Overheard at Work

[zolotiyeruki]

It's pretty disturbing that people who think like this are so heavily armed.

Haven't you heard? Obama is coming for their guns and bullets. And has been for nearly 8 years now...

In their defense, Obama (and many other democrats, and the ATF) *have* been proposing and/or threatening stricter gun control measures.  And in many places, they *are* enacting more gun control (e.g. NY's "SAFE" Act, and Connecticut).  So the response is not *totally* irrational.

The quantities some people stockpile, on the other hand, can be somewhat ridiculous.  Enough to kill hundreds of zombies for months on end...

And FWIW, guns *do* tend to hold their value over time, so I suppose they're a hedge against inflation.  And they're fun to shoot, which is more than you can say for gold bars! :D

[forummm]

It's pretty disturbing that people who think like this are so heavily armed.

Haven't you heard? Obama is coming for their guns and bullets. And has been for nearly 8 years now...

In their defense, Obama (and many other democrats, and the ATF) *have* been proposing and/or threatening stricter gun control measures.  And in many places, they *are* enacting more gun control (e.g. NY's "SAFE" Act, and Connecticut).  So the response is not *totally* irrational.

The quantities some people stockpile, on the other hand, can be somewhat ridiculous.  Enough to kill hundreds of zombies for months on end...

And FWIW, guns *do* tend to hold their value over time, so I suppose they're a hedge against inflation.  And they're fun to shoot, which is more than you can say for gold bars! :D

No, this is not in their defense. Obama has proposed incredibly minor reforms like for *future* gun purchases you'd have to have a background check, including at a gun show. Or banning new sales of magazine clips with over 10 bullet capacity. Neither of these have any bearing on what you already own or responsible hunting and self protection uses. The only reason you'd need more than 10 bullets is to shoot a lot of people quickly.

[nobodyspecial]

The only reason you'd need more than 10 bullets is to shoot a lot of people quickly.

Isn't that the reason for having the guns ?

[RyanAtTanagra]

The only reason you'd need more than 10 bullets is to shoot a lot of people quickly.

Isn't that the reason for having the guns ?

There are lots of reasons to own guns, and that's rarely one of them.  Unless you're military.

And the reason I personally don't like the 10-round limit is more reloading when practice shooting.  It's an arbitrary limitation that has no real-world purpose other than to make people feel like we're doing something useful.

[dragoncar]

The only reason you'd need more than 10 bullets is to shoot a lot of people quickly.

Isn't that the reason for having the guns ?

There are lots of reasons to own guns, and that's rarely one of them.  Unless you're military.

And the reason I personally don't like the 10-round limit is more reloading when practice shooting.  It's an arbitrary limitation that has no real-world purpose other than to make people feel like we're doing something useful.

Consider it "reloading practice"

[nobodyspecial]

There are lots of reasons to own guns, and that's rarely one of them.  Unless you're military.

I thought the reason to bear arms was to overthrow the government - or at least fight off the redcoats

[MoonShadow]

No, this is not in their defense. Obama has proposed incredibly minor reforms like for *future* gun purchases you'd have to have a background check, including at a gun show. Or banning new sales of magazine clips with over 10 bullet capacity. Neither of these have any bearing on what you already own or responsible hunting and self protection uses. The only reason you'd need more than 10 bullets is to shoot a lot of people quickly.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you are not a gun person.  You certainly don't own one, and likely have never actually shot one.  And based upon the above statements, I'm guessing that you also believe that the (now expired) assault weapons ban actually banned assault weapons and/or that an actual, legally owned, assault weapons have actually be used in a criminal shooting since prohibition was repealed.

I assure you, almost everything you think you know about guns is false. I have had a background check every single time I have bought a firearm, including at gun shows. The 'gun show loophole' is a myth for anyone without an actual badge.  Magazine capacity limits don't ban oversized magazines, they only make them cost more.  The assault weapons ban, didn't; and no, actual legal and licensed assault weapons have never been used in an act of crime in the US since prohibition was repealed.  Those black AR15s that some nutcases favor are not assault weapons, they are just scary looking rifles.  Actual assault weapons fire more than one round at at a time, or at least are capable of doing so, and have been regulated at the federal level since the 1930's.  I grew up in the most heavily armed urban population (any city over 500,000) in the United States, and it remains the only such city near it's size without 'persistent organized crime' according to the FBI.  I would wager those two statistics are related.

[MoonShadow]

And FWIW, guns *do* tend to hold their value over time, so I suppose they're a hedge against inflation.  And they're fun to shoot, which is more than you can say for gold bars! :D

So do the bullets, actually.

[JamesAt15]

What an adrenaline junkie! I would be perfectly happy with a '84 Honda Rabbit

Wasn't the Rabbit from Volkswagen, later to become the Golf?

My dad had a VW Rabbit when we were growing up. I am reminded of it a lot when I see how pretty much all cars are four-doors now and think back to my brother and me were always clambering in after flipping the front seats forward. That doesn't happen much anymore these days, does it?

My kids have it pretty fricking nice, I'd say.

[forummm]

No, this is not in their defense. Obama has proposed incredibly minor reforms like for *future* gun purchases you'd have to have a background check, including at a gun show. Or banning new sales of magazine clips with over 10 bullet capacity. Neither of these have any bearing on what you already own or responsible hunting and self protection uses. The only reason you'd need more than 10 bullets is to shoot a lot of people quickly.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you are not a gun person.  You certainly don't own one, and likely have never actually shot one.  And based upon the above statements, I'm guessing that you also believe that the (now expired) assault weapons ban actually banned assault weapons and/or that an actual, legally owned, assault weapons have actually be used in a criminal shooting since prohibition was repealed.

I assure you, almost everything you think you know about guns is false. I have had a background check every single time I have bought a firearm, including at gun shows. The 'gun show loophole' is a myth for anyone without an actual badge.  Magazine capacity limits don't ban oversized magazines, they only make them cost more.  The assault weapons ban, didn't; and no, actual legal and licensed assault weapons have never been used in an act of crime in the US since prohibition was repealed.  Those black AR15s that some nutcases favor are not assault weapons, they are just scary looking rifles.  Actual assault weapons fire more than one round at at a time, or at least are capable of doing so, and have been regulated at the federal level since the 1930's.  I grew up in the most heavily armed urban population (any city over 500,000) in the United States, and it remains the only such city near it's size without 'persistent organized crime' according to the FBI.  I would wager those two statistics are related.

No, your assumptions are mostly wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxuTyXQHqkI

I'm not a gun person, but I'm not suggesting they be banned--and neither was Obama--which was the entire point. I have shot them on several occasions, including with law enforcement acquaintances. As a personal decision, I think they are not very useful for my life at this point. Statistics show that gun owners and their family members are more likely to be harmed by their own guns than to be used in a self-defense situation. While there are many responsible gun owners, I think many others would be better off with a safer attitude towards them. That's what the NRA used to be about. Now it's just a lobbying organization for the manufacturers. And the manufacturers profits the more that people are killed by guns (because more people "have to have them" for defense) or fear-monger about what legislation may happen.

And no, I'm aware of how the assault weapons ban did not actually ban assault weapons. There were so many loopholes for gun manufacturer and modifier "innovation" that it really didn't have much effect at all. It just became a political points match.

I'm glad you got checked when you bought at gun shows. Here in GA my friend was not checked at all when he bought his. He doesn't have a badge.

My language about capacity limits is correct and does not conflict with what you say. I was only saying that Obama's proposed reforms are very mild and don't warrant fear-mongering. I'm glad you agree with me on that.

Without knowing what city you're talking about I can't comment as to the validity of your speculation about correlation being causation in that instance.

[Le Barbu]

What an adrenaline junkie! I would be perfectly happy with a '84 Honda Rabbit

Wasn't the Rabbit from Volkswagen, later to become the Golf?

My dad had a VW Rabbit when we were growing up. I am reminded of it a lot when I see how pretty much all cars are four-doors now and think back to my brother and me were always clambering in after flipping the front seats forward. That doesn't happen much anymore these days, does it?

My kids have it pretty fricking nice, I'd say.

I know about that, I was refering about the "Dodge Camaro" that never existed neither (mixed model and manufacturer)

[klystomane]

No, this is not in their defense. Obama has proposed incredibly minor reforms like for *future* gun purchases you'd have to have a background check, including at a gun show. Or banning new sales of magazine clips with over 10 bullet capacity. Neither of these have any bearing on what you already own or responsible hunting and self protection uses. The only reason you'd need more than 10 bullets is to shoot a lot of people quickly.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you are not a gun person.  You certainly don't own one, and likely have never actually shot one.  And based upon the above statements, I'm guessing that you also believe that the (now expired) assault weapons ban actually banned assault weapons and/or that an actual, legally owned, assault weapons have actually be used in a criminal shooting since prohibition was repealed.

I assure you, almost everything you think you know about guns is false. I have had a background check every single time I have bought a firearm, including at gun shows. The 'gun show loophole' is a myth for anyone without an actual badge.  Magazine capacity limits don't ban oversized magazines, they only make them cost more.  The assault weapons ban, didn't; and no, actual legal and licensed assault weapons have never been used in an act of crime in the US since prohibition was repealed.  Those black AR15s that some nutcases favor are not assault weapons, they are just scary looking rifles.  Actual assault weapons fire more than one round at at a time, or at least are capable of doing so, and have been regulated at the federal level since the 1930's.  I grew up in the most heavily armed urban population (any city over 500,000) in the United States, and it remains the only such city near it's size without 'persistent organized crime' according to the FBI.  I would wager those two statistics are related.

All I know about guns is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/chicago-violent-weekend/index.html

...and this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/san-francisco-killing/

[shotgunwilly]

All I know about guns is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/chicago-violent-weekend/index.html

...and this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/san-francisco-killing/

Umm... thanks for making it clear to us that you know nothing about guns. ?

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Obama's proposed reforms are very mild and don't warrant fear-mongering.

They're also pointless, much like the one memorialized in my handle.

[Chris22]

All I know about guns is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/chicago-violent-weekend/index.html

...and this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/san-francisco-killing/

Umm... thanks for making it clear to us that you know nothing about guns. ?

I'm thinking the point he's making is that two places with VERY restrictive gun laws have lots of illegal gun violence.  IOW, laws don't mean shit to criminals.  So why fuck over ordinary citizens with meaningless idiotic legislation meant to placate the people who just want you to "do something, anything!" and "please, think of the children!"

[MoonShadow]

I'm not a gun person, but I'm not suggesting they be banned--and neither was Obama

Well, of course not. That would be silly. He just wants to make them too expensive for middle class citizens to own them. That has always been the goal. Like I said, the "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't actually ban anything, it just made scary looking rifles cost more money (and not actual assault weapons, which already cost a small fortune due to ATF regulations and fees).  Actually banning weapons from the US is a practical impossibility, and everyone with any knowledge of the topic already knew this.  However, that doesn't mean that his "common sense regulations" don't actually harm gun owners, or otherwise put them in great legal risk; the most certainly would.

Statistics show that gun owners and their family members are more likely to be harmed by their own guns than to be used in a self-defense situation.

That is an old, and long debunked, BS statistic.  The study only considered the odds that anyone in the household might be harmed compared to the odds that an armed resident of that household would actually fire a weapon in a self-defense situation.  There is enormous evidence that the number of "brandish & deter" self-defense situations are an order of magnitude more common than actually firing the weapon.  The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun owners don't actually want to shoot anyone, and most criminals don't want to be shot, so simply presenting a firearm generally gets criminals to back off.

While there are many responsible gun owners, I think many others would be better off with a safer attitude towards them.

Safer compared to what, exactly?  Considering the number of guns and gun owners in the United States, recreational shooting is one of, if not the, safest activities that Americans engage in.  Not only is commuting to work in a car more dangerous; so is taking a shower standing up, nearly every team sport that involves running and a ball, and living in a home with a flight of stairs.  It's the rare gun owner that is not very aware of what a firearm can do.

That's what the NRA used to be about.

It still is...

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

It's liberal meddling that forces gun owners (and thus the NRA and other gun ownership associations) to commit resources to defending the 2nd.

 Now it's just a lobbying organization for the manufacturers. And the manufacturers profits the more that people are killed by guns (because more people "have to have them" for defense) or fear-monger about what legislation may happen.

The gun manufacturers have their own association/lobby, and don't typically donate to the NRA. It's the anti-gun lobby that is always manipulating public tragedies to stir up public fear.

And no, I'm aware of how the assault weapons ban did not actually ban assault weapons. There were so many loopholes for gun manufacturer and modifier "innovation" that it really didn't have much effect at all. It just became a political points match.

I'm not talking about loopholes. It actually didn't ban anything, quite on purpose.  It made a lot of people believe that said assault weapons had been banned, but it never even attempted it.  Specificly, it prohibited the import of rifles with a set of specific characteristics, as well as a list of specific firearms by model. It tripled the market value of a 9mm UZI within a week after passing, and kept it there for a decade, but didn't even attempt to make them illegal per se.  They didn't try it, because the authors knew that would be unconstitutional.

I'm glad you got checked when you bought at gun shows. Here in GA my friend was not checked at all when he bought his. He doesn't have a badge.

I honestly don't believe you.  You are saying that a gun show dealer sold a firearm to your friend without checking his ID, nor without calling the Instant Background Check 1-800 number? Bullsh*t. It didn't happen.

[klystomane]

Statistics show that gun owners and their family members are more likely to be harmed by their own guns than to be used in a self-defense situation.

That is an old, and long debunked, BS statistic.  The study only considered the odds that anyone in the household might be harmed compared to the odds that an armed resident of that household would actually fire a weapon in a self-defense situation.  There is enormous evidence that the number of "brandish & deter" self-defense situations are an order of magnitude more common than actually firing the weapon.  The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun owners don't actually want to shoot anyone, and most criminals don't want to be shot, so simply presenting a firearm generally gets criminals to back off.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/

Americans sure love their guns.

[MoonShadow]

All I know about guns is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/chicago-violent-weekend/index.html

...and this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/san-francisco-killing/

Have you ever noticed that neither actual gun rampages, nor the plot lines of zombie movies, occur in locales where gun ownership is both legal and common?  And it's for the same reason, because both of those story lines would be way too short to get on television.

Here's another little sad fact, every single homicidal gun rampage in the US in the past 30 years has something else in common besides a firearm, the perp was on some class of prescription anti-depressant medication.  Therefore, there was some doctor, somewhere, who knew that person was a risk to himself, at a minimum.

And yet another sad fact, the worst mass murder in the history of the US occurred in 1927, and involved a bomb, not a firearm.  I'd seriously like to know how a magazine capacity limit, or even an actual assault weapons ban, would have prevented this one.

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

[klystomane]

All I know about guns is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/chicago-violent-weekend/index.html

...and this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/san-francisco-killing/

Have you ever noticed that neither actual gun rampages, nor the plot lines of zombie movies, occur in locales where gun ownership is both legal and common?  And it's for the same reason, because both of those story lines would be way too short to get on television.

Here's another little sad fact, every single homicidal gun rampage in the US in the past 30 years has something else in common besides a firearm, the perp was on some class of prescription anti-depressant medication.  Therefore, there was some doctor, somewhere, who knew that person was a risk to himself, at a minimum.

And yet another sad fact, the worst mass murder in the history of the US occurred in 1927, and involved a bomb, not a firearm.  I'd seriously like to know how a magazine capacity limit, or even an actual assault weapons ban, would have prevented this one.

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

Would it really be that bad if guns were illegal in America? What would be the consequences?

Serious question.

[MoonShadow]

Statistics show that gun owners and their family members are more likely to be harmed by their own guns than to be used in a self-defense situation.

That is an old, and long debunked, BS statistic.  The study only considered the odds that anyone in the household might be harmed compared to the odds that an armed resident of that household would actually fire a weapon in a self-defense situation.  There is enormous evidence that the number of "brandish & deter" self-defense situations are an order of magnitude more common than actually firing the weapon.  The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun owners don't actually want to shoot anyone, and most criminals don't want to be shot, so simply presenting a firearm generally gets criminals to back off.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/

Americans sure love their guns.

Yes, that was very tragic.  Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news, in a country that has more working firearms than living adults, and in the same country that the murder rate in Detroit and Chicago are not.

This is also the reason that, despite the fact that both myself and my wife have concealed carry licenses ourselves, my wife does not typically carry and I don't unless I'm traveling out of the region.  Great job finding a statistical outlier to make a general argument.

[Chris22]

Would it really be that bad if guns were illegal in America? What would be the consequences?

Serious question.

Aside from being a complete violation of our inalienable rights, it would also effectively remove our ability to protect ourselves. 

Also, you'll note that illegal drugs are quite illegal all over our country (even in places where they've been legalized or decriminalized it's still against federal law) and still quite easy to obtain.  Same with guns.  You can make them all illegal tomorrow, but there's some 300M+ guns already out there, how are you going to remove them from society?  You can't.  All you can do is prevent law abiding people from obtaining them.  The "if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns" saying is trite and cliche, but it's also very true. 

[MoonShadow]

Would it really be that bad if guns were illegal in America? What would be the consequences?

Serious question.

In your lifetime, probably none.  Societies don't change that fast.  But the ability to defend oneself is a basic human right.  So advocating for any real limitations on the 2nd Amendment is the moral equatiable to denying my daughter the right to defend herself from a rapist.  I'm certain you feel that is hyperbole, but it's exactly the end result.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

[MoonShadow]

Also, you'll note that illegal drugs are quite illegal all over our country (even in places where they've been legalized or decriminalized it's still against federal law) and still quite easy to obtain.

The government agents can't even keep drugs out of prisons.  Does anyone really believe that the local police force can actually protect their own person or their neighborhood as well as the individual or their neighbors can?  Seriously, I have never understood this logic.

[LennStar]

I'm thinking the point he's making is that two places with VERY restrictive gun laws have lots of illegal gun violence.

And a lot of places with even stricter gun control have very lower crime rates.

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot, though, while havig a gun very seldom prevents burglars or banksters.

Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news,

Notice that in other countries with less guns such a thing doesnt happen at all.

So advocating for any real limitations on the 2nd Amendment is the moral equatiable to denying my daughter the right to defend herself from a rapist.  I'm certain you feel that is hyperbole

I dotn feel that is hyperbole, I feel that this is just BS. As about 99.58% of "reasons" that involve rapes. if you show your ankle, its your fault you got raped!

[Chris22]

I'm thinking the point he's making is that two places with VERY restrictive gun laws have lots of illegal gun violence.

And a lot of places with even stricter gun control have very lower crime rates.

Not in the US.  There is nowhere with stricter gun laws than Chicago and San Fran in the US.  Outside the US is not apples to apples.  There are plenty of places in the world where they do not already have 300M+ firearms available in society, so sure, they'll have lower gun violence rates, but we do.  And no one can change that fact.  So claiming more gun control in a society that already has guns will lead to violance rates closer to places with tight gun control and few guns is not a valid conclusion.

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot, though, while havig a gun very seldom prevents burglars or banksters.

Show your work and cite your sources. 

[dsmexpat]

trash with money

Who the fuck names their kid Trig?

I see what you did there

The O'Nometry clan is an old and proud Irish surname. I'm sure Trig will fit in.

[zephyr911]

I'm thinking the point he's making is that two places with VERY restrictive gun laws have lots of illegal gun violence.

And a lot of places with even stricter gun control have very lower crime rates.

Not in the US.  There is nowhere with stricter gun laws than Chicago and San Fran in the US.  Outside the US is not apples to apples.  There are plenty of places in the world where they do not already have 300M+ firearms available in society, so sure, they'll have lower gun violence rates, but we do.  And no one can change that fact.  So claiming more gun control in a society that already has guns will lead to violance rates closer to places with tight gun control and few guns is not a valid conclusion.

Have you considered that overall (nationwide) lax gun laws more or less invalidate local restrictions on their purchase?
I don't know why NYC, SF, etc. even bother trying when you can just drive out into the county and pick up an arsenal.

[Chris22]

I'm thinking the point he's making is that two places with VERY restrictive gun laws have lots of illegal gun violence.

And a lot of places with even stricter gun control have very lower crime rates.

Not in the US.  There is nowhere with stricter gun laws than Chicago and San Fran in the US.  Outside the US is not apples to apples.  There are plenty of places in the world where they do not already have 300M+ firearms available in society, so sure, they'll have lower gun violence rates, but we do.  And no one can change that fact.  So claiming more gun control in a society that already has guns will lead to violance rates closer to places with tight gun control and few guns is not a valid conclusion.

Have you considered that overall (nationwide) lax gun laws more or less invalidate local restrictions on their purchase?
I don't know why NYC, SF, etc. even bother trying when you can just drive out into the county and pick up an arsenal.

For a while Chicago was outlawing posession [in your home], not just purchase.  And they were outlawing CCW as well.  Most (reputable) places nearby (WI, IN) will not sell to someone with a Chicago address.

[cloudsail]

As someone not raised in the US, this whole thing about Americans and their guns seems to defy all logic and reason to me.

Where I come from, when some nut job decides to go crazy and try to kill a bunch of little kids, they take a kitchen knife and go on a rampage.  Here, the nut job has a gun.

Guess which one ends up killing more kids???

[cloudsail]

Although I do get the whole "there are already a lot of guns in the country" argument.  Obviously it's not possible to suddenly just get rid of all guns already in existence.  This is the same reason a lot of fellow foreigners are embracing the whole gun ownership thing.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[dsmexpat]

Guns won't help in the case of a home invasion because it's been ruled you're not allowed to use them.
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article26579143.html
The judge concluded that had he really believed it to be a home invasion he should have called the police. As he instead reached for his weapon it can only be concluded that he was not trying to defend himself. Incidentally no drugs were found, what he got convicted of was wounding the DEA agent.
Oddly enough that conclusion is pretty much in direct conflict with this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Where it was asserted that the police have no duty to actually help citizens and basically you need to defend yourselves.
Furthermore it is unworkable in the context of home invasions where the criminals shout police, something which does happen. Basically you're fucked. The rules will change to support whatever the state is, or is not, doing and having a gun won't make any difference at all there.

That said I think the evidence from gun control around the world is pretty clear. It works. Sure, black market guns still exist but they're prohibitively expensive and cause more trouble than they're worth for a lot of shit. If you can afford your black market handgun then good for you, you've been saving for years, you've been putting away 20% of your paychecks and planned and now, finally, you've bought one. You're not about to go out and rob a convenience store with it.

Timeline is probably something like this
Dream of being a gangsta, having a gun, committing some kind of crime.
Finding out that just because you want something doesn't mean you can afford it, that the world is run by money and nobody wants to help you live your dreams.
Going back to school to become an insurance claims adjuster.
Joining r/personalfinance and r/frugal.
Saving 20% of every paycheck to slowly save up the $50k a black market gun will cost.
Aged 40 finally buying that gun, even as you struggle to remember why you set yourself that goal in the first place.
Thinking back to your past self and why you wanted that gun. Reflecting on how free you used to feel and asking yourself what happened to the young man you used to be. Sure you've become the assistant vice-manager of regional sales, but along the way you've lost yourself.
Gun goes in mouth, you pull the trigger.

[Chris22]

That said I think the evidence from gun control around the world is pretty clear. It works. Sure, black market guns still exist but they're prohibitively expensive and cause more trouble than they're worth for a lot of shit.

Between myself and close family we own enough guns, including scary black rifles, to arm a small village. That's just a handful of people.  They aren't going anywhere.  Outlaw them and they will "disappear".  There are millions more just like me.  And few other places have it written into their Constitution that they are allowed to own them.

[dsmexpat]

That said I think the evidence from gun control around the world is pretty clear. It works. Sure, black market guns still exist but they're prohibitively expensive and cause more trouble than they're worth for a lot of shit.

Between myself and close family we own enough guns, including scary black rifles, to arm a small village. That's just a handful of people.  They aren't going anywhere.  Outlaw them and they will "disappear".  There are millions more just like me.  And few other places have it written into their Constitution that they are allowed to own them.

The fact that it's in the Constitution doesn't in any way make the American situation unique. The Second Amendment is an Amendment. The idea that it couldn't possibly be changed is absurd, not only can it be changed but the fact that it is changeable is actually contained within the name. Might as well call it "The Second Rule Which We Didn't Always Have But We Decided To Put In Because These Things Can Be Changed". Sure, you'd need a lot of political will to change it but that's no different to any other country anywhere. Currently they're legal in the US. They were legal other places. Hypothetically with political will behind it they could be made illegal, just as they were elsewhere.

And yes, they wouldn't disappear overnight. Hell, it might take a century. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Worst case scenario they'll eventually become somewhat obsolete.

What really gets me about the Second Amendment though is that it's an argument for the defence of the individual against an overmighty state and that state exists. The front line isn't gun control, it's privacy, and more liberty has been lost there than you'll ever lose on guns. You were never going to be able to form a militia and fight against the Federal Government, you'd have lost against Lincoln and you'd certainly lose against Obama. What you could do though is form a political party, share your dissent, exercise free speech, organize people for rallies and so forth. That's the counterbalance you had left after the Civil War and that's the counterbalance you've lost since 2001.

Sure it's not a currently a tyranny but an America without guns wouldn't be a necessarily be a tyranny on day 1. But if you want to argue that guns are needed for the preservation of liberty against a potential tyrannical state then where the hell is your defence of privacy in a world where every single American is spied upon. I believe in a living constitution. An application of the Second Amendment that limits it to guns is no more meaningful than an application that limits it only to muskets, it comes down to the balance of power and the front line there is not guns. 21st Century revolutionaries would not have won the revolutionary war against 21st Century King George, not because of gun control but because of communication control.

[zephyr911]

As an American who has spent plenty of time using actual firearms, and is neither afraid of them nor interested in taking yours away:

We in the U.S. are pretty dumb about guns. And we're only interested in looking at actual data if it supports conclusions we've already reached.

[MoonShadow]

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot,

Feel free to support that statement with actual facts.

Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news,

Notice that in other countries with less guns such a thing doesnt happen at all.

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

This is just Europe, but notice, if you will, that every one of them occurred in nations with stricter gun control regulations.

[MoonShadow]

Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.

[MoonShadow]

Timeline is probably something like this
Dream of being a gangsta, having a gun, committing some kind of crime.
Finding out that just because you want something doesn't mean you can afford it, that the world is run by money and nobody wants to help you live your dreams.
Going back to school to become an insurance claims adjuster.
Joining r/personalfinance and r/frugal.
Saving 20% of every paycheck to slowly save up the $50k a black market gun will cost.
Aged 40 finally buying that gun, even as you struggle to remember why you set yourself that goal in the first place.
Thinking back to your past self and why you wanted that gun. Reflecting on how free you used to feel and asking yourself what happened to the young man you used to be. Sure you've become the assistant vice-manager of regional sales, but along the way you've lost yourself.
Gun goes in mouth, you pull the trigger.

Wow, you have issues. I'll concede that you shouldn't buy a gun, you might hurt yourself.

[dsmexpat]

Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families. The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error). Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

[cloudsail]

Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families. The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error). Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

Exactly.  And if I have a gun that doesn't help my child at school.  I honestly can't believe the arguments for teachers being armed and having people with guns patrolling schools.  Really???  That's supposed to be the solution???  OMFG how about just getting rid of the goddamn guns already???

But yeah, the guns are already there.  For the sake of posterity though it really doesn't seem like trying to arm the population to the teeth is the way American society should be headed.  The only future where that sounds like a good idea is the zombie apocalypse.

[MoonShadow]

Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families.

Well, not here. But I have had those conversations before. There really are people who believe that it's morally preferable to die after a rape than to buy a gun. In most cases, those don't use those exact words; but more than once, I have heard that exact phrase.  So please, don't assume that just because you are reasonable, that everyone that advocates for increased gun control is willing to stop with "reasonable gun regulations".

 The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error).

Those are fine objections, but they don't change the fact that a personal firearm is the single most effective means of self-defense humanity has ever devised, and almost any regulation that prevents a rational & (otherwise) law abiding individual from access to that technology is a violation of her basic human right to defense of self.  The absolute, or even relative, effectiveness of that method is highly debatable; but also entirely irrelevant.  Either a human being has the right to life, or they don't.  If I own myself, then I have a right to defend myself; but if I don't have that right, then I must not own myself.  Who owns you?

 Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

Oh, I completely agree with that statement.  Good luck with that, though.  Policemen are still human beings, with all their own failings & biases and bigotry.  It was the police that released dogs upon black protestors in the South during the 1960's.

[LennStar]

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot,

Feel free to support that statement with actual facts.

Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news,

Notice that in other countries with less guns such a thing doesnt happen at all.

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

This is just Europe, but notice, if you will, that every one of them occurred in nations with stricter gun control regulations.

2. What connection has that list to - link quote - idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler ?

1. First part should be self evident: You dont prevent a burglar in a shop or a car stealing when there is no one there, if that person has a gun or not.
Second part: Feel free to browse criminal statistics, but keep in mind that definitions vary.
In germany with ~80 million people in 2014 there were 630 tried murders, 40% succeded, 80 (12,7%) carried a gun (does not mean fired).
To compare: in 1994 there were 1146 tries, 52,3% succeded, 220 carried (19,2%) guns. More guns, higher success rates - this trend is jumping around a bit over the years, but seems quite linear.

For comparism: USA 2006 (only year-tab I found in the german WP):
14990 murders, 10177 with gun (67,9%)
Overall germany: 0,9 incidents per 100K people, USA 5 per 100K.
Also quote:
New Hampshire und South Dakota have rates comparable to Germany, while  Alabama, Kalifornien und Texas have up to 25-times the amount of gun incidents as Germany.

I dont know about the first 3, but I think California and Texas have the opposite of strict gun laws.

[MoonShadow]

  And if I have a gun that doesn't help my child at school.

There is a high corrolation between gun ownership and homeschooling. There might be a connection there.

I honestly can't believe the arguments for teachers being armed and having people with guns patrolling schools.  Really???  That's supposed to be the solution???  OMFG how about just getting rid of the goddamn guns already???

How would you propose to "get rid of the GD guns" exactly?  Do you honestly believe that making a felon out of myself, and people like myself, will achieve that end?

But yeah, the guns are already there.  For the sake of posterity though it really doesn't seem like trying to arm the population to the teeth is the way American society should be headed.

Why not? It's been pretty close to that in the past, and yet, here we are.  There was a time in our history that is was a fine in Massachusetts to fail to bring a firearm to public gatherings.  The old saying "an armed society is a polite society" is historicly true.  Once upon a time, Japan was one of the most heavily armed populations in the world (with weapons other than firearms), and their older generations complain that their society is becoming less polite with each passing generation.  Their might be a connection there as well.

[Chris22]

Well, not here. But I have had those conversations before. There really are people who believe that it's morally preferable to die after a rape than to buy a gun. In most cases, those don't use those exact words; but more than once, I have heard that exact phrase.  So please, don't assume that just because you are reasonable, that everyone that advocates for increased gun control is willing to stop with "reasonable gun regulations".

The other thing is that what people usually suggest as "reasonable" gun laws are completely ineffective.  "Oh, yeah, you can have a hunting rifle or shotgun, but you can't have an AR-15, that's a reasonable gun law."  Guess what, you get to pick, you want me to shoot you with my hunting rifle, a .308 Winchester with a nice wooden stock that looks all antiquey, or that scary black AR-15 that looks all mean and evil and terrible?  Choose carefully.  And someone on here has the name "shoulderthingthatgoesup" which is a reference to a gungrabber Senator from NY, who was supporting a bill that banned guns with certain characteristics (basically trying to ban AR-15s) including a barrel shroud.  When pressed, she said the barrel shroud was the "shoulder thing that goes up."  In reality, a barrel shroud is, just as name suggests, a shroud over the barrel to provide a place to handle the weapon without having to touch a (potentially hot) barrel.  So the person writing the bills to outlaw stuff has no idea what they are outlawing.  This are "reasonable gun laws"?!?!  And after the Sandy Hook tragedy, gun grabbers were all over trying to ban the AR-15.  Because it was used, and because it's scary looking, goddammit!  Well, go compare the number of AR-15s used to commit crimes against, say, the 9MM pistol, .38 revolver, or even .22 pistol.  It's not even close.  More "reasonable gun laws".  That's why a lot of us think there's no such thing as a "reasonable gun law" (I'd argue the firearms act of 1934 is a decent compromise) proposed these days.   

[Chris22]

I dont know about the first 3, but I think California and Texas have the opposite of strict gun laws.

I am having a hard time reading your post, but the above sentance, either way I read it it's wrong.  CA and TX basically have gun laws on the far extremes from one another.  TX is "lax" and CA is very strict. 

[klystomane]

So far, the pro-gun advocates that I've listened to (I dare not argue with them) have stated the following (or a combination of) reasons for why guns should continue to exist:

1. Second amendment from the 18th century (because we live in the past and never change), right to bear arms, protect ourselves from terrorists and grizzly bears, etc.
2. We may have a billion guns but only 2 gun associated deaths a year, so it's okay - 2 deaths a year are worth sacrificing for the billion people that want to shoot stuff up the other 363 days of the year (although I think we're already well into double digits this year among the cases that we know of)
3. You can outlaw guns, but people will find other ways to hurt you anyway (i.e. bombs that require planning, time and skill to make, etc.).
4. Guns don't kill people, people kill people (sometimes with guns).
5. All them other countries that don't have access to guns are doing it wrong (okay, I made this one up).

I might be missing some other points...this is all I can remember so far though. Maybe I should stroke a pistol to stimulate the brain a bit.

'murica!

[gimp]

[shelivesthedream]

Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.

An eye for an eye, and soon we will all be blind. I just don't understand this American obsession with defending yourself. I have never had to defend myself against violence or home intrusion and I do not know anyone (even a friend of a friend) who has. Yet y'all seem to be convinced there is an axe murderer round every corner. Sure, criminals can get guns in the UK but most gun crime here is stuff like gang warfare, not guns being turned on strangers. I do not want to live in a world where everyone has a killing machine in their pocket. It's a really sad view of humanity. People are, by and large, law abiding and reasonable. If there is a problem, we have the police. And seriously, unless you have your gun with you all the time, odds are you're going to be in the wrong room when the gun-wielding nut crashes through your front window so won't be able to get it and 'defend' yourself anyway. The only gun-based self-defence I can take seriously is against wild animals, which I know exist in America more than the UK.

Q: Y'all go on about this "inalienable right" to defend yourself. We have the human right to freedom from violence, putting the onus on others to not be violent/the state to protect you, rather than assuming that everyone is out to get you and you need to be prepared for the "evil other". Do any other countries have the right to defend yourself violently in their constitution?

[MoonShadow]

Gun and (all) crime dont have a correlation. Stricter gun control lowers domestic murders and "accidents" a lot,

Feel free to support that statement with actual facts.

Notice that such an event is actually rare enough to be news,

Notice that in other countries with less guns such a thing doesnt happen at all.

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

This is just Europe, but notice, if you will, that every one of them occurred in nations with stricter gun control regulations.

2. What connection has that list to - link quote - idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler ?

Well, nothing.  But that wasn't what I was responding to. Feel free to read the quoted part above for the first time.

1. First part should be self evident: You dont prevent a burglar in a shop or a car stealing when there is no one there, if that person has a gun or not.

Not correct, nor self-evident. The statistical evidence that exists proves that an increasing percentage of people that own & actually carry a firearm in public acts as a general deterant against crime.  That was the basic conclusions on the largest study on the subject ever funded, and by gun control advocates.  They didn't like the conclusions, but they were published anyway. The title is More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.  Even he said he was surprised by the outcome, but as a scientist he could not look at the evidence and maintain his position on the matter.

Second part: Feel free to browse criminal statistics, but keep in mind that definitions vary.
In germany with ~80 million people in 2014 there were 630 tried murders, 40% succeded, 80 (12,7%) carried a gun (does not mean fired).
To compare: in 1994 there were 1146 tries, 52,3% succeded, 220 carried (19,2%) guns. More guns, higher success rates - this trend is jumping around a bit over the years, but seems quite linear.

Your opinion on what seems to be linear is not a logical argument.

For comparism: USA 2006 (only year-tab I found in the german WP):
14990 murders, 10177 with gun (67,9%)
Overall germany: 0,9 incidents per 100K people, USA 5 per 100K.
Also quote:
New Hampshire und South Dakota have rates comparable to Germany, while  Alabama, Kalifornien und Texas have up to 25-times the amount of gun incidents as Germany.

I'm going to point out here that both New Hampshire and South Dakota have gun ownership rates vastly higher than Germany's, as well as California's.  At the same time, Alabama and Texas (and everywhere else in the US, as far as I am aware) are vastly more diverse than Germany.  The US is a nation of blending cultures, and sometimes such blending results in conflicts that nearly homogeneous societies such as Germany & Japan don't suffer from.  So to compare the violent crime rates of the US to such nations in Europe is not so straight forward, to put it in the kindest way I can.

I dont know about the first 3, but I think California and Texas have the opposite of strict gun laws.

California is pretty strict, although less strict than Germany; but at the same time, the legal ownership rate California is very low.  Of course, Germany is typically considered the most restrictive of gun regulations among all Western nations; and yet, amazingly, there are still guns there.

[dsmexpat]

Here, the nut job has a gun.

True, but then so can you.  No one is better positioned, nor more motivated, to protect your own family than you are.  And has already been cited here, the police don't actually have a duty to protect you or your family; they have a duty to protect the interests of the state, which may or may not include protecting you.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the safety of families.

Well, not here. But I have had those conversations before. There really are people who believe that it's morally preferable to die after a rape than to buy a gun. In most cases, those don't use those exact words; but more than once, I have heard that exact phrase.  So please, don't assume that just because you are reasonable, that everyone that advocates for increased gun control is willing to stop with "reasonable gun regulations".

 The objections are more linked to the externalities (guns get outside of homes and self defence scenarios) and the effectiveness of the plan (a gun won't improve every situation and massively increases the potential for error).

Those are fine objections, but they don't change the fact that a personal firearm is the single most effective means of self-defense humanity has ever devised, and almost any regulation that prevents a rational & (otherwise) law abiding individual from access to that technology is a violation of her basic human right to defense of self.  The absolute, or even relative, effectiveness of that method is highly debatable; but also entirely irrelevant.  Either a human being has the right to life, or they don't.  If I own myself, then I have a right to defend myself; but if I don't have that right, then I must not own myself.  Who owns you?

 Part of the problem that gun control arguments need to address though is the American police force. If we're going to suggest that people trust professionals to handle these situations then we need a degree of professionalism from them.

Oh, I completely agree with that statement.  Good luck with that, though.  Policemen are still human beings, with all their own failings & biases and bigotry.  It was the police that released dogs upon black protestors in the South during the 1960's.

My proposed regulations wouldn't be seen as reasonable by you so don't paint me with a reasonable brush yet.

Firearms are by no means perfect and I have no idea how you get from "human beings have a right to defend themselves" to "human beings must have access to any technology that allows them to defend themselves, regardless of external costs to society as a whole". Your argument is an excellent argument in favour of the right to own a nuclear weapon. Guns are fine for your run of the mill rapist but they won't do shit against a drone strike. They won't help you when criminals on Wall Street decide to repossess your house. They certainly won't protect you from Kremlin Joe. What will protect you is the threat of MAD, those fuckers won't touch you if they know you'll just burn it all down at the first sign of trouble.

Now obviously I'm being absurd and you can't have a nuclear weapon, even if the threats to your existence are far more likely to come from Wall Street or Washington than they are to be a rapist after your family and even if it'd be a much more useful deterrent for either of those. You can't have a nuclear weapon because if I let you have one then I have to let other people have one and some dumb fuck would sell it to a terrorist and another would get confused in the night and accidentally use it on his neighbour, someone's kid would obliterate a state playing with one and those suicidal people, well, they're gonna take a lot of innocents with them. So even though it is indisputably the most effective tool for dealing with the real threats to your liberty and property on a day to day basis I can't let you have one. And I can't let you have a gun either.

Your right to self defence does not come without limitations. And you know that, or else you'd want your tactical nuke. It's not some natural, God-given thing that you're born with, it's a negotiation that you make with the people who you share the world with. If we agree that tactical nukes aren't a good idea then we agree that there is no basic right to self that means you can own any weapon you like. From there on we only disagree on where the tradeoff between personal freedom and societal good should be. And that's fine by me honestly.

[swick]

MOD NOTE: An ongoing  debate over guns is veering way off topic. If you feel the need, start an "off topic" thread and copy over the relevant posts.