns, but they -- to say nothing of the ammunition -- are a major cost):
Dad also likes guns and has an arsenal of them, though he hardly ever goes to a range to actually shoot them. He does not hunt and never has. He also buys ammunition for various guns. These, too, are some of the difference between a paid off house and not. Dad tells me each of his guns cost between $100-$900, which adds up to several thousand dollars ($5,500-$7,500 to the best of my calculations).
Each gun is at least one extra mortgage payment, some of them several.
This is because my dad's total monthly house payment is $450/month, so upwards of $7k in guns (I later learned I missed some hidden away on my last gun count through the house at Christmas, so $7k is low) is more than a year's worth of house and property tax payments.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
It's certainly possible for a hunting rifle to be mustachian. A 30-06 pretty much pays for itself after your first moose.
A 30-06 for hunting, sure. How about those who choose one of the more exotic, but useless guns. And you would have to butcher on your own. It is between 4-5 a lb here. I can buy meat for that.
-
This thread hits close to home for me. On one side I know I'm frugal and have good saving/investing habits, but I also have a bigger gun and knife collection than I need. Several are inherited from my late grandfather or gifts from my dad, but there are also a few that I've purchased or traded for over the years. I look at it this way: Its my hobby and I love it. I'm ok with having a little money tied up in it. I'm willing to work a few more months at my job before I RE.
-
I can walk ou my back door, hunt my own place without buying a license, shoot butcher and process it myself for almost no cost. Of course ..... I did have to buy the farm 😜 so can't claim its too mustachian when that gets factored in.
-
This thread hits close to home for me. On one side I know I'm frugal and have good saving/investing habits, but I also have a bigger gun and knife collection than I need. Several are inherited from my late grandfather or gifts from my dad, but there are also a few that I've purchased or traded for over the years. I look at it this way: Its my hobby and I love it. I'm ok with having a little money tied up in it. I'm willing to work a few more months at my job before I RE.
Perhaps it's time to start re-gifting those classic weapons?
-
This thread hits close to home for me. On one side I know I'm frugal and have good saving/investing habits, but I also have a bigger gun and knife collection than I need. Several are inherited from my late grandfather or gifts from my dad, but there are also a few that I've purchased or traded for over the years. I look at it this way: Its my hobby and I love it. I'm ok with having a little money tied up in it. I'm willing to work a few more months at my job before I RE.
Perhaps it's time to start re-gifting those classic weapons?
I'd take them off your hands and give them a good home so you can sleep at night. :D
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
It's certainly possible for a hunting rifle to be mustachian. A 30-06 pretty much pays for itself after your first moose.
A 30-06 for hunting, sure. How about those who choose one of the more exotic, but useless guns. And you would have to butcher on your own. It is between 4-5 a lb here. I can buy meat for that.
The only mustachian argument to be made for guns would be buying an inexpensive one and using it a lot for hunting (not trophy hunting, real hunting). Otherwise you're not using it as a tool, and probably just wasting money.
-
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.
I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.
Wouldn't you admit though, that only a "tiny minority" of hunters have access to family lands on which to hunt? I've heard/read that the biggest reason people quit hunting is a lack of access.
-
Public land hunting is still an option. I use a mix of public and private land access when I hunt. Still, you're probably right; even as smaller percentage of the population engages in the sport, it does seem to be getting more crowded in the United States, hunting wise.
-
Also, bought one of these Austrian beauties a few months ago, because I'm rich and have terrible self-control. Complete drain on the stache - I'll be back to work in no time, no doubt. :D
*not my pic - far too lazy to upload a photo of it myself. The new p225-a1; night sights, Sig SRT, G10 grips... love it.
(https://assets.shootingillustrated.com/media/1539016/sig225.jpg?preset=article)
Sadly, it was lost in a tragic boating accident soon after...
-
Anything can become a spendypants wasteful habit. Firearms are nowhere near the top of that list. Once purchased, they hold their value fairly well as last forever... unlike a truck, which depreciates like a rock.
And your comparison to loose diamonds is nonsense. A loose diamond held to bear on a burglar isn't going to stop anything. Have you ever sold a gun? Minimal paperwork is not how I'd describe the transaction.
Depends on which state you live in. In some places you can legally buy it from a random guy and then later sell it to some random guy. No paperwork.
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler? Then their value will really skyrocket.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
It's not "mustachian", but there are few other hobbies where you can go spend several hundred dollars on equipment, enjoy the equipment (while paying for consumable) and then when you get tired of it, resell the equipment for 80-90% of what you paid for it in the first place. Can't do that with golf, bicycling, travel, gardening, cooking, cars (usually), motorcycles (usually), boating (usually), etc etc etc. Go buy yourself a $300 (golf) driver and try to resell it 2-3 years later, it's worth $100 at most. I have a bike I spent ~$1200 on in 2004, I'd struggle to get $500 for it. But go buy a $300 shotgun, at resell time it's probably worth $250+ in any kind of decent condition.
-
The GTR aka Skyline story in the USA is a trip. The car enthusiast websites tell the whole story but in short some guys tried to import them before Nissan was importing them only to have the Fed seize them and crush them. These are $100K cars... Ouch! I've always thought our car import regs are stupid here. Here in the "Land of the Free" we are very limited what we can import and drive. We are told it is about air pollution when there are plenty of sources of air pollution already here. We are told it is about safety when there are millions of vehicles (motorcycles too) that would kill you faster than some random French car involved in a fender bender. ;)
On the top of guns I want a 1911 again. Carried one in the military and always qual'd expert with it. Good gun. Expensive to shoot though.
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler? Then their value will really skyrocket.
You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.
-
The GTR aka Skyline story in the USA is a trip. The car enthusiast websites tell the whole story but in short some guys tried to import them before Nissan was importing them only to have the Fed seize them and crush them. These are $100K cars... Ouch!
Sorta. They were fetching close to $100k in the US thanks to "can't get it here" syndrome. In reality, they sell like old Corvettes in other parts of the world, maybe worth $15-20k or something, but not particularly valuable ($100k). So these guys who bought them overseas never paid anything close to US market value.
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler? Then their value will really skyrocket.
You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.
You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler? Then their value will really skyrocket.
You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.
You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.
Haha, yeah. Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car? What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler? Then their value will really skyrocket.
You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.
You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.
Haha, yeah. Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car? What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.
America is a safe place for ALL. Cars kill over 700 bicyclists a year. They are the number one cause of death in children. It's time that common sense regulation be put in place to stop the senseless deaths. Could you imagine Granny Smith driving around in a vehicle with 200+ horsepower? What if she just drives off into a parade crowd?
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler? Then their value will really skyrocket.
You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.
You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.
Haha, yeah. Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car? What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.
America is a safe place for ALL. Cars kill over 700 bicyclists a year. They are the number one cause of death in children. It's time that common sense regulation be put in place to stop the senseless deaths. Could you imagine Granny Smith driving around in a vehicle with 200+ horsepower? What if she just drives off into a parade crowd?
WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!
I have some common sense proposals that over 107% of Americans agreed on in recent polls given by car manufacturers themselves.
1. Gasoline tank capacity limits. No more of this 10+ gallon craziness. No one needs more than 10 gallons on a single tank unless they're up to no good.
2. Waiting periods of 1 month for any car purchase or rental. Why would you need one so quickly unless you were going to do something horrible with it?
3. No cars for people on the TSA watch list. Due process is great and all, but come on, some of those folks are probably terrorists! It's not like they can just put you on the list for no reason.
4. No cars for anyone who's ever been seen by a psychiatrist. Them folks be crazy. Can't have crazy people driving.
5. The ability to sue the car manufacturer if you or a loved one is killed by someone in a car. The manufacturers MUST be held responsible for what their products are being used for. It's a travesty that they get total immunity from their actions.
6. Assault vehicle ban. Anything that has 4 or more of the following features, and anything with any of these features that's imported and has less than 29 American made parts is now banned. Features are: Spoiler, under lights, racing stripes, tinted windows, racing tires, manual transmission, turbocharger, removable gas cap.
7. Common sense restrictions on mufflers. These are used by people sneaking up on unsuspecting victims. Mufflers will require a $200 tax stamp, and take approximately 8-12 months to process. If anything is entered incorrectly on the myriad of forms, the process starts over. If you own a muffler, no one else may use that vehicle without you present. Forming a trust with a local attorney including all participants will allow multiple users to use the muffled vehicle. Fingerprint records are mandatory, and it must be signed off by the local treasurer of your municipality. The treasurer has full veto authority on all muffler registrations. At any point when out with your muffler you may be stopped and required to present all paperwork for your muffler.
-
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments." It's the same logic behind some comic book collections.
Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.
Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler? Then their value will really skyrocket.
You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.
You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.
Haha, yeah. Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car? What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.
America is a safe place for ALL. Cars kill over 700 bicyclists a year. They are the number one cause of death in children. It's time that common sense regulation be put in place to stop the senseless deaths. Could you imagine Granny Smith driving around in a vehicle with 200+ horsepower? What if she just drives off into a parade crowd?
WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!
I have some common sense proposals that over 107% of Americans agreed on in recent polls given by car manufacturers themselves.
1. Gasoline tank capacity limits. No more of this 10+ gallon craziness. No one needs more than 10 gallons on a single tank unless they're up to no good.
2. Waiting periods of 1 month for any car purchase or rental. Why would you need one so quickly unless you were going to do something horrible with it?
3. No cars for people on the TSA watch list. Due process is great and all, but come on, some of those folks are probably terrorists! It's not like they can just put you on the list for no reason.
4. No cars for anyone who's ever been seen by a psychiatrist. Them folks be crazy. Can't have crazy people driving.
5. The ability to sue the car manufacturer if you or a loved one is killed by someone in a car. The manufacturers MUST be held responsible for what their products are being used for. It's a travesty that they get total immunity from their actions.
6. Assault vehicle ban. Anything that has 4 or more of the following features, and anything with any of these features that's imported and has less than 29 American made parts is now banned. Features are: Spoiler, under lights, racing stripes, tinted windows, racing tires, manual transmission, turbocharger, removable gas cap.
7. Common sense restrictions on mufflers. These are used by people sneaking up on unsuspecting victims. Mufflers will require a $200 tax stamp, and take approximately 8-12 months to process. If anything is entered incorrectly on the myriad of forms, the process starts over. If you own a muffler, no one else may use that vehicle without you present. Forming a trust with a local attorney including all participants will allow multiple users to use the muffled vehicle. Fingerprint records are mandatory, and it must be signed off by the local treasurer of your municipality. The treasurer has full veto authority on all muffler registrations. At any point when out with your muffler you may be stopped and required to present all paperwork for your muffler.
While we're reforming the way we handle cars we also need to:
8. Stop required testing of a driver's skill and knowledge in order to get an initial license to drive.
9. Stop requiring liability insurance to own a car.
10. Stop required registering of vehicles by owners with the government in an electronically searchable database with required annual renewals.
11. Stop arresting people if they are observed operating a car while drinking alcohol.
12. Start boycotting car companies that build cars which mechanically or electronically prevent people from driving them without the owner's permission.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, (EDIT - more than I thought) thirty one of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license. If you want to openly carry a loaded long gun, it's legal in 41 states.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
I always thought this was weird. Many states don't require a license for open carry, but almost all require a license for conceal and carry.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
What ignorance? "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces." Am I wrong?
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
What ignorance? "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces." Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
What ignorance? "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces." Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.
Okay captain semantics.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
What ignorance? "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces." Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.
Okay captain semantics.
Glad to help you clear that up, since ignorance about guns seems to bother you.
Untrained people are able to carry unlicensed guns in public in most of the US. Letting the untrained people drive around without a license would meet with a lot of concern. The comparison is quite apt.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
What ignorance? "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces." Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.
Since we're arguing data points: What percentage of the population of the USA does that cover? If Wyoming and ND and SD all have open carry, it's still less than the population of D.C., for instance.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
What ignorance? "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces." Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.
Since we're arguing data points: What percentage of the population of the USA does that cover? If Wyoming and ND and SD all have open carry, it's still less than the population of D.C., for instance.
Precisely.
-
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing. You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads. For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground). I just can't do those things in public. I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land. I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces. I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't).
So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.
Careful with that ignorance you're showing. At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.
It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
What ignorance? "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces." Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.
Since we're arguing data points: What percentage of the population of the USA does that cover? If Wyoming and ND and SD all have open carry, it's still less than the population of D.C., for instance.
I have no idea.
But is your argument that it should be OK to drive without a license is most states, as long as the majority of people require licenses to operate a motor vehicle? If so, can you explain why?
-
I have no idea.
But is your argument that it should be OK to drive without a license is most states, as long as the majority of people require licenses to operate a motor vehicle? If so, can you explain why?
No. It would be that if you're allowed to drive without a license across the majority of country, and it does not lead to a significant increase in the crash/death rates, why would only some cities require licenses? And why would those cities or states not recognize licenses from other, similarly concerned, states or cities? Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.
-
Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.
Sounds like a good idea.
Suggesting the same for firearms will get you crucified as a rabid gun control supporter though. Ha ha, common sense country wide licensing and databases? You just earned an NRA blacklist.
-
Do we really need three of these threads?
-
Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.
Sounds like a good idea.
Suggesting the same for firearms will get you crucified as a rabid gun control supporter though. Ha ha, common sense country wide licensing and databases? You just earned an NRA blacklist.
Actually, most gun-right supporters are clamoring for federal-level ccw regulations. States like Minnesota and California and New York disagree.
-
Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.
Sounds like a good idea.
Suggesting the same for firearms will get you crucified as a rabid gun control supporter though. Ha ha, common sense country wide licensing and databases? You just earned an NRA blacklist.
Eh? Lots of states have reciprocity for CCW permits, and the NRA is all for it. The pushback is about registering guns, and/or requiring a license to OWN a gun*, not about a national standard for a CCW.
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public. I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all. Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such. But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy. Seems like a waste of resources to me.
-
Do we really need three of these threads?
I don't know. There were three different ops who started them, the discussion has largely been civil, and information on both sides has been backed up by research and stastistics. I would say we have exactly the number of threads the market can bear.
-
Now Chris, what is wrong with waiting periods? Just because one owns six guns does not mean that one is not just waiting for the 7th one before they commit a crime of passion. I mean, that's just 'common sense.'
-
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public. I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all. Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such. But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy. Seems like a waste of resources to me.
That does sound like a waste of resources. I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun. Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.
-
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public. I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all. Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such. But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy. Seems like a waste of resources to me.
That does sound like a waste of resources. I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun. Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.
Your liberal card has been revoked.
-
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public. I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all. Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such. But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy. Seems like a waste of resources to me.
That does sound like a waste of resources. I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun. Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.
I believe (not 100% sure) that there are also separate background checks for FOID versus CCW (not sure you can apply concurrently). Given the requirement to qualify with a weapon for CCW, it's probably apply for FOID (background check, wait), buy handgun, wait 7 days, take CCW class, qualify with weapon, another background check and wait for license. Probably looking at 2 months minimum.
-
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public. I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all. Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such. But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy. Seems like a waste of resources to me.
That does sound like a waste of resources. I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun. Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.
I believe (not 100% sure) that there are also separate background checks for FOID versus CCW (not sure you can apply concurrently). Given the requirement to qualify with a weapon for CCW, it's probably apply for FOID (background check, wait), buy handgun, wait 7 days, take CCW class, qualify with weapon, another background check and wait for license. Probably looking at 2 months minimum.
Again, that does seem silly and like a big waste of time.
Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.
-
Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.
Since that only applies to long guns, which account for 2% of firearm deaths in the US, per capita, per year... why would that seem silly? Criminals and the mentally ill are banned from possessing them, and legal gun owners are almost never involved in shootings in public. Are open carriers endangering large amounts of people? Statistics would say no...
-
Yep, Illinois has some pretty anti gun regs. regarding handguns and the FOID card for ammo purchase.
95% of the state is relatively rural, good people who cause no problems, yet the crummy politicians and crime in Chicago dictate politics for the whole state.
I can carry my handgun in IN, MO, KY & WI (all states that touch IL), but it's a crime to come in to IL with it.
-
Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.
Since that only applies to long guns, which account for 2% of firearm deaths in the US, per capita, per year... why would that seem silly? Criminals and the mentally ill are banned from possessing them, and legal gun owners are almost never involved in shootings in public. Are open carriers endangering large amounts of people? Statistics would say no...
You are forgetting that more than half of the states allow open carry of hand guns. My understanding is that 2/3rds of homicides are due to hand guns.
Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase firearms. There's no background check from a private seller, the private seller doesn't even need to see ID of the person he's selling to.
-
You are forgetting that more than half of the states allow open carry of hand guns. My understanding is that 2/3rds of homicides are due to hand guns.
Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase firearms. There's no background check from a private seller, the private seller doesn't even need to see ID of the person he's selling to.
All the above points may be true... but outlawing open carry would not solve any of them? So is there an issue with this?
And since it's already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to possess firearms, what additional laws would have any effect of reducing their activities, with are already highly illegal?
-
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public. I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all. Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such. But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy. Seems like a waste of resources to me.
That does sound like a waste of resources. I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun. Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.
I believe (not 100% sure) that there are also separate background checks for FOID versus CCW (not sure you can apply concurrently). Given the requirement to qualify with a weapon for CCW, it's probably apply for FOID (background check, wait), buy handgun, wait 7 days, take CCW class, qualify with weapon, another background check and wait for license. Probably looking at 2 months minimum.
Again, that does seem silly and like a big waste of time.
Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.
Actually craigslist doesn't allow gun postings on its site, I've tried before.
The loaded open carry with no license is a good point, that seems excessive. With that being said, how big of a problem are open carriers? Generally the bad guys aren't trying to broadcast their weapons.
The background check in private sales has been brought up many times. Implementation is the issue there. If you allow citizens to run background checks on each other, is abuse of the system going to outweigh the benefits from it? If it's voluntary, you've got the same problem you have now. If it's not voluntary, how do you enforce it? It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns.
It's like the last place I worked, if something in the manufacturing area went wrong, they had to do SOMETHING. It didn't matter if everyone knew it wouldn't work or there was no evidence that it would, they had to change or do something and it almost always made the job more of a pain and didn't prevent the next screw up. I can't recall a single time out of over 100 of these incidents where any training documentation or requirements were removed, only added.
The logical conclusion of the "we have to do something" mentality with regard to guns is confiscation, as nothing other than 0 guns being in the country will completely stop gun violence incidents. There are plenty of people and politicians out there who think any more than 0 people being killed by guns is too many, and it's simply not realistic or achievable, so the regulations will never stop. The same could be said about cars, but luckily for car owners, pretty much everyone uses them so they don't want to make "common sense" restrictions in the name of saving lives. We've decided collectively that driving 70mph on highways is worth some extra lost lives compared to driving 40mph. With guns, a huge portion of the population doesn't have them or ever care to, so they have no interest in keeping the regulations reasonable.
-
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns.
So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?
-
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns.
So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?
Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country). California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is. Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could.
For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now. Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want. Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other. We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures. Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored.
Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens. I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought. Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine. That's not what we ever get currently. There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work. Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive. There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies. It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people.
There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year. The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc. We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph. If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you? Probably not. Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will.
What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)? I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough. Sometimes bad things just happen."
-
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?
Isn't that a bit like asking what can the state do to trick you into believing up is down and down is up? There is no other reason for an electronic database than for the express purpose of confiscation at some point. It doesn't help in crime solving or any other reason. The main reason is that if "condition X" is reached the state can see who fails that and go confiscate. Now "condition X" could be something reasonable but then again it could not. State is fickle like that, especially if you give it all the power.
-
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns.
So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?
Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country). California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is. Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could.
For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now. Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want. Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other. We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures. Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored.
Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens. I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought. Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine. That's not what we ever get currently. There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work. Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive. There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies. It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people.
There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year. The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc. We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph. If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you? Probably not. Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will.
What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)? I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough. Sometimes bad things just happen."
What you seem to be wanting is not a change in state policies so much as a change in public perception in regards to gun violence.
I think that some of the current emotions we are seeing is a backlash against a perceived helplessness or unwillingness of government and government officials to take any actions whatsoever in the wake of gun violence. I know that gun rights supporters deride the 'doing something for the sake of doing something' approach. However, 'doing nothing because there is nothing we can do' approach doesn't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side of the debate.
-
It doesn't help in crime solving or any other reason.
[[citation needed]]
-
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?
Isn't that a bit like asking what can the state do to trick you into believing up is down and down is up? There is no other reason for an electronic database than for the express purpose of confiscation at some point. It doesn't help in crime solving or any other reason. The main reason is that if "condition X" is reached the state can see who fails that and go confiscate. Now "condition X" could be something reasonable but then again it could not. State is fickle like that, especially if you give it all the power.
The current system as I understand it is that individual stores maintain their own files of paper records with the actual quality of record maintenance being hit or miss. When stores go out of business or burn down or flooded, the records can easily get lost, damaged or destroyed. Do you really think that making that storing that information in a database such that the records can be better preserved and are easily accessible and searchable would have no benefit to law enforcement over the current setup? If that is the case, a lot of companies have been wasting a lot of money when they converted from paper files to databases and the entire field of information technology is suspect.
-
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
-
Well to start, you could have states stop making it illegal to posses firearms that were formerly legal (looking at you, CA).
But frankly, no, you'll never convince me that the government needs to know what guns I own for any reason. Frankly, "my friend" is considering the purchase of an AR-15 soon, and that friend would do it in cash at a gun show because the friend simply doesn't believe that they won't be made illegal soon, and the friend wants a minimal record of ownership to avoid trouble.
-
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.
I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home. I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.
-
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html
The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.
-
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html
The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.
This is half true.
The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed. This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people. The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time. If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets. It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife. It's easier to fight back. It's harder to kill dozens of people.
-
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns.
So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?
Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country). California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is. Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could.
For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now. Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want. Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other. We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures. Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored.
Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens. I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought. Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine. That's not what we ever get currently. There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work. Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive. There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies. It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people.
There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year. The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc. We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph. If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you? Probably not. Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will.
What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)? I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough. Sometimes bad things just happen."
What you seem to be wanting is not a change in state policies so much as a change in public perception in regards to gun violence.
I think that some of the current emotions we are seeing is a backlash against a perceived helplessness or unwillingness of government and government officials to take any actions whatsoever in the wake of gun violence. I know that gun rights supporters deride the 'doing something for the sake of doing something' approach. However, 'doing nothing because there is nothing we can do' approach doesn't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side of the debate.
You asked what it'd take to convince me they're not looking to confiscation. That's what it would take.
After the recent Orlando shooting I can't count how many people on facebook and politicians pointed to Australia as the model for gun safety. Australia had a gun registry, and confiscated guns in 1996. Their gun violence rate was already lower than the U.S. and on a steep decline before the confiscation, but when the same decline continued after the confiscation everyone said "Look how great the confiscation worked!"
I'm not saying do nothing. I'm curious why the something we have to do always relates to restrictions on gun ownership. A kid in Austin a couple years back got drunk and drove a car through the bar district and killed 2 people and injured 23. Afterward I don't recall seeing anyone talk about instituting background checks for alcohol, quantity restrictions, or mandatory breathalyzers in every car. Why weren't there politicians tearfully telling the stories of the two killed, and begging us for common sense restrictions on alcohol purchasing? A convicted felon with multiple DUIs can go into any liquor store and buy whatever he wants.
Why is it that with guns the answer is always restrictions on guns? Is it possible there's something else we can do to help with gun violence? Since the mid 90's gun violence has decreased by almost 50% in the united states without extra regulations (in fact, the assault weapon ban expired in that time frame). Why has it decreased since then? Maybe let's try to do that some more.
France has very strict regulations on guns, yet just had an attack last year with illegal firearms that killed 130 people, almost 3x this recent event in the US.
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
Unprecedented in the US because a large vocal group actively opposes it. It's very precedented in numerous other countries. Plenty of Americans I know would be fine with gun confiscation.
Which of these recent mass shootings would a registration have stopped? I can't think of one. Even if you argue it'd bring our overall gun violence rate down (which I'm not convinced of), the only time people get up in arms about registrations and gun violence is after mass shootings. Registration will not stop mass shootings, so the next mass shooting after registration takes place will have people calling for restriction, then confiscation, both of which are not possible without registration.
As I said earlier, the only thing that ever happens is more restrictions, not less. You never hear of lawmakers saying "Well, looks like our restrictions didn't work, guess it's time to get rid of them and try something else."
If there's another mass shooting at a school in Connecticut, do you think they'll rethink their weapons bans and registration requirements? Or will they simply add more restrictions?
-
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html
The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.
This is half true.
The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed. This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people. The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time. If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets. It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife. It's easier to fight back. It's harder to kill dozens of people.
I'm down for paying more for things like that, granted I'd rather they get rid of some other things we're paying for first, but that's a whole other topic.
I'm a staunch pro gun rights supporter, who also wants national healthcare and is fine with transgendered people using the same bathroom as me. Just saying.
-
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.
Sure. And what you and your ilk have a real hard time understanding is that you're never going to completely eliminate guns, given that there are 300M+ of them in the US already. If you could wave a wand tomorrow and have all guns disappear, you gun grabbers might have a point trying to ban them. But you can't. Given that there will always be bad guys with guns, it is immoral to strip the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens who want the right to defend themselves.
It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife. It's easier to fight back.
Nice theory, but there's a reason that someone within 21' of you holding a knife is considered to satisfy the "capability" leg of the deadly force triangle. Someone in that range is considered just as lethal with a knife as with a gun. You're right that it's hard to kill lots of people with a knife, but that doesn't do much for the people who are killed. I also find the "it's easier to fight back" thing laughable for someone who has accused others about their "fantasy" of defending themselves with a gun. How much hand to hand combat training have you had? Ever been instructed on how to fight someone with a knife? I have, in the military. Know what the first rule is? "You're going to get cut, know that going in."
-
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.
Sure. And what you and your ilk have a real hard time understanding is that you're never going to completely eliminate guns, given that there are 300M+ of them in the US already. If you could wave a wand tomorrow and have all guns disappear, you gun grabbers might have a point trying to ban them. But you can't.
Who are you arguing with? I don't want to eliminate all guns, and have never said that I do.
Given that there will always be bad guys with guns, it is immoral to strip the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens who want the right to defend themselves.
I don't want to eliminate the right to bear arms, but this line of reasoning is silly. Let's try out the logic:
- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses.
See how silly it is?
Yes, there are a lot of guns out there right now. Yes, bad people have easy access to guns right now. Giving up on ever making things better because bad people exist is your solution?
It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife. It's easier to fight back.
Nice theory, but there's a reason that someone within 21' of you holding a knife is considered to satisfy the "capability" leg of the deadly force triangle. Someone in that range is considered just as lethal with a knife as with a gun. You're right that it's hard to kill lots of people with a knife, but that doesn't do much for the people who are killed. I also find the "it's easier to fight back" thing laughable for someone who has accused others about their "fantasy" of defending themselves with a gun. How much hand to hand combat training have you had? Ever been instructed on how to fight someone with a knife? I have, in the military. Know what the first rule is? "You're going to get cut, know that going in."
You have a habit of calling other people ignorant when you don't agree with them.
I've had almost two decades of hand to hand combat training in various martial arts. Weapons aren't something I've focused on training in, but I've been instructed in basic knife fighting and defense at a place that did a lot of escrima and kali.
While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time. You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back. That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.
Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away? You're going to die, know that going in.
-
Fix your HTML tags if you want a response.
-
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html
The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.
This is half true.
The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed. This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people. The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time. If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets. It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife. It's easier to fight back. It's harder to kill dozens of people.
If we could fix the ridiculously broken health care system (http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd), that'd be a great start!
-
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html
The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.
This is half true.
The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed. This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people. The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time. If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets. It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife. It's easier to fight back. It's harder to kill dozens of people.
If we could fix the ridiculously broken health care system (http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd), that'd be a great start!
Can we keep it to just one Sisyphean task per thread? :P
-
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html
The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.
This is half true.
The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed. This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people. The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time. If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets. It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife. It's easier to fight back. It's harder to kill dozens of people.
If we could fix the ridiculously broken health care system (http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd), that'd be a great start!
Can we keep it to just one Sisyphean task per thread? :P
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/65654941.jpg)
-
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.
I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home. I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.
what??
Do tell how a 'defense of habitation' law enables side-gig Craigslistery.
-
I was loathe to post in this thread as I knew it would degenerate. I will just post these here for your perusal and be done with the thread:
It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control (http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-It's%20amazing%20what%20one%20has%20to%20believe%20to%20believe%20in%20gun%20control..html)
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/ (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)
-
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.
I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home. I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.
what??
Do tell how a 'defense of habitation' law enables side-gig Craigslistery.
Ha. I have a whole method planned right done to the T and it is thanks to the Castle Doctrines in our great state of Texas. I did all this way before my conversion to MMM and was thinking of detailing out my Craigslist methods because MMM has made me so much $$$...
BUT I see you are from Dallas and I may not want to make any rivals :)
-
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.
I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home. I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.
what??
Do tell how a 'defense of habitation' law enables side-gig Craigslistery.
Ha. I have a whole method planned right done to the T and it is thanks to the Castle Doctrines in our great state of Texas. I did all this way before my conversion to MMM and was thinking of detailing out my Craigslist methods because MMM has made me so much $$$...
BUT I see you are from Dallas and I may not want to make any rivals :)
You invite them to your house, decide that you're in danger, then gun them down and take their stuff? ;)
-
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example. In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-new-yorks-no-guns-list.html) based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).
I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes: if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation. That's where there's a fundamental disconnect. Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban. Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year. Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.
Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime. Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.
-
I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes: if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics
This will be a difficult thing to do given the ban on funding government research into gun violence that the NRA has rabidly fought to keep in place. Perhaps repealing this ban on good information would be a step in the right direction for everyone.
-
While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time. You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back. That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.
Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away? You're going to die, know that going in.
Seems like we should just ban/restrict crazy people? Not fool-proof, but certainly less restrictive for non-offenders than banning all pointy things and boom sticks, while still allowing crazy people to float around until they find something handy to wreck havoc with. But the USA can't even stop repeated drunk drivers from purchasing cars, a highly restricted and database recorded item, so it may be a bit too much to ask...
2.) it would seem that one only has an aproximately 30% chance of dying when being shot, in the United States. It's not easy to find stats on non-lethal firearm injuries, but the ones I have seen show that about 2.5 twice as many people are injured by firearms than killed by them (including suicide, accidental deaths, etc.) Not sure what the 'hit' rate is either, though most studies show about 50% in gunfights, the vast majority of which take place within 15 feet, or 29% closer that the 21ft (7 meters) quoted. . (This was based on police shootings, probably because they're much easier to track).
Injury statistics reference: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Not to say guns aren't incredibly dangerous, because they are, but they're not magic killing wands.
-
That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.
Sure. And what you and your ilk have a real hard time understanding is that you're never going to completely eliminate guns, given that there are 300M+ of them in the US already. If you could wave a wand tomorrow and have all guns disappear, you gun grabbers might have a point trying to ban them. But you can't.
Who are you arguing with? I don't want to eliminate all guns, and have never said that I do.
Given that there will always be bad guys with guns, it is immoral to strip the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens who want the right to defend themselves.
I don't want to eliminate the right to bear arms, but this line of reasoning is silly. Let's try out the logic:
- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses.
See how silly it is?
Nah, I think its more like this:
- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road. those individuals should punished according to the current laws.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits. those individuals should be punished according to the current laws.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses. those individuals should be punished according to the current laws.
I think the position of the left is more silly and the logic would look like this:
- Given that some person somewhere will not follow the rules of the road while driving, there should be no rules of the road all drivers should be recorded and randomly reviewed for offenses by government officials.
- Given that some person somewhere will speed, there should be no speed limits all roads should have speed bumps every 30 feet.
- Given that some person somewhere will drive without a license, there should be no driver's licenses all trips will need to be approved by a government prior to leaving your driveway.
-
While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time. You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back. That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.
Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away? You're going to die, know that going in.
Seems like we should just ban/restrict crazy people? Not fool-proof, but certainly less restrictive for non-offenders than banning all pointy things and boom sticks, while still allowing crazy people to float around until they find something handy to wreck havoc with. But the USA can't even stop repeated drunk drivers from purchasing cars, a highly restricted and database recorded item, so it may be a bit too much to ask...
This was covered by reply #98. I'm not advocating banning anything. How do you propose the implementation of a ban/restriction on crazy people, and why do you think that it's a good idea?
Not to say guns aren't incredibly dangerous, because they are, but they're not magic killing wands.
Nobody made that claim.
- Would you rather be attacked by someone with a knife, or a gun?
- Do you believe that a man with a knife is more, or less dangerous to a large group of people?
My answers to the questions above are 'knife', and 'more' respectively. Is this really such a controversial position?
-
While I'd prefer not to be attacked at all, I would rather have the crazy guy with a knife in a crowded bar over the crazy guy with a gun in a crowded bar 100% of the time. You have better odds of running away, you have better odds of fighting back. That doesn't mean it's an easy or safe scenario.
Do you know what the first rule of hand to hand fighting when your opponent has a gun and is 21 ft away? You're going to die, know that going in.
Seems like we should just ban/restrict crazy people? Not fool-proof, but certainly less restrictive for non-offenders than banning all pointy things and boom sticks, while still allowing crazy people to float around until they find something handy to wreck havoc with. But the USA can't even stop repeated drunk drivers from purchasing cars, a highly restricted and database recorded item, so it may be a bit too much to ask...
This was covered by reply #98. I'm not advocating banning anything. How do you propose the implementation of a ban/restriction on crazy people, and why do you think that it's a good idea?
Not to say guns aren't incredibly dangerous, because they are, but they're not magic killing wands.
Nobody made that claim.
- Would you rather be attacked by someone with a knife, or a gun?
- Do you believe that a man with a knife is more, or less dangerous to a large group of people?
My answers to the questions above are 'knife', and 'more' respectively. Is this really such a controversial position?
They're opinions, so while naturally debatable, hardly worth arguing over. However they don't lead to policy positions that would alter gun violence in the United States... It's my opinion that I would rather not be attacked at all; so my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
-
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
(http://i.imgur.com/9wi7GcB.png?1)
Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?
-
Why the first world only? Is there some correlation between factors other than gun laws that affect crime rates? If so, perhaps addressing those issues would be more effective and more popular?
-
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>
Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?
Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point? Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B? Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.
-
Why the first world only?
It was an attempt to compare similar countries. Countries with ongoing wars or a lack of police force would obviously have higher death rates.
Is there some correlation between factors other than gun laws that affect crime rates?
Yes. I've addressed some of them earlier in the thread.
If so, perhaps addressing those issues would be more effective and more popular?
Yes. So popular that you appear not to have read the last post I made addressing this. It was referenced a second time (since you appeared not to read it the first time) in post #115.
-
Why the first world only?
It was an attempt to compare similar countries. Countries with ongoing wars or a lack of police force would obviously have higher death rates.
Is there some correlation between factors other than gun laws that affect crime rates?
Yes. I've addressed some of them earlier in the thread.
If so, perhaps addressing those issues would be more effective and more popular?
Yes. So popular that you appear not to have read the last post I made addressing this. It was referenced a second time (since you appeared not to read it the first time) in post #115.
So you're asking if I think we should redirect funds to stop the underlying causes of violent crime? If so, I would agree with that.
-
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>
Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?
Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point? Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B? Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.
For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular. It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents. The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.
While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.
-
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example. In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-new-yorks-no-guns-list.html) based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).
I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes: if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation. That's where there's a fundamental disconnect. Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban. Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year. Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.
Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime. Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.
You are not exactly being accurate and totally honest here. It is not some random person and it does have requirements based on the education of the mental health provider.
-
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>
Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?
Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point? Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B? Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.
For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular. It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents. The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.
While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.
That's a pretty stupid analogy, given that A) we generally already HAVE licenses for firearms, B) people who kill with firearms generally would be ineligible for a license anyways (it's already illegal for them to have a gun) and C) "lack of proficiency" is what causes car accidents, and that's not really an issue we have with most firearms deaths.
-
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>
Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?
Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point? Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B? Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.
For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular. It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents. The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.
While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.
That's a pretty stupid analogy, given that A) we generally already HAVE licenses for firearms, B) people who kill with firearms generally would be ineligible for a license anyways (it's already illegal for them to have a gun) and C) "lack of proficiency" is what causes car accidents, and that's not really an issue we have with most firearms deaths.
Don't forget the fact that cars kill more people each year than guns inside of the USA, but few people are calling for more restrictive licensing for cars.
-
my position is it should be illegal to attack anyone, for any reason outside of self-defense or defense of others. I think laws along this vein would reduce violent attacks in the United States.
<snip>
Given that the US has the highest homicide rates in the first world, how do justify your belief that these (existing) laws are working?
Not to speak for MM, but isn't that the point? Law A doesn't work, so we'll enact Law B? Why do you think Law B will work given you're telling us Law A doesn't.
For example, it was illegal to kill anyone with a motor vehicle in the late 1800s as the automobile was becoming more popular. It didn't prevent a rash of crashes and accidents. The government introduced driver's licensing and testing to deal with the situation.
While I certainly wouldn't argue that driving is perfect these days, it's difficult to make the case that things would be safer without driver's licenses.
That's a pretty stupid analogy, given that A) we generally already HAVE licenses for firearms, B) people who kill with firearms generally would be ineligible for a license anyways (it's already illegal for them to have a gun) and C) "lack of proficiency" is what causes car accidents, and that's not really an issue we have with most firearms deaths.
Don't forget the fact that cars kill more people each year than guns inside of the USA, but few people are calling for more restrictive licensing for cars.
I'd like better driver's training to be mandatory, more frequent testing as drivers age, and an increase in police crackdowns on distracted driving. Cars killed 35,543 people in 2014 in the US. That's a sizable number, and should be a concern. Guns killed 32,351 in 2014. That's a sizable number, and should also be a concern.
To address Chris's points:
A) No license is necessary to carry a firearm in public in most states (remember, we already discussed this?)
B) Can you cite your sources for this?
My understanding is that about 2/3rds of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and they are not more likely to be committed by a criminal. Again, better mental health programs would likely go a long way to reducing this number.
Introducing measures like a background check for private sales would help keep criminals from getting weapons so easily. Currently you can buy a gun privately without showing ID, or proving that you're allowed to get a gun.
C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental. It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?
-
My understanding is that about 2/3rds of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and they are not more likely to be committed by a criminal. Again, better mental health programs would likely go a long way to reducing this number.
Introducing measures like a background check for private sales would help keep criminals from getting weapons so easily. Currently you can buy a gun privately without showing ID, or proving that you're allowed to get a gun.
C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental. It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?
Sounds good to me. Let's open up the background check system to civilians so that if I wish to sell a gun to Chris, I can call into the system, run his information, and get a yes/no. This would remove the biggest hassle of background checks (having to have, and pay, a dealer to do it) and still allow easy, simple transactions.
Restricting firearm ownership from people with documented mental health issues would be wise as well. It's already illegal, but perhaps raising the bar one notch would be better - require mental health/public officials to report people with self-harm behavior such as cutting, substance abuse, etc. so that their ability to purchase firearms would be removed.
C) - Every firearm I've ever purchased comes with either an internal system or an external lock that allows it to be secured and rendered incapable of being fired by the owner. Furthermore the NRA offers free gun locks for older firearms. So the ability to reduce accidents already exists; perhaps a public service campaign ala tobbacco or texting and driving would be effective in reducing accidents.
ETA - if the above proposals were paired with the removal of magazine capacity limits, removal of 'assault' weapon bans and the removal of the repeal of most of the NFA, I would think there'd be broad support from most of the country.
-
To address Chris's points:
A) No license is necessary to carry a firearm in public in most states (remember, we already discussed this?)
But you still must be able to legally possess a gun, which rules out convicted felons, people with domestic violence arrests/convictions, minors, etc.
B) Can you cite your sources for this?
"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 21"
Link to source: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#return-note-93-21
Cited source: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental. It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?
Cure versus disease. There are plenty of highly publicized examples of people who are highly trained by anyone's definition injuring themselves with a firearm (see that ATF guy who capped himself in the leg in front of a classroom full of students a few years go). You can't prevent stupid. And frankly, as I've discussed before, I'm very wary of "training requirements" used as a method to prevent people from exercising their 2A rights. Kind of the same way we can't have a test for voters, for much the same reason.
-
My understanding is that about 2/3rds of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and they are not more likely to be committed by a criminal. Again, better mental health programs would likely go a long way to reducing this number.
Introducing measures like a background check for private sales would help keep criminals from getting weapons so easily. Currently you can buy a gun privately without showing ID, or proving that you're allowed to get a gun.
C) About 4% of firearms deaths in the US are classified as accidental. It's not the lion's share, but why not tackle the easier problems along with the more difficult ones?
Sounds good to me. Let's open up the background check system to civilians so that if I wish to sell a gun to Chris, I can call into the system, run his information, and get a yes/no. This would remove the biggest hassle of background checks (having to have, and pay, a dealer to do it) and still allow easy, simple transactions.
This would definitely be nice to have. The problem is making it mandatory, there's no way to enforce it without registration, which is a very large step. I'd certainly like the ability to use it though.
Restricting firearm ownership from people with documented mental health issues would be wise as well. It's already illegal, but perhaps raising the bar one notch would be better - require mental health/public officials to report people with self-harm behavior such as cutting, substance abuse, etc. so that their ability to purchase firearms would be removed.
As long as it goes to a court and due process is followed, I'm down with that. What I'd be concerned with is people purposefully not reporting symptoms they otherwise might because they don't want to lose their gun access.
C) - Every firearm I've ever purchased comes with either an internal system or an external lock that allows it to be secured and rendered incapable of being fired by the owner. Furthermore the NRA offers free gun locks for older firearms. So the ability to reduce accidents already exists; perhaps a public service campaign ala tobbacco or texting and driving would be effective in reducing accidents.
A PSA campaign seems like a good idea. I'm not too sure most people are all that worried about accidents though.
ETA - if the above proposals were paired with the removal of magazine capacity limits, removal of 'assault' weapon bans and the removal of the repeal of most of the NFA, I would think there'd be broad support from most of the country.
There's the tricky part. Repealing restrictions.
As I've said earlier in the thread I'm down to try some new things, but that doesn't mean stuff that doesn't work gets to stick around. Give a little, get a little.
Just look at the current state of marijuana legality. It's taken decades of campaigning and rock solid data to where the point almost can't be argued anymore, yet it's STILL classified the same as heroin. Even restrictions everyone knows are ridiculous on things that never kill anyone are hard to break, much less ones with a bit of controversy that can be used to kill people. Let the thread derail commence.
-
"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 21"
Link to source: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#return-note-93-21
Cited source: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
That sounded funny to me, so I checked. The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.
There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)).s
In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns. (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls)).
That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths. Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.
As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)). How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?
This is one of those cases where not blindly going along with an advocacy website and actually checking the numbers seems to have come in handy. Although the cited source was the 1994 FBI UCS (which is real), there wasn't actually anything on the FBI website that supports the claim they were making.
-
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example. In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-new-yorks-no-guns-list.html) based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).
I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes: if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation. That's where there's a fundamental disconnect. Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban. Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year. Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.
Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime. Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.
You are exactly being accurate and totally honest here. It is not some random person and it does have requirements based on the education of the mental health provider.
I never said it was "some random person." Perhaps I could have elaborated, but the point stands: a single person's opinion can result in an individual losing their right to own a firearm without due process. Like the guy who got on the list because he sought treatment for insomnia (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/02/veteran-and-former-cop-sues-after-guns-confiscated-because-he-sought-treatment-for-insomnia/).
-
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." New York's SAFE Act is a great example. In NY state, a person can now be stripped of their right to own firearms (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-new-yorks-no-guns-list.html) based on a statement by a single individual, with no due process and the only recourse being through the court system (lots of time and money).
I'm going to upset a lot people with this next statement, but here goes: if liberal politicians were willing to legislate based on statistics rather than anecdotes, on facts rather than emotions, and at quantitative results rather than good intentions, then perhaps there would be room for negotiation. That's where there's a fundamental disconnect. Let's take a typical "assault weapons" ban. Statistically, these types of weapons are very rarely used in homicides--a few hundred per year. Factually, such bans largely are based on aesthetic or ergonomic properties (e.g. a bayonet lug, a forward grip, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock) rather than how deadly the gun itself is. In terms of results, the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect.
Also, it would be helpful if they showed a willingness to drop laws that either don't have the desired effect or are abused. Other posters in this thread have pointed out the hassle it is for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun in Illinois, and how little it does to actually reduce crime. Yet no liberal politicians are willing to discuss simplifying the process.
You are exactly being accurate and totally honest here. It is not some random person and it does have requirements based on the education of the mental health provider.
I never said it was "some random person." Perhaps I could have elaborated, but the point stands: a single person's opinion can result in an individual losing their right to own a firearm without due process. Like the guy who got on the list because he sought treatment for insomnia (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/02/veteran-and-former-cop-sues-after-guns-confiscated-because-he-sought-treatment-for-insomnia/).
Given that the same single person's opinion could get you placed against your will in a mental hospital (5150 is the code) which is much more of a loss of rights without any more of due process, I think the idea that the person who can decide if you are a danger to others can instead of having you imprisoned, can remove your gun makes perfect sense. Now if the person was not able to do that, your complaint would make sense. Knowing that their opinion can get you basically imprisoned, does the law make more sense?
Also, your link is a lawsuit about an error, not about the law being used properly.
-
Given that the same single person's opinion could get you placed against your will in a mental hospital (5150 is the code) which is much more of a loss of rights without any more of due process, I think the idea that the person who can decide if you are a danger to others can instead of having you imprisoned, can remove your gun makes perfect sense. Now if the person was not able to do that, your complaint would make sense. Knowing that their opinion can get you basically imprisoned, does the law make more sense?
Also, your link is a lawsuit about an error, not about the law being used properly.
I don't think a single person's opinion should be able to land someone in a mental hospital either, so no, it doesn't make any more sense to me.
The link I posted is precisely the one I intended. A single person's "error" could just as easily been done maliciously, with the same result, due to the provisions of the SAFE Act. Take away the law, and the whole story goes away.
-
What is hypocritical in the discussion is that the overwhelming majority of people injured or killed by a firearm are injured or killed by their own firearm, and they are the one who did it.
Nobody forced them to buy it, and it's honestly none of our business what people do at home.
Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence. Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit. But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation? It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't. The only reason to register is so you can confiscate. If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.
There's a west wing quote: "You're approach to gun control has nothing to do with how you don't like guns; you don't like the people who like guns."
Hold gun owners legally responsible for what happens when their weapons are discharged, that is a reasonable change I would support that might make a difference. Whether it's Joe on the street, Officer McShootypants, the LA Sheriff's Office, if one of their weapons is used to kill someone, they are responsible. Mandatory minimum: manslaughter. It would also make me buy any future guns in such a way that nobody knows I own them, regardless of whatever laws you pass making that harder to do (it will always be possible). But that's just where we're at.
-
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation? It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't. The only reason to register is so you can confiscate. If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.
Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:
- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people. Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns. This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.
- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window. Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.
- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons. Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.
-
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation? It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't. The only reason to register is so you can confiscate. If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.
Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:
- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people. Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns. This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.
- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window. Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.
- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons. Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.
FWIW you're talking about a database for concealed carry permit holders, which is vastly different than a firearm registry.
-
Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence. Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit. But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.
-
The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.
Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence. Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit. But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.
And there it is - hence why many gun owners view the "we don't want to confiscate your guns and we've never said that we do" argument with considerable skepticism.
-
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns.
So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?
Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country). California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is. Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could.
For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now. Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want. Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other. We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures. Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored.
Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens. I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought. Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine. That's not what we ever get currently. There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work. Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive. There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies. It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people.
There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year. The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc. We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph. If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you? Probably not. Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will.
What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)? I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough. Sometimes bad things just happen."
What you seem to be wanting is not a change in state policies so much as a change in public perception in regards to gun violence.
I think that some of the current emotions we are seeing is a backlash against a perceived helplessness or unwillingness of government and government officials to take any actions whatsoever in the wake of gun violence. I know that gun rights supporters deride the 'doing something for the sake of doing something' approach. However, 'doing nothing because there is nothing we can do' approach doesn't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side of the debate.
You asked what it'd take to convince me they're not looking to confiscation. That's what it would take.
After the recent Orlando shooting I can't count how many people on facebook and politicians pointed to Australia as the model for gun safety. Australia had a gun registry, and confiscated guns in 1996. Their gun violence rate was already lower than the U.S. and on a steep decline before the confiscation, but when the same decline continued after the confiscation everyone said "Look how great the confiscation worked!"
I'm not saying do nothing. I'm curious why the something we have to do always relates to restrictions on gun ownership. A kid in Austin a couple years back got drunk and drove a car through the bar district and killed 2 people and injured 23. Afterward I don't recall seeing anyone talk about instituting background checks for alcohol, quantity restrictions, or mandatory breathalyzers in every car. Why weren't there politicians tearfully telling the stories of the two killed, and begging us for common sense restrictions on alcohol purchasing? A convicted felon with multiple DUIs can go into any liquor store and buy whatever he wants.
Why is it that with guns the answer is always restrictions on guns? Is it possible there's something else we can do to help with gun violence? Since the mid 90's gun violence has decreased by almost 50% in the united states without extra regulations (in fact, the assault weapon ban expired in that time frame). Why has it decreased since then? Maybe let's try to do that some more.
France has very strict regulations on guns, yet just had an attack last year with illegal firearms that killed 130 people, almost 3x this recent event in the US.
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?
Unprecedented in the US because a large vocal group actively opposes it. It's very precedented in numerous other countries. Plenty of Americans I know would be fine with gun confiscation.
Which of these recent mass shootings would a registration have stopped? I can't think of one. Even if you argue it'd bring our overall gun violence rate down (which I'm not convinced of), the only time people get up in arms about registrations and gun violence is after mass shootings. Registration will not stop mass shootings, so the next mass shooting after registration takes place will have people calling for restriction, then confiscation, both of which are not possible without registration.
As I said earlier, the only thing that ever happens is more restrictions, not less. You never hear of lawmakers saying "Well, looks like our restrictions didn't work, guess it's time to get rid of them and try something else."
If there's another mass shooting at a school in Connecticut, do you think they'll rethink their weapons bans and registration requirements? Or will they simply add more restrictions?
I honestly think the reason you see these flare ups in public opinion after every incident is that because people are frustrated that these keep happening and that lawmakers refuse to admit there is anything that can be done in regards to how easy it is for someone to take a gun and kill lots of people. Congress even refuses to let government money be used to simply research the problem.
And whether correct or not, people blame politicians' unwillingness to act on pro-gun groups like the NRA and gun right supporters whose most vocal solutions always seem to be around buying more guns and having more people carry guns everywhere they go.
Thus we have these cycles of massive gun violence, followed by public outcry, followed by gun supporters digging in their heels and both sides increasingly becoming more antagonistic towards the other. Unless both sides are willing to come to the table and trust one another enough to look for common solutions and, I dare suggest, even compromise, I don't see public opinions changing.
-
The only reason to register is so you can confiscate.
Literally all of the other violence associated with guns, there is no law you can pass that will result in a short term reduction in violence. Long term, over say, the next 200-250 years, yes, you could cut down on it a bit. But guns last a long time, so it's going to take a minute for them to all wear out.
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.
And there it is - hence why many gun owners view the "we don't want to confiscate your guns and we've never said that we do" argument with considerable skepticism.
Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.
Personally, I would advocate something different, probably more akin to how I've heard that submachine guns were slowly eliminated over time.
The gun registry would be used to help trace guns used in crimes to those people who are supplying the guns and hold those people responsible.
-
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation? It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't. The only reason to register is so you can confiscate. If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.
Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:
- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people. Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns. This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.
- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window. Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.
- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons. Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.
FWIW you're talking about a database for concealed carry permit holders, which is vastly different than a firearm registry.
I just figured that these databases would be linked, since they're both about guns.
-
A world awash in Guns and homicidal maniacs!
Gun ownership
(http://www.mangrums.net/sites/default/files/images/gunOwnersMap.jpg)
Homicide rate
(http://www.mangrums.net/sites/default/files/images/homicidesMap.jpg)
Among developed countries, US is a huge outlier on the gun ownership rate (we so special)
(http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/OECD-and-Small-Arms-Survey.png)
Among all countries, US is even more an outlier
(http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Screen-Shot-2014-03-31-at-Monday-March-31-3.17-AM.png)
African American males have a massive gun violence problem
(http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Blogs/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/15-guns-race-different-worlds-reeves/Reeves-1215001.png?la=en)
African Americans have a massive homicide problem, whites have a massive suicide problem
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/03/inlinecharts2.jpg)
A huge number of homicides are concentrated in just 4 cities.
(https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/50-most-dangerous-cities-in-world-2015.jpg)
Despite all that, as number of guns goes up, gun homicide rate has been going down
(https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/guns31.png)
And most of us will die due to poor life habits
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/9df736b54cc47f2ad05bdd4cdd894bf0/tumblr_nywv1jZuEl1s819puo2_1280.jpg)
-
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.
.................................
Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.
Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significnatly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?
-
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation? It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't. The only reason to register is so you can confiscate. If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.
Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:
- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people. Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns. This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.
- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window. Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.
- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons. Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.
No to pile onto STV, since the issue with CCW permit holders already being information available to the police, but why in the world would there need to be a registry for something like this? The diagnosing physician would just say "If Grandpa Merl has any guns, you may wish to secure them or keep a close eye on him." Same as with a registry.... but much more efficient.
And for the first point - firearms are already registered to FFL dealers when shipped from the manufacturer. The FFL then documents who they transferred the weapon to. So there is quite the trail of paper following every firearm sold in the USA. If someone is willingly given weapons to criminals, what's to stop them from lying about it after a registry, the same way they do now?
-
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.
.................................
Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.
Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significnatly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?
Yes, and such realization is irrelevant to the question of whether it would take gun laws 200 years to have an impact on gun violence, outside of existing trends.
-
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.
.................................
Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.
Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significantly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?
Yes, and such realization is irrelevant to the question of whether it would gun laws 200 years to have an impact on gun violence, outside of existing trends.
It is. But it would be relevant to the question of whether Australian style gun laws are more effective than American style gun laws at preventing gun crime.
-
The question was asked, what would it take to convince us that a registry isn't the first step towards confiscation? It couldn't ever happen, that would be the point of the registry, there's no argument that it isn't. The only reason to register is so you can confiscate. If the people making the laws actually respected the people who own guns, it would be a different story.
Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:
- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people. Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns. This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.
- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window. Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.
- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons. Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.
No to pile onto STV, since the issue with CCW permit holders already being information available to the police, but why in the world would there need to be a registry for something like this? The diagnosing physician would just say "If Grandpa Merl has any guns, you may wish to secure them or keep a close eye on him." Same as with a registry.... but much more efficient.
And for the first point - firearms are already registered to FFL dealers when shipped from the manufacturer. The FFL then documents who they transferred the weapon to. So there is quite the trail of paper following every firearm sold in the USA. If someone is willingly given weapons to criminals, what's to stop them from lying about it after a registry, the same way they do now?
Trail of paper is right. That paper trail crosses through thousands of individual dealers and is dependent upon the quality (or lack thereof) of their document management and preservation. Following the paper trail is slow, cumbersome and possibly incomplete. There is a reason that companies and the government have replaced their drawers and drawers of paper files with ones and zeroes. While one can justifiably argue that a central database would make gun confiscation easier, one cannot reasonably argue that such a database would not provide other benefits. For instance, with an electronic registry, one could utilize data mining techniques to look for patterns consistent with folks who provide false information in order to provide guns to criminals.
-
I think you are vastly overestimating the amount of time it would take. Whether you agree with Australia's gun laws or not, the facts seem to indicate that they were able to reduce gun violence over a course of 2 decades. It can be done and it doesn't have to take 200 years.
.................................
Sorry, if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't advocating for Australia's mandatory gun buy back program. I was merely pointing out that laws CAN have a positive impact on gun violence much sooner than 200-250 years down the road.
Umm... you do realize that the United States has also significantly reduced gun crime over that same time period, don't you?
Yes, and such realization is irrelevant to the question of whether it would gun laws 200 years to have an impact on gun violence, outside of existing trends.
It is. But it would be relevant to the question of whether Australian style gun laws are more effective than American style gun laws at preventing gun crime.
Yes, it would be relevant to THAT question. I was NOT commenting about THAT question.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur)
-
I did not intend to ruffle your feathers. I am sorry if you became worked up. It is possible I misread the intention of your post. Perhaps I should have phrased my response to point out that crime rates have been dropping in many areas of the globe for 20+ years, irregardless of if countries have tightened gun laws like the UK or loosened gun laws, like the USA, and that would point to the fact that gun laws have little effect upon violence rates. But I didn't, and have thus arrived at this moment.
-
I did not intend to ruffle your feathers. I am sorry if you became worked up. It is possible I misread the intention of your post. Perhaps I should have phrased my response to point out that crime rates have been dropping in many areas of the globe for 20+ years, irregardless of if countries have tightened gun laws like the UK or loosened gun laws, like the USA, and that would point to the fact that gun laws have little effect upon violence rates. But I didn't, and have thus arrived at this moment.
No worries, the thought that this might be what you were eluding to did EVENTUALLY cross my mind. Perhaps I'm just a bit slow on the uptake :)
Yeah, determining exactly WHAT causes the change in gun violence is obviously tricky business. And even agreeing on what the relevant statistics to start with can be difficult. A lot of people seem to think the Australian laws had an impact, but obviously proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt is another matter.
-
Series of random thoughts:
A registry serves no purpose if it isn't to confiscate the guns at some point. It doesn't have to be wholesale confiscation. But if even one person who has registered is forced to surrender their property, there ya go. It will absolutely be used for this purpose. Trying to say it won't be is believing in an impossibility. But those people don't deserve guns! Whatever. Make that case. Until then, trying to set up the registry and claim it won't be for that is dishonest, and dishonesty shouldn't be part of the conversation.
But we register cars! Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and we get them confiscated if we don't follow certain rules about cars, etc etc etc.
But we register houses! Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and they get confiscated if we don't pay those taxes.
Pass the registry. Tax the shit out of it, confiscate my property. I'm not an idiot, I know what you're trying to do.
You will never convince me this isn't the plan, Because it is the plan.
Based on the charts above, the most successful way to reduce gun violence is to confiscate all the penises. Fortunately we do have a registry of those.
And yes, I definitely wasn't clear. You could pass a law to confiscate all the guns. Aside from it not being constitutional and having such broad support that it would be exactly as effective as speeding laws (everyone speeds, please post about how you don't, liar).
You pass a law outlawing gun ownership. Some people DO turn in their guns. Many don't. The ones who don't do feel some pressure to hide their guns, and they certainly stop showing them off.
And then the neighborhood kids don't even know they are there. And maybe the other folks in the house don't even know they are there.
And that's exactly how responsible law-abiding gun owners behave currently. For the most part. There are people you know right now that you know of as anti-gun that have a fucking gun in their closet.
So yes, you "could" pass a law like in Australia. A constitutional amendment clarifying the second amendment would be the real way to go about significant gun control, if you were serious. But you aren't serious, you don't want to solve the problem and you don't want to respect the activities of law abiding citizens, you just don't like gun owners and want to be smug.
Take out all the suicides. Take out all the law-enforcement related shooting (setting aside that disarming the police is a real conversation I'd like to have at some point, what would it take to get that to happen and lets do that). Take out all the shootings by criminals who were already not allowed to have guns. Look at that number of homicides compared to elsewhere. And then ask would you rather someone come at you with a gun, or a bomb? The knife argument is a red-herring. The total homicides statistic is a red-herring. At best, legislation could impact how many unlawful shootings are committed against another person by law-abiding citizens. It's not fucking many. I'll grant that it is probably nonzero.
The compromise on the second amendment is that we're arguing about what caliber of gun is OK, and how quickly it can shoot, and not arguing about my right to park an F16 in my driveway. Gun nuts would look sane in a world where there were guys driving tanks because, you know, there's nothing in the constitution that says I can't own a tank. You should go watch Elon Musk talk about the relative ease of purchasing an ICBM. Fuck your jetski, I want a Nimitz class.
And on the "nobody is trying to outlaw cars" front: what do you think the self-driving car is about? Eliminating driving to reduce car related crashes is happening. I fully expect in our lifetimes to see driving on public roads to become illegal. I can't fucking wait actually. The difference is that taking out the human element is possible with driving. You can't remove the human element from violence. We have every reason to believe that we can save 20-25 thousand lives a year by making driving illegal. If you managed to eliminate every single gun from the USA today, you would likely reduce the total number of deaths due to violence by a few hundred. You would significantly reduce the total number of suicides. But you can't eliminate the guns. You just can't. They're here. There's something like 30 guns in the US per person. You are pursuing a futile path. Start coming up with other ideas. Get out of this box.
There's a solution to gun violence, and I think it's likely going to be the bio-metrically locked firearm. Someone's going to figure that technology out, and then we'll get a real gun control law with some teeth. "House Bill 2027, the militia regulation: It shall henceforth be illegal to own or possess a firearm that is not bio-metrically locked against use." Slap some wi-fi on that sensor so it can't unlock within 200' of a school, or, you know, me.
Also, Australia didn't confiscate all the guns. They confiscated specific types.
I am not a gun owner and think it's fucking retarded to own guns, but whatever floats your boat. It's like horses or classic cars to me. They're fun as shit, I get it. It's way easier to hunt meat with a gun than a knife, I personally hunt with a wireframe cart at the fucking H-E-B. Nabbed a rotisserie cooked chicken just last week. Took me three rounds! It almost got away but the old lady didn't have a concealed license so after I tripper her I was able to wrastle it away. We all agree that people with ill intent shouldn't have guns. There's our common ground. Lets figure this the fuck out already.
-
Regarding a registry, I have a question: a lot of gun-rights on this board reference criminals getting guns illegally. If there were a registry, wouldn't that be used to track weapons used in crimes back straw-buyers and illegal gun dealers/resellers?
Illegal sale and purchase of firearms is a problem (described by gun-rights advocates, here) where a problem hasn't been proposed (in conversation on this forum). I understand worrying that a registry would be misused (for confiscation), but there are legitimate uses.
-
A registry serves no purpose if it isn't to confiscate the guns at some point. It doesn't have to be wholesale confiscation. But if even one person who has registered is forced to surrender their property, there ya go. It will absolutely be used for this purpose. Trying to say it won't be is believing in an impossibility. But those people don't deserve guns! Whatever. Make that case. Until then, trying to set up the registry and claim it won't be for that is dishonest, and dishonesty shouldn't be part of the conversation.
But we register cars! Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and we get them confiscated if we don't follow certain rules about cars, etc etc etc.
But we register houses! Yes, and we pay taxes on them, and they get confiscated if we don't pay those taxes.
Pass the registry. Tax the shit out of it, confiscate my property. I'm not an idiot, I know what you're trying to do.
You will never convince me this isn't the plan, Because it is the plan.
I guess there is some benefit in having an agreed upon understanding of what we mean when we say 'gun confiscation'.
You seem to be describing the general practice of confiscating property when said owner violates laws regarding that property. Don't pay your property taxes, you house gets seized. Get caught driving a non-registered car? The car gets impounded.
If that is the definition of confiscation that people are concerned about, they should be up in arms about electronic property records because they help the state to more efficiently confiscate your house if you don't pay your property taxes.
-
If you know your trade and keep up with the trends, you can go into a gun show with a couple hundred dollars and walk out with a couple thousand dollars a few hours later. No paper trail, no record that you were ever an owner of any of the guns.
I'm calling BS on the claim of no paper trail. I'd like to know how you think that this can be done, and then I'd like to see you try it.
In most parts of the US, there is no paper trail involved in a private gun transaction. I guess you could say it involved federal reserve notes?
-
Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons to register guns that have nothing to do with confiscation:
- If guns are registered to owners, you can hold people responsible if they sell their guns to criminals or crazy people. Currently there's little responsibility on the part of an individual selling a gun, and that's how the majority of criminals get their guns. This would make it much easier to spot and arrest those who are providing their weapons to criminals.
- If police had a database telling them that you are legally carrying a licensed concealed weapon when you're pulled over driving, they would be prepared with this information after running your plates and before walking up to your window. Less chance of surprised, misreading an action you take, and seeing a threat that isn't there.
- It would be possible to check if someone who is newly diagnosed with Alzheimer's or other mental issue has weapons. Then the family / caretaker of that person can be informed to keep an eye on them.
I can think of two problems with the bolded point above:
1) There are already plenty of laws regarding straw purchases, i.e. if you knowingly buy for someone who has lost their right to bear arms (felons). These laws are seldom enforced.
2) Such a measure would be hilariously easy to bypass. You need a serial number in order to trace a gun, criminals have an aversion to being caught, and criminals are more than willing to file the serial number off the gun (which is also illegal, but they're criminals, right?), so actually back-tracing a firearm through its chain of custody would be impossible.
Take out all the suicides. Take out all the law-enforcement related shooting (setting aside that disarming the police is a real conversation I'd like to have at some point, what would it take to get that to happen and lets do that). Take out all the shootings by criminals who were already not allowed to have guns. Look at that number of homicides compared to elsewhere. And then ask would you rather someone come at you with a gun, or a bomb? The knife argument is a red-herring. The total homicides statistic is a red-herring. At best, legislation could impact how many unlawful shootings are committed against another person by law-abiding citizens. It's not fucking many. I'll grant that it is probably nonzero.
I've actually done the research on this for you, so I can provide some numbers. These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related. Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified. More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*
* - this number includes justified homicides
Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem.
BTW, there's no accurate count, but estimates peg the number at about 350 million guns in the US and 100 million gun owners.
-
These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related. Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified. More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*
* - this number includes justified homicides
Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem.
EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.
As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.
-
EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.
As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.
It does make for really good single issue voter appeal.
-
These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related. Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified. More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*
* - this number includes justified homicides
Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem.
EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.
As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.
The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .
-
The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .
Rightfully so; over time the 2nd amendment has illegally become more and more restricted. The Anti-gun side will cite the same stats for more restrictions that they're citing now for their current 'reasonable' restrictions. After a bit of time goes by and things get worse, the same crowd will roll out the same stats with more 'reasonable' restrictions.
Do you think that we're the first generation to have this debate? Do you think that we've discussed some new idea in here that hasn't been discussed before us? The gun deaths/restrictions debate has always been more about gang violence and economics than it has been about the personal rights of legal gun owners. Yet here we are...
-
These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related. Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified. More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*
* - this number includes justified homicides
Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem.
EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.
As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.
The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .
In this thread...
-
These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related. Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified. More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*
* - this number includes justified homicides
Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem.
EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.
As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.
The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .
Right, because we know that's the eventual outcome for people who:
1. Think gun deaths are unacceptable.
2. Think restrictions on guns are the way to reduce gun deaths.
There are many people with those two characteristics. Sure, right now they want a registry, or magazine limits, or some other "reasonable" restriction. What happens when those restrictions go through and someone still manages to shoot up a kindergarten? I doubt they'll say "Well we tried, but i guess bad things just happen sometimes." They'll be calling for more restrictions and the cycle will repeat until confiscation happens.
-
Sounds good to me. Let's open up the background check system to civilians so that if I wish to sell a gun to Chris, I can call into the system, run his information, and get a yes/no. This would remove the biggest hassle of background checks (having to have, and pay, a dealer to do it) and still allow easy, simple transactions.
Restricting firearm ownership from people with documented mental health issues would be wise as well. It's already illegal, but perhaps raising the bar one notch would be better - require mental health/public officials to report people with self-harm behavior such as cutting, substance abuse, etc. so that their ability to purchase firearms would be removed.
C) - Every firearm I've ever purchased comes with either an internal system or an external lock that allows it to be secured and rendered incapable of being fired by the owner. Furthermore the NRA offers free gun locks for older firearms. So the ability to reduce accidents already exists; perhaps a public service campaign ala tobbacco or texting and driving would be effective in reducing accidents.
ETA - if the above proposals were paired with the removal of magazine capacity limits, removal of 'assault' weapon bans and the removal of the repeal of most of the NFA, I would think there'd be broad support from most of the country.
And so we wind up back here, where compromise seems to be the best solution and also the most effective.
I did forget to add "Mandatory firearm safety training in public schools" to the list along with a federal level concealed carry permitting program.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
It's not "mustachian", but there are few other hobbies where you can go spend several hundred dollars on equipment, enjoy the equipment (while paying for consumable) and then when you get tired of it, resell the equipment for 80-90% of what you paid for it in the first place. Can't do that with golf, bicycling, travel, gardening, cooking, cars (usually), motorcycles (usually), boating (usually), etc etc etc. Go buy yourself a $300 (golf) driver and try to resell it 2-3 years later, it's worth $100 at most. I have a bike I spent ~$1200 on in 2004, I'd struggle to get $500 for it. But go buy a $300 shotgun, at resell time it's probably worth $250+ in any kind of decent condition.
Spinning - spinning wheels hold value well. When I bought my DT Lendrum (new) I would have paid the same for it used, plus driven to get it. I sold a wheel I wasn't using for the same I paid for it, so had free use of it. Plus we are in a craft with lots of home-made history. Need a lazy kate? A shoe-box and some knitting needles will do just fine. Dog brushes make great flickers.
-
These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related. Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified. More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*
* - this number includes justified homicides
Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem.
EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.
As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.
The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .
Right, because we know that's the eventual outcome for people who:
1. Think gun deaths are unacceptable.
2. Think restrictions on guns are the way to reduce gun deaths.
There are many people with those two characteristics. Sure, right now they want a registry, or magazine limits, or some other "reasonable" restriction. What happens when those restrictions go through and someone still manages to shoot up a kindergarten? I doubt they'll say "Well we tried, but i guess bad things just happen sometimes." They'll be calling for more restrictions and the cycle will repeat until confiscation happens.
This is exactly correct.
Also, I have yet to see one prominent anti-gun person, organization, politicians, etc propose an ACTUAL compromise. The last big one I am aware of happened in 1986, as the Firearms Owners Protection Act. This law lifted a bunch of stupid, onerous restrictions on gun owners while simultaneously making it much harder to acquire a fully automatic machine gun (closed the registry).
Anti-gunners want to close the (non-existent, really) Gun Show Loophole? Ok, fine make P2P transfers at gun show events illegal. Draft a bill to do that, but in exchange remove SBRs from the NFA.
Want to move the legal purchase age for rifles from 18 to 21? Fine, but rescind the various import bans on firearms/ammo from China etc.
I'm not necessarily endorsing any of these ideas, but a proposal like this from Democrats would at least indicate to me that they have some interest in compromising and working with gun owners, rather than just dictating to us from their supposed moral high ground.
-
These are from the FBI crime statistics, and they're approximate, but pretty representative:
1) There are about 10,000-12,000 homicides* per year, and about twice that many suicides, committed with guns.
2) About 75-80% of those murders are gang-related. Gang members are not law-abiding citizens, to gun laws won't affect this number.
3) That leaves about 2,000 homicides.konami code
4) Police are responsible for about 1,000 of those, and nearly all are classified as justified. More gun laws will likely not affect this number significantly.
5) That leaves about 1,000 homicides per year by non-gang civilians*
* - this number includes justified homicides
Now I do not wish to minimize the tragedy that homicide is for the people involved, but in the big scheme of things it's really a statistically tiny problem.
EXACTLY. It is in reality a teeny tiny itsy bitsy problem.
As for an all-out gun ban in the States, no way it will ever fly. The cat is out of the bag. It's too deep in our culture. It's politically and practically impossible.
The only people in this thread who have brought up the idea of an all out gun ban in the States are on the pro gun side. . .
Right, because we know that's the eventual outcome for people who:
1. Think gun deaths are unacceptable.
2. Think restrictions on guns are the way to reduce gun deaths.
There are many people with those two characteristics. Sure, right now they want a registry, or magazine limits, or some other "reasonable" restriction. What happens when those restrictions go through and someone still manages to shoot up a kindergarten? I doubt they'll say "Well we tried, but i guess bad things just happen sometimes." They'll be calling for more restrictions and the cycle will repeat until confiscation happens.
This is exactly correct.
Also, I have yet to see one prominent anti-gun person, organization, politicians, etc propose an ACTUAL compromise. The last big one I am aware of happened in 1986, as the Firearms Owners Protection Act. This law lifted a bunch of stupid, onerous restrictions on gun owners while simultaneously making it much harder to acquire a fully automatic machine gun (closed the registry).
Anti-gunners want to close the (non-existent, really) Gun Show Loophole? Ok, fine make P2P transfers at gun show events illegal. Draft a bill to do that, but in exchange remove SBRs from the NFA.
Want to move the legal purchase age for rifles from 18 to 21? Fine, but rescind the various import bans on firearms/ammo from China etc.
I'm not necessarily endorsing any of these ideas, but a proposal like this from Democrats would at least indicate to me that they have some interest in compromising and working with gun owners, rather than just dictating to us from their supposed moral high ground.
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.
-
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.
Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons? I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress. Common sense gun laws do exist! :D
-
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.
Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons? I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress. Common sense gun laws do exist! :D
I would be surprised if any NFA weapons have been used in a crime lately.
A main problem on this topic is that anti-gunners don't know enough about guns and gun laws to formulate anything reasonable.
-
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.
Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons? I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress. Common sense gun laws do exist! :D
I would be surprised if any NFA weapons have been used in a crime lately.
A main problem on this topic is that anti-gunners don't know enough about guns and gun laws to formulate anything reasonable.
Bingo...probably a thought process like this - 'omg people can buy federally restricted easily concealable short barreled ASSAULT RIFLES without a background check simply by opening an NFA trust, CLOSE TEH LOOPHOLES' -- but very rarely are people using these guns in crimes going to bother actually opening a legal trust and filing all the necessary federal paperwork. Why would you do that for illegal use when you could just buy a short barreled upper and build your own illegal short barreled rifle without any paperwork at all?
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.
Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons? I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress. Common sense gun laws do exist! :D
Exceptionally uncommon, actually.
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.
Were NFA trusts a large source of illegal weapons? I suppose it kinda makes sense that everyone that would have access to them should be checked, and the other half of the compromise is a step forward, so I suppose we can call it progress. Common sense gun laws do exist! :D
Exceptionally uncommon, actually.
-
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.
I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.
Wouldn't you admit though, that only a "tiny minority" of hunters have access to family lands on which to hunt? I've heard/read that the biggest reason people quit hunting is a lack of access.
I have no evidence to make that determination. Do you?
But in any case, my point had nothing to do with whether people do or do not have access to hunting lands. My point was that I simply wouldn't hunt if I could buy the same meat for a lesser price than I spend on hunting (which is basically just the cost of a license and bullets). It is not a hobby for me.
-
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.
I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.
Wouldn't you admit though, that only a "tiny minority" of hunters have access to family lands on which to hunt? I've heard/read that the biggest reason people quit hunting is a lack of access.
I have no evidence to make that determination. Do you?
But in any case, my point had nothing to do with whether people do or do not have access to hunting lands. My point was that I simply wouldn't hunt if I could buy the same meat for a lesser price than I spend on hunting (which is basically just the cost of a license and bullets). It is not a hobby for me.
No one I know who hunts just discards the meat. Yes, they may be in it for a trophy, but everyone I've ever come across (and there have been quite a few) believes you harvest everything you reasonably can from the animal, you don't just take the trophy and discard the rest.
-
But I am admittedly a member of a tiny minority of hunters who actually reap a tangible financial benefit from a firearm. I only hunt family land, or friends' land by permission. Most hunters I know pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on hunting leases. I only buy a $35 in-state tag for whitetail deer. Many of my friends have spent thousands of dollars on out-of-state permits, guides, lodging, and traveling costs to bag a bull elk or some sub-species of turkey that is slightly different from the variety that we have at home. I don't "scout" an area, I just sit in a likely spot and wait. If a deer walks into view, super. If not, oh well. Most hunters spend hundreds of dollars each year on traveling to scout for deer, feeders and salt licks to attract them, motion-sensing cameras to photograph them, etc. When I shoot a deer, I process it myself, from start to finish. Most hunters spend upwards of $4-5/lb to have it processed into ground venison, cube steak, sausage, etc.
I have basically nothing in common with most hunters. For them it's a hobby, and they only care about how the size and quantity of the bony protrusions of their deer's head. (Not that's there's anything wrong with that.) I just want meat. It's like comparing a landscaper to a farmer just because they both grow plants.
Wouldn't you admit though, that only a "tiny minority" of hunters have access to family lands on which to hunt? I've heard/read that the biggest reason people quit hunting is a lack of access.
I have no evidence to make that determination. Do you?
But in any case, my point had nothing to do with whether people do or do not have access to hunting lands. My point was that I simply wouldn't hunt if I could buy the same meat for a lesser price than I spend on hunting (which is basically just the cost of a license and bullets). It is not a hobby for me.
No one I know who hunts just discards the meat. Yes, they may be in it for a trophy, but everyone I've ever come across (and there have been quite a few) believes you harvest everything you reasonably can from the animal, you don't just take the trophy and discard the rest.
Wait, what? Who the hell said that? I have indeed known a few people who will kill a deer, cut out the backstraps, and discard the rest, but by no means do they comprise even a significant minority of the hunters that I know. I struggle to even dignify them by referring to them as "hunters".
My point was simple and non-controversial: Someone early on in this conversation simply made a point about the possibility of a rifle being an "investment" if you got enough meat from hunting. I agreed with the possibility on the grounds that I do, indeed, get more value from meat than I spend on hunting. However, I made the further observation that an overwhelming majority of hunters spend far, far more on hunting than they receive back in meat. For most, it is a hobby, not an investment. Not even close. And for the record, I am fine with that - I just think it's important to draw the distinction.
-
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license. then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat. At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.
However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up. Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied. Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?
This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it. Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.
-
Guns are like so many other hobbies. There is that initial sunk cost of buying the guns/tools but once purchased, the costs go way down unless you get stuck in the upgrade trap. That new one is better than my old one. Bob's gun is better than mine. The new fishing boat goes 2 mph faster than the old boat.
I have a home workshop shop and a few guns. My guns haven't cost me anything since purchase unless on those rare occasions I take them out and shoot them. Not been a big priority. I can likely get what I paid for them if I resold them. My tools will last a long, long time at the pace I use them. They aren't expensive tools. Most people don't wear out a decent drill press or table saw in a lifetime. i might wear out an air tool every five or six years beut then I purchased the cheap "Made in Asia" option. Under daily use it wouldn't last 6 months.
If I was using my guns regularly or got stuck in the upgrade loop then I could spend every last dollar on my "toys" (tools, guns). I've watched people do that. Watched one coworker go from hobby to hobby dropping tens of thousands of dollars on each one as the obsessions peaked.
-
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license. then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat. At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.
However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up. Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied. Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?
This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it. Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.
Depends on who you know I guess. Most of those I know have a rifle, ammunition, knife, and an orange vest - heck, for awhile I didn't even have a rifle, I borrowed my dad's. They're not really into hunting for show(is there a similar term to "glamping" for hunting?) Butcher paper isn't $25 bucks, and most already have knifes in the kitchen... although a couple do have meat grinders.
In my mind it's pretty similar to fishing. There are people that have to have the latest most expensive, flashy gear, boats etc. Meanwhile, a pole with a worm on the end get's the job done most of the time.
-
Speaking of NFA and compromise, a recent change to the NFA laws required background checks/fingerprints for all members of an NFA trust but now you are no longer required to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your NFA item - only notification is required.
This is an example of a reasonable compromise, and as far as I know not many gun advocates were all that mad about it. It's silly for there to be a loophole through which you don't get a background check for restricted items (whether they should be restricted is another topic). It's also silly for the local sheriff to have veto power for everyone in their jurisdiction's purchases.
This is different from the usual "compromises" that are proposed:
Anti: "Let's ban all 'assault weapons' for good."
Pro: "Let's not."
Anti: "Okay let's ban the ones that are imported, compromise is important."
-
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license. then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat. At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.
However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up. Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied. Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?
This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it. Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.
Depends on who you know I guess. Most of those I know have a rifle, ammunition, knife, and an orange vest - heck, for awhile I didn't even have a rifle, I borrowed my dad's. They're not really into hunting for show(is there a similar term to "glamping" for hunting?) Butcher paper isn't $25 bucks, and most already have knifes in the kitchen... although a couple do have meat grinders.
In my mind it's pretty similar to fishing. There are people that have to have the latest most expensive, flashy gear, boats etc. Meanwhile, a pole with a worm on the end get's the job done most of the time.
Most of my $$$ (and that's relative, it isn't that $$$) hunting gear outside of the rifle isn't about flash, or even about killing deer, it's about staying warm. I bought a full insulated canvas suit from Cabela's, some higher end gloves, etc etc. I hunt in Northern WI in the end of November, not uncommon to be 10* with a foot of snow on the ground. Outside of that, a non-resident deer permit costs me ~$165, and then maybe $.50 for a bullet if I take a shot. Plus another $50 for my share of the food for the weekend, and gas to get there. Figure it costs me <$300 for a weekend (only 1 weekend a year), but I hunt on private family land.
-
A world awash in Guns and homicidal maniacs!
Gun ownership
(http://www.mangrums.net/sites/default/files/images/gunOwnersMap.jpg)
As a scandinavian, I have to comment this picture. One big BIG difference between the guns spread in the USA and in Scandinavia, is that pistols and revolvers i.e. guns that can be used with one hand and that can be concealed are very VERY hard to get a license for here. Professional use aside (military, police, security), the only way to get such a gun is to be a sports shooter, competing and active in a club. The licenses are time-limited to five years, after which you have to re-apply again.
The overwhelming majority of if guns are for hunting, i.e. long guns - rifles and shotguns. Here the rules are a bit more lax, and licenses are not time limited (but will be revoked upon many crimes or upon doctors orders).
Since a DUI or similar crimes will lead to revoked licenses, most hunters and sports shooters here are very law-abiding. If you lose the right to practice your biggest hobby or main interest, life will be boring.
Keeping to the original post - even here, guns regardless of type, can be a bit non-moustachian. You tend to want the best, and then if you're a hunter you need all accessories which are not always cheap. I'm getting more and more drawn in to this world, as I've both disovered the fun of spoorts shooting and also I've started to pick up some hunting interest from hanging with "the wrong crowd".
-
May God have mercy on your soul Lemanfan, and may her noodley goodness bless your cheque book as well!
-
May God have mercy on your soul Lemanfan, and may her noodley goodness bless your cheque book as well!
Thanks, I think. It's almost 20 years since I had a cheque book, though... ;)
This far it's not an expensive hobby for me. Since I started less than six months ago I do not even have a theoretical chance of getting a license for purchasing a pistol yet... and I have quite a way to go before I shoot good enough to get the license too. And I yet haven't figured out how to get a certified gun safe (minimum weight 330 lb) into my fifth floor walkup.
Thus far i've only purchased .22LR ammo, which is not too expensive.
-
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license. then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat. At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.
However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up. Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied. Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?
This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it. Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.
Depends on who you know I guess. Most of those I know have a rifle, ammunition, knife, and an orange vest - heck, for awhile I didn't even have a rifle, I borrowed my dad's. They're not really into hunting for show(is there a similar term to "glamping" for hunting?) Butcher paper isn't $25 bucks, and most already have knifes in the kitchen... although a couple do have meat grinders.
In my mind it's pretty similar to fishing. There are people that have to have the latest most expensive, flashy gear, boats etc. Meanwhile, a pole with a worm on the end get's the job done most of the time.
Most of my $$$ (and that's relative, it isn't that $$$) hunting gear outside of the rifle isn't about flash, or even about killing deer, it's about staying warm. I bought a full insulated canvas suit from Cabela's, some higher end gloves, etc etc. I hunt in Northern WI in the end of November, not uncommon to be 10* with a foot of snow on the ground. Outside of that, a non-resident deer permit costs me ~$165, and then maybe $.50 for a bullet if I take a shot. Plus another $50 for my share of the food for the weekend, and gas to get there. Figure it costs me <$300 for a weekend (only 1 weekend a year), but I hunt on private family land.
Yeah, if you're traveling out of state to do it, it gets expensive. Same for pretty much any activity that's not local and common. Here everyone already has cold weather gear, because they're already in it. And it's generally just a carhartt jacket and pants. A local A tag is $27 and additional B tags are $7.
-
Most of my other coldweather gear is for snowmobiling/skiing/etc and not for hunting. I needed something more rugged for trudging through the woods (canvas) and that was quieter (again, canvas over nylon, etc) so I wasn't making all kinds of noise moving around in the tree. But I think the whole suit cost me like $120 and will last 10 years or more.
-
..unless you get fat... ;)
-
I'm a life long hunter, and darned few hunters can truthfully justify their hunting by saying they are saving money on meat.
In my state, even if you have a free place to hunt deer, you have to buy a $24 license. then if successful and you process it yourself, you will have at least $25 in packaging supplies for butchering to get yourself 50# of boned meat. At this rate, yes it is cheap at $1.00 per LB.
However, factor in; hunting clothing and boots, firearm, ammunition (or archery gear & arrows), fuel to and from hunting, blinds or tree stands, calls, decoys, meat processing equipment, etc. and the cost starts going up. Sure most of this stuff can be used multiple seasons, but it's still a cost that can't be denied. Also ... are you passing up opportunities to work and earn money when hunting?
This isn't a hack on hunting and living off the land a little, I'm all for it. Great sport, great fun and good healthy meat is a nice bonus.
But we have to be honest with ourselves too, most would be money ahead to work a few extra hours and buy our meat.
What should the break-even point be on fresh harvested wild game? I'd almost certainly hunt anyways, but can one compare hunted wild game to store-bought grass-fed organic hamburger? How about store-bought ground turkey- even cheaper. Or should it be compared directly to the price of store-bought venison?
I haven't bought meat from the store for so long that I'm not sure what it costs, but googling Walmart show ground beef at $4 a pound. So if packaging takes $1/lb, one could still spend $150 a year to end up at the same price as ground Walmart beef assuming 50# end weight.
-
The two of us typically eat an elk and 2-3 deer every year. That's about the only red meat we eat with exception of an occasional good steak, or bacon & sausage occasionally for breakfast. I'd hate to guess my price per pound for that wild game, as it would be astronomical. I process my own game, not necessarily to save money, but because i don't care for the way most processors handle it, I do a much better job. Hunting is an activity that is a big part of my life, the healthy lean meat is just a really nice bonus.
-
This forum is funny. We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.
For my family, for decades, hunting has been an important aspect of our lives.
We have many family heirloom guns, such as my great-great-great-great grandfather's saddle rifle, which he had before the civil war and long before my state was even a state, or may other grandfather's hunting rifle that he had since he was my age (I am very young, even by mustachian standards, where retirement is at 40 or sooner)
My great-grandfather's and their fathers before them relied on hunting to survive, and while now it is more sport and tradition than necessity, it is still very important in my family's life.
A single elk can provide lean, high quality meat all year, usually over 700 lbs of it, the bone can be used to carve or sell, a single rack can fetch over $100, and the hide can be sold for about $100.
And the money spend on putting in the lottery for a licence is used to fund the state's Game and Fish, which in turn runs conservation efforts for endangered species here, and for providing other wildlife services here, such as maintaining public lands.
So while money is spend on the hobby, it is worth it too us, because we are having fun (the thrill of the chase is something that can only be felt in very few other situations, like wing-suiting down a mountain, or driving a Ferrari over 200 mph (something you should try if your ever in Vegas, its pretty cheap for the experience that you get)), we are supporting keeping state forests and parks open, and we are getting up to $900 dollars worth of meet, for the cost of the hunt, the ammunition, and butchering, which in total comes out to about $400-500
So we get high protein meat, because elk is much leaner than domestic animals, and we have a fun time. Win/Win especially compared to some hobbies someone could have.
-
I keep my guns under a kilt in my closet... Shhhhh
-
That sounded funny to me, so I checked. The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.
There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)).s
In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns. (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls)).
That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths. Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.
As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)). How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?
It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides. If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings. if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off. We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461.
I don't own a gun or have a particular desire to, I have hobbies I am more interested in than shooting and it would be foolish to buy something that expensive if I wasn't going to use it. I did some shooting with my father and friends when I was young, and it does seem as though increasingly strict laws are passed with each tragedy which will affect law abiding owners much more so than the actual people who carried out these acts. Long before the Sandy Hook shootings in CT, I had a friend in that state who wanted to get a gun for self defense, but was unable to because that town required recommendation letters from residents of that town to get a permit. She was a bit of an introvert, and the only people she knew were in neighboring towns, so no permit for her. I also had occasion to research this at one point, and if I remember correctly you were not even allowed to drive with a gun in a locked box in your trunk in CT if you didn't have a permit. It may also be one of several places in the Northeast where even if you have a permit from where you live, you aren't allowed to drive through with a gun, that I'm not sure of though.
On the subject of holding people who sell guns to an individual responsible for the background, mental fitness or intent of that individual, if anyone recalls the 2010 New York City Times Square failed car bomb attempt, they almost immediately traced the car to the previous owner who had sold it to someone via Craigslist. Astonishingly, he had not reregistered it in his name. :) All she had was a cell phone number contact. They did not hold her responsible for the use to which the buyer put it. I'm not sure how you could in a case like that, short of a very intrusive government database on everybody which would have to include things like mental health, DUIs, and criminal history which everybody could access so they could sell a car, or a gun to a suitable candidate. That seems. . . problematic. . .
-
That sounded funny to me, so I checked. The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.
There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)).s
In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns. (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls)).
That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths. Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.
As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)). How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?
It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides. If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings. if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off. We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461.
The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:
"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."
That's not a fact at all, it's a lie. It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead. If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means). Not very consistent logic.
Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.
-
That sounded funny to me, so I checked. The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.
There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)).s
In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns. (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls)).
That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths. Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.
As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)). How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?
It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides. If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings. if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off. We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461.
The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:
"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."
That's not a fact at all, it's a lie. It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead. If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means). Not very consistent logic.
Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.
Quite frankly, I think using suicide in statistics of gun deaths is a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead (inflate the number of gun deaths).
-
That sounded funny to me, so I checked. The firearms facts website you're using is completely wrong and can't be trusted as a resource.
There were 33,636 gun deaths in 2013 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)).s
In 2013 there were 8,454 murders committed by guns. (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls)).
That amounts to about 25% of firearms deaths. Even if every murder in 2013 was committed by a criminal, that doesn't account for more than a quarter of firearms deaths . . . that's not even close to the number quoted by the website you're using.
As a matter of fact . . . of the 33,636 firearms deaths in 2013, there were 21,175 suicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)). How would criminals be responsible for 2/3rds of all the gun deaths due to guns in the US if 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides?
It seems possible that by "2/3 of gun deaths" they were referring to only the cases of one person shooting another, and excluding suicides, since suicides could be carried out without a gun and I don't think most firearms laws are expected to address suicides. If so, and of the 33,636 firearms deaths there were 21,175 suicides, that leaves 12,461 that were involuntary killings. if there were 8,454 murders out of 12,461 involuntary deaths, or 68%, it does seem possible that that 2/3 "criminals shooting criminals" number isn't far off. We also don't know how the approximately 1000 justified police shootings per year mentioned by another poster are classified in those numbers, though obviously they aren't suicides so they are somewhere in one group or another of the 12,461.
The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:
"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."
That's not a fact at all, it's a lie. It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead. If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means). Not very consistent logic.
Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.
Quite frankly, I think using suicide in statistics of gun deaths is a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead (inflate the number of gun deaths).
Indeed it is. The author could have prevented this diversion by saying "the number of people who are shot and killed by another person..."
-
The language used (which I notice you removed from my post) was:
"Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals."
That's not a fact at all, it's a lie. It's also a good example of a group purposely using statistics to mislead. If your reasoning that they didn't consider death due to suicide by gun to be valid (since suicides happen by other means) then certainly death due to murder by gun is also invalid (since murders happen by other means). Not very consistent logic.
Either way, what they claimed is demonstrably untrue as I reported.
I honestly did not remove the language to mislead anyone, I try to avoid making posts with huge amounts of quoted text and trim them down to what I feel are the most relevant points. I was discussing the numbers more than the language used, so that is the section of the post I focused on. Here I'm trimming out the numerical discussion, since that was in my previous post, and discussing the language.
Based on looking at the numbers earlier, I agree with ncornilsen that the writer on that site should have been more careful with their language to make it clear that by "people who die each year from gunfire" they were only referring to people shooting other people. I think they were trying to address the fear ordinary people have of getting gunned down by bad guys, and making the point that you have much less to worry about if you aren't a criminal. If the writer had actually used numbers, or had a link to something more than a general web site, it would have been clearer. Of course, a lot of people would skim over it if it had numbers in it, sigh.
Out of curiosity, I checked the definition of "gunfire", and according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gunfire it is "the repeated firing of guns". That probably rules out all suicides, though I imagine it rules out a few gun murders as well. I would be surprised if any government agency breaks out the latter by "number of shots fired", though.