Orlando

[Northwestie]

Care to comment out the countries I mention?  Oh yea - nothing to see here.

And Mexico - that's the gold standard you want us to use for comparison for gun violence???  Hey, how about Syria - I hear they have a lager gun violence issue than us so we're doing ok.   Priceless.

Here's a guy with a real penis issue:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UubTrNKYf-8

[JLee]

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

I may be getting my threads crossed, as people insist on turning this thread into a replica of the one we already have.

Well, let's see -- the guy in Orlando, the guy in Aurora,..............take any mass shooting and the scenario is eerily similar.

First it's a guy

Second -- usually some loser whose life is not on a good trajectory.

Now let's do this thought experiment.  if the most dangerous thing he could buy was a,  shovel, hmmmm, a broad sword, or may be a brush hog ---- how much carnage could he carry our compared to say, I know, a semi-auto rifle that is easy to use and designed for efficient killing.  Gee, that's a really tough one.

Yea = these guys are loser and feel they want to man up and make their mark.  And yea, I would feel better if they took out there frustrations four-wheeling rather than buying a penis extension.

You said "all those assault style weapons" and "those folks" - who are you talking about?  Mass shooters, or any owner of a murkily-undefined "assault style weapon"?

[Midwest]

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

Steve:

I'm for reducing the number of private transfers (the ones without the background checks) because I do believe there are a few exploiting the loophole.  Realize that's not exactly what you want, but it would go a long way.  I've also managed to make my arguments without a single reference to male sexual organs.

MW

[GuitarStv]

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

Steve:

I'm for reducing the number of private transfers (the ones without the background checks) because I do believe there are a few exploiting the loophole.  Realize that's not exactly what you want, but it would go a long way.  I've also managed to make my arguments without a single reference to male sexual organs.

MW

Right.  I forgot that you were arguing against background checks in favour of alternative regulation.  I appreciate you leaving your Weapon of Ass Destruction out of the conversation.  :P

[Midwest]

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

Steve:

I'm for reducing the number of private transfers (the ones without the background checks) because I do believe there are a few exploiting the loophole.  Realize that's not exactly what you want, but it would go a long way.  I've also managed to make my arguments without a single reference to male sexual organs.

MW

Right.  I forgot that you were arguing against background checks in favour of alternative regulation.  I appreciate you leaving your Weapon of Ass Destruction out of the conversation.  :P

Between driving a truck and owning a gun, I shouldn't be able to find it according to some on this forum.

[Heywood57]

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

A background check cannot infer the intent of the buyer.

A background check could potentially reject someone if they have a
criminal record or a history of violence, only if information about his past
criminal acts or other disqualifying events were provided to the NICS system.

The US would have likely defacto universal background checks had the first Clinton dynasty
not changed the rules about who can acquire a Federal Firearms License.

[GuitarStv]

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

Steve:

I'm for reducing the number of private transfers (the ones without the background checks) because I do believe there are a few exploiting the loophole.  Realize that's not exactly what you want, but it would go a long way.  I've also managed to make my arguments without a single reference to male sexual organs.

MW

Right.  I forgot that you were arguing against background checks in favour of alternative regulation.  I appreciate you leaving your Weapon of Ass Destruction out of the conversation.  :P

Between driving a truck and owning a gun, I shouldn't be able to find it according to some on this forum.

The silver lining is that since it's demonstrably that small, nobody is going to try to impose regulations on your use of that weapon.  :P

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

A background check cannot infer the intent of the buyer.

A background check could potentially reject someone if they have a
criminal record or a history of violence, only if information about his past
criminal acts or other disqualifying events were provided to the NICS system.

The US would have likely defacto universal background checks had the first Clinton dynasty
not changed the rules about who can acquire a Federal Firearms License.

. . . and reply 313 is arguing that background checks serve no purpose.

So yeah, I think we can safely draw the conclusion that people on the gun control side are opposed to national background checks to purchase a weapon.

[JLee]

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

Steve:

I'm for reducing the number of private transfers (the ones without the background checks) because I do believe there are a few exploiting the loophole.  Realize that's not exactly what you want, but it would go a long way.  I've also managed to make my arguments without a single reference to male sexual organs.

MW

Right.  I forgot that you were arguing against background checks in favour of alternative regulation.  I appreciate you leaving your Weapon of Ass Destruction out of the conversation.  :P

Between driving a truck and owning a gun, I shouldn't be able to find it according to some on this forum.

The silver lining is that since it's demonstrably that small, nobody is going to try to impose regulations on your use of that weapon.  :P

I don't see anyone arguing against national background checks.

Reply number 202 was an argument that background checks are impossible.  Reply 281 made up information and presented it as fact about current rules for background checks.  Not a single voice from the pro gun crowd has voiced any support of background checks for all firearms sales.

A background check cannot infer the intent of the buyer.

A background check could potentially reject someone if they have a
criminal record or a history of violence, only if information about his past
criminal acts or other disqualifying events were provided to the NICS system.

The US would have likely defacto universal background checks had the first Clinton dynasty
not changed the rules about who can acquire a Federal Firearms License.

. . . and reply 313 is arguing that background checks serve no purpose.

So yeah, I think we can safely draw the conclusion that people on the gun control side are opposed to national background checks to purchase a weapon.

I see you're ignoring all the discussion we've already had in the other thread.

[GuitarStv]

I see you're ignoring all the discussion we've already had in the other thread.

Nope.  There was a lot of argument against the use of background checks for all weapons sales by the pro gun crowd in that thread as well.

[ender]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t88X1pYQu-I

Thanks.  Yea, let's pray.  Again.  That will solve things.  Just like throwing up our hands and saying "opps, too difficult, can't do anything, let's move on to the sports channel".

A few things to ponder:

More Americans are now killed annually (yes includes suicides) than were killed by guns on an average year in the Civil War, our bloodiest conflict.

In the US more preschoolers through age 4 are shot dead each year than police officers.

Hmmm, our neighbor, Canada, doesn't seem to have the same problem.  Their Muslim population is 3% ours is 1%.  What they do have is strict NATIONAL gun laws.  You can still buy an AR15, for instance in limited circumstances after safety screening and training.  What a concept.

In contrast the Florida waiting period for purchasing an AR-15?  ZERO.

More Americans have died from guns just since 1970 than have died in all wars going back to the Revolution.

Number of mass shootings in Australia since 1996 when they put in place stricter gun control: ZERO.

Now, yea, yea.  We have that Second Amendment to deal with, which admittedly is unique (thanks founding fathers).  But that doesn't mean we can't improve upon the present dismal situation.  We're smart - we can figure this out. 

That somehow, as a price for easy gun access, we have to put up with a constant barrage of mass shootings is morally vacant.

The main reason gun control is such a problem in the USA is exactly this type of post.

It more or less summarizes the problems with gun control advocates and their approach. "If we repeat the same thing over and over again and use fear tactics we'll get our way [even though we're clearly ignorant of facts]" instead of dealing with actual partial solutions which are far more useful in solving the long term problem.

Attitudes like this will get nowhere at either the public or individual level.

[GuitarStv]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

[Northwestie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t88X1pYQu-I

Thanks.  Yea, let's pray.  Again.  That will solve things.  Just like throwing up our hands and saying "opps, too difficult, can't do anything, let's move on to the sports channel".

A few things to ponder:

More Americans are now killed annually (yes includes suicides) than were killed by guns on an average year in the Civil War, our bloodiest conflict.

In the US more preschoolers through age 4 are shot dead each year than police officers.

Hmmm, our neighbor, Canada, doesn't seem to have the same problem.  Their Muslim population is 3% ours is 1%.  What they do have is strict NATIONAL gun laws.  You can still buy an AR15, for instance in limited circumstances after safety screening and training.  What a concept.

In contrast the Florida waiting period for purchasing an AR-15?  ZERO.

More Americans have died from guns just since 1970 than have died in all wars going back to the Revolution.

Number of mass shootings in Australia since 1996 when they put in place stricter gun control: ZERO.

Now, yea, yea.  We have that Second Amendment to deal with, which admittedly is unique (thanks founding fathers).  But that doesn't mean we can't improve upon the present dismal situation.  We're smart - we can figure this out. 

That somehow, as a price for easy gun access, we have to put up with a constant barrage of mass shootings is morally vacant.

The main reason gun control is such a problem in the USA is exactly this type of post.

It more or less summarizes the problems with gun control advocates and their approach. "If we repeat the same thing over and over again and use fear tactics we'll get our way [even though we're clearly ignorant of facts]" instead of dealing with actual partial solutions which are far more useful in solving the long term problem.

Attitudes like this will get nowhere at either the public or individual level.

Nothing to see here, move along, we can't do any better.  Plenty of solutions have be put forward but the argument that "nothing can be done" is  bit stale.  Go down to Orlando and make that pronouncement. 

Strangely other advanced countries have a handle on it -- but somehow we can't find any solution here.  Really??

[Yaeger]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

[Yaeger]

Nothing to see here, move along, we can't do any better.  Plenty of solutions have be put forward but the argument that "nothing can be done" is  bit stale.  Go down to Orlando and make that pronouncement. 

Strangely other advanced countries have a handle on it -- but somehow we can't find any solution here.  Really??

They DO have a handle on it, and it has nothing to do with guns or gun control. The Answers you seek are within you!

[Curbside Prophet]

...and please, the facile argument you put forth to make the AR-15 appear benign is ludicrous. You either do not know what you are talking about or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

In his defense, there was a federal legistlator on the news talking about the AR-15's 700 rounds per minute firing rate... At least Curbside acknowledge the ridiculousness of the statement. While statistically borderline impossible it could theoretically happen.

The statement I was calling BS on was the " it's only a .22 ...too small for medium game ...penetrate LESS than handgun rounds nonsense.

It's a .223 not a .22. Big, big difference.
It's not made to penetrate, it's made to tumble and do the max damage to animal flesh.
Not sure what medium game has to do with anything.

I don't know what I'm talking about and misrepresenting?  Go ahead and point out specifics, I'll defend anything I've said.

There's a big difference between a .22 and a .223?  Seriously?  Do you even understand what a caliber is and what it measures?  Someone has already backed me up that it isn't used to hunt deer.

What does hunting have to do with it?  Read the damn thread, it was brought up several times that an "AR-15 has no use for hunting!" 

The ballistics of a bullet is made to tumble, not the firearm.  Do you know what a full metal jacket is?  Do you know it's ballistics against soft targets vs soft tip, ballistic tip, hollow point?  I do.  Are you arguing with me that handguns over penetrate more?  Let me know, I can provide plenty of cites.

So like I said, if I'm spouting BS, post some cites.  I'll back up everything I said with facts.

Well, for a start, tell us more about the killing 90 people with a shotgun.

Regarding the calibre question. The way you asked the question pretty much guarantees that you don't know what calibre originally measured and what it has been co-opted to mean today...especially in the US. (I'm hoping you're not going to say something like..."It's only .003 of inch difference. That's less than the width of SILK THREAD!!!")

And I've attached a picture so you can see the difference between a .22 and .223 round. That should help you out.

Are you saying you can't kill 90 people with a shotgun?  Ever heard of a Vepr-12?  Are you telling me a Vepr-12 with 00 buckshot can't take out 90 people?

I'm glad you finally googled and realized there is only a .003 inch difference in diameter. 

In guns, particularly firearms, caliber or calibre is the approximate internal diameter of the barrel, or the diameter of the projectile it fires, in hundredths or sometimes thousandths of an inch. For example, a 45 caliber firearm has a barrel diameter of .45 of an inch. Barrel diameters can also be expressed using metric dimensions, as in "9mm pistol." When the barrel diameter is given in inches, the abbreviation "cal" (for "caliber") can be used. For example, a small-bore rifle with a diameter of 0.22 inches can be referred to as .22 or a .22 cal; however, the decimal point is generally dropped when spoken, making it a "twenty-two caliber" or a "two-two caliber rifle".

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

There's even a nice little chart that shows rather clearly that .22LR and .223 Remington are BOTH 22 caliber. 

So you're wrong on both accounts.  Anything else?

[JLee]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

Based on what I've seen from both sides of the argument (and have for many years), I believe the pro-gun crowd fights so hard against the anti-gun crowd because they feel that the ultimate goal is to ban guns.

Given that there have recently been posts saying how they would approve of an outright ban and ensuing confiscation of semi-automatic rifles, I can't say I blame them.   One side is afraid of guns and therefore wants to take them away.  The other side is afraid of people taking their guns away.  A position where both sides argue against each other based on fear is never productive. It's hard to collaborate on a mutually acceptable solution when only one side has to give something up.

For the record, I've owned a rifle since I was 12 (over 20 years). I am not a member of the NRA because I do not like their fear-mongering tactics.  I have absolutely no problems with all firearm sales going through an FFL.  I do have a problem with you deciding what I should or shouldn't be able to own based on your gut feeling and personal perception. I already can't buy a FAMAE SAF or SG 542, a Norinco T97 (or M305, which is an M14 clone), or a GM6 Lynx, but my girlfriend in Canada can.  She can also buy an assortment of short-barreled shotguns that are quite illegal in the United States without special federal paperwork and tax stamps.

If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally disturbed people, I'll be happy to make reasonable accommodations to assist.  If you want to prevent law-abiding citizens from legally buying firearms because you don't like how they look, you can go pound sand.

[GuitarStv]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

[JLee]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

If reducing death is truly the goal, ban alcohol or change your focus from rifles to handguns.

[Northwestie]

Nothing to see here, move along, we can't do any better.  Plenty of solutions have be put forward but the argument that "nothing can be done" is  bit stale.  Go down to Orlando and make that pronouncement. 

Strangely other advanced countries have a handle on it -- but somehow we can't find any solution here.  Really??

They DO have a handle on it, and it has nothing to do with guns or gun control. The Answers you seek are within you!

I don't need a gun other than for hunting, and neither do my friends and family because 1) we're not scared of some fictional boogey man, 2) the fantasy of government takeover, 3) terrorists, 4) the Red Dawn teenage dream, and 4) nor do we feel we need a penis extension.

[GuitarStv]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

If reducing death is truly the goal, ban alcohol or change your focus from rifles to handguns.

My goal isn't to ban anything.  It's to reduce death.  The last alcohol ban didn't go very well on that front from what I recall.

[golden1]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

This is what I don't understand.  Obviously with 30000+ incidents of gun fatalities, and so much disagreement about what the statistics are saying, research is definitely needed.  If people don't trust the evil gun stealing government to run the numbers, can we at least look for a neutral party to do the studies and go from there? 

I still think a lot of this problem could be solved technologically.  I just don't buy that this is something that is unsolvable.  Maybe we just aren't looking at it from the right angle. 

[ender]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ahh good, I knew you were advocating for improved education requirements and gun safety training courses and increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents.

Err, wait, you are wanting to focus on a small fraction of gun deaths instead of much easier to address groups.

[JLee]

Nothing to see here, move along, we can't do any better.  Plenty of solutions have be put forward but the argument that "nothing can be done" is  bit stale.  Go down to Orlando and make that pronouncement. 

Strangely other advanced countries have a handle on it -- but somehow we can't find any solution here.  Really??

They DO have a handle on it, and it has nothing to do with guns or gun control. The Answers you seek are within you!

I don't need a gun other than for hunting, and neither do my friends and family because 1) we're not scared of some fictional boogey man, 2) the fantasy of government takeover, 3) terrorists, 4) the Red Dawn teenage dream, and 4) nor do we feel we need a penis extension.

Might I suggest you go make your own thread to talk about genitalia?

[Rightflyer]

...and please, the facile argument you put forth to make the AR-15 appear benign is ludicrous. You either do not know what you are talking about or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

In his defense, there was a federal legistlator on the news talking about the AR-15's 700 rounds per minute firing rate... At least Curbside acknowledge the ridiculousness of the statement. While statistically borderline impossible it could theoretically happen.

The statement I was calling BS on was the " it's only a .22 ...too small for medium game ...penetrate LESS than handgun rounds nonsense.

It's a .223 not a .22. Big, big difference.
It's not made to penetrate, it's made to tumble and do the max damage to animal flesh.
Not sure what medium game has to do with anything.

I don't know what I'm talking about and misrepresenting?  Go ahead and point out specifics, I'll defend anything I've said.

There's a big difference between a .22 and a .223?  Seriously?  Do you even understand what a caliber is and what it measures?  Someone has already backed me up that it isn't used to hunt deer.

What does hunting have to do with it?  Read the damn thread, it was brought up several times that an "AR-15 has no use for hunting!" 

The ballistics of a bullet is made to tumble, not the firearm.  Do you know what a full metal jacket is?  Do you know it's ballistics against soft targets vs soft tip, ballistic tip, hollow point?  I do.  Are you arguing with me that handguns over penetrate more?  Let me know, I can provide plenty of cites.

So like I said, if I'm spouting BS, post some cites.  I'll back up everything I said with facts.

Well, for a start, tell us more about the killing 90 people with a shotgun.

Regarding the calibre question. The way you asked the question pretty much guarantees that you don't know what calibre originally measured and what it has been co-opted to mean today...especially in the US. (I'm hoping you're not going to say something like..."It's only .003 of inch difference. That's less than the width of SILK THREAD!!!")

And I've attached a picture so you can see the difference between a .22 and .223 round. That should help you out.

Are you saying you can't kill 90 people with a shotgun?  Ever heard of a Vepr-12?  Are you telling me a Vepr-12 with 00 buckshot can't take out 90 people?

I'm glad you finally googled and realized there is only a .003 inch difference in diameter. 

In guns, particularly firearms, caliber or calibre is the approximate internal diameter of the barrel, or the diameter of the projectile it fires, in hundredths or sometimes thousandths of an inch. For example, a 45 caliber firearm has a barrel diameter of .45 of an inch. Barrel diameters can also be expressed using metric dimensions, as in "9mm pistol." When the barrel diameter is given in inches, the abbreviation "cal" (for "caliber") can be used. For example, a small-bore rifle with a diameter of 0.22 inches can be referred to as .22 or a .22 cal; however, the decimal point is generally dropped when spoken, making it a "twenty-two caliber" or a "two-two caliber rifle".

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

There's even a nice little chart that shows rather clearly that .22LR and .223 Remington are BOTH 22 caliber. 

So you're wrong on both accounts.  Anything else?

Oh boy...

Now listen and learn a lesson that will help you in future debates. DON'T QUOTE WIKIPEDIA as source, unless you check it's sources.

Or at least read the disclaimer as the beginning...!

In this example, the "nice little chart" that purports to support your argument lists 4 references.
T
he first is from a document that has no ISBN number. Therefore unverifiable. Probably because it was published by a magazine! In 2000???
The other 3 are links to websites that do not exist.



 

[GuitarStv]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ahh good, I knew you were advocating for improved education requirements and gun safety training courses and increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents.

Err, wait, you are wanting to focus on a small fraction of gun deaths instead of much easier to address groups.

Yeah, those are good ideas . . . and would be a great place to start.  Some education and gun safety training for anyone who wants to own a gun is a no-brainer.  There was vigorous opposition to this in the other thread when I suggested it.

Increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents makes sense too.

[dycker1978]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ahh good, I knew you were advocating for improved education requirements and gun safety training courses and increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents.

Err, wait, you are wanting to focus on a small fraction of gun deaths instead of much easier to address groups.

Yeah, those are good ideas . . . and would be a great place to start.  Some education and gun safety training for anyone who wants to own a gun is a no-brainer.  There was vigorous opposition to this in the other thread when I suggested it.

Increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents makes sense too.

I completely agree with the education.  This is, to me, a no brainer.  You have to have drivers education to drive.

[JLee]

Oh boy...

Now listen and learn a lesson that will help you in future debates. DON'T QUOTE WIKIPEDIA as source, unless you check it's sources.

Or at least read the disclaimer as the beginning...!

In this example, the "nice little chart" that purports to support your argument lists 4 references.
T
he first is from a document that has no ISBN number. Therefore unverifiable. Probably because it was published by a magazine! In 2000???
The other 3 are links to websites that do not exist.

Of all the things to argue about in this thread, this is one of the silliest.  There's a negligible difference in diameter between a .22 and .223.  The difference in energy is massive.

[JLee]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ahh good, I knew you were advocating for improved education requirements and gun safety training courses and increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents.

Err, wait, you are wanting to focus on a small fraction of gun deaths instead of much easier to address groups.

Yeah, those are good ideas . . . and would be a great place to start.  Some education and gun safety training for anyone who wants to own a gun is a no-brainer.  There was vigorous opposition to this in the other thread when I suggested it.

Increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents makes sense too.

I completely agree with the education.  This is, to me, a no brainer.  You have to have drivers education to drive.

That's not necessarily correct...but I agree with education as well.

[Yaeger]

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ah yes, your goal is so morally superior I bow to your righteous purpose. Except you haven't shown that anything you suggest would reduce deaths, but okay, ignoring that point for now.

Here are some areas off the top of my head in which I'd like to see compromise from the gun-control crowd, in return for concessions from gun advocates:
1) Pass a federal law that prohibits states and local governments from passing their own restrictions on firearms
2) Allow concealed carry licenses to be used across state lines
3) Make it easier, and more affordable, for those of us with documented experience to obtain automatic weapons
4) Pass a law that states, after this compromise, no further action can be taken in regards to gun control without a super-majority vote
5) Exempt firearms and ammunition from federal, state, local taxes
6) Promote a culture of gun safety and responsibility instead fear-mongering about gun violence

[Rightflyer]

...and please, the facile argument you put forth to make the AR-15 appear benign is ludicrous. You either do not know what you are talking about or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

In his defense, there was a federal legistlator on the news talking about the AR-15's 700 rounds per minute firing rate... At least Curbside acknowledge the ridiculousness of the statement. While statistically borderline impossible it could theoretically happen.

The statement I was calling BS on was the " it's only a .22 ...too small for medium game ...penetrate LESS than handgun rounds nonsense.

It's a .223 not a .22. Big, big difference.
It's not made to penetrate, it's made to tumble and do the max damage to animal flesh.
Not sure what medium game has to do with anything.

I don't know what I'm talking about and misrepresenting?  Go ahead and point out specifics, I'll defend anything I've said.

There's a big difference between a .22 and a .223?  Seriously?  Do you even understand what a caliber is and what it measures?  Someone has already backed me up that it isn't used to hunt deer.

What does hunting have to do with it?  Read the damn thread, it was brought up several times that an "AR-15 has no use for hunting!" 

The ballistics of a bullet is made to tumble, not the firearm.  Do you know what a full metal jacket is?  Do you know it's ballistics against soft targets vs soft tip, ballistic tip, hollow point?  I do.  Are you arguing with me that handguns over penetrate more?  Let me know, I can provide plenty of cites.

So like I said, if I'm spouting BS, post some cites.  I'll back up everything I said with facts.

Well, for a start, tell us more about the killing 90 people with a shotgun.

Regarding the calibre question. The way you asked the question pretty much guarantees that you don't know what calibre originally measured and what it has been co-opted to mean today...especially in the US. (I'm hoping you're not going to say something like..."It's only .003 of inch difference. That's less than the width of SILK THREAD!!!")

And I've attached a picture so you can see the difference between a .22 and .223 round. That should help you out.

Are you saying you can't kill 90 people with a shotgun?  Ever heard of a Vepr-12?  Are you telling me a Vepr-12 with 00 buckshot can't take out 90 people?

I'm glad you finally googled and realized there is only a .003 inch difference in diameter. 

In guns, particularly firearms, caliber or calibre is the approximate internal diameter of the barrel, or the diameter of the projectile it fires, in hundredths or sometimes thousandths of an inch. For example, a 45 caliber firearm has a barrel diameter of .45 of an inch. Barrel diameters can also be expressed using metric dimensions, as in "9mm pistol." When the barrel diameter is given in inches, the abbreviation "cal" (for "caliber") can be used. For example, a small-bore rifle with a diameter of 0.22 inches can be referred to as .22 or a .22 cal; however, the decimal point is generally dropped when spoken, making it a "twenty-two caliber" or a "two-two caliber rifle".

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

There's even a nice little chart that shows rather clearly that .22LR and .223 Remington are BOTH 22 caliber. 

So you're wrong on both accounts.  Anything else?

Now come on. Be honest here.
When you said "You know what would take down a lot of targets indiscriminately?  A shotgun.  You know the universal self-defense weapon that even Joe Biden himself recommends.  A shotgun with 00 buckshot can shoot NINE little ball bearings EVERY TIME YOU PULL THE TRIGGER.  So in 10 shots you can potentially hit up to 90 people." were you really thinking of the Vepr-12?

Is that the shotgun that Joe Biden recommends? Specifically with the 10 round clip? Hmmm.

[Gin1984]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

This is what I don't understand.  Obviously with 30000+ incidents of gun fatalities, and so much disagreement about what the statistics are saying, research is definitely needed. If people don't trust the evil gun stealing government to run the numbers, can we at least look for a neutral party to do the studies and go from there? 

I still think a lot of this problem could be solved technologically.  I just don't buy that this is something that is unsolvable.  Maybe we just aren't looking at it from the right angle.

The government does not run the numbers, it gives out funding to researchers who do the studies.  And given that other research has shown that data is least biased when the funding source is government, the ONLY reasonable conclusion to refusing to allow it to be studied is they don't want the answers because they know that the answer won't serve them.

[Rightflyer]

Oh boy...

Now listen and learn a lesson that will help you in future debates. DON'T QUOTE WIKIPEDIA as source, unless you check it's sources.

Or at least read the disclaimer as the beginning...!

In this example, the "nice little chart" that purports to support your argument lists 4 references.
T
he first is from a document that has no ISBN number. Therefore unverifiable. Probably because it was published by a magazine! In 2000???
The other 3 are links to websites that do not exist.

Of all the things to argue about in this thread, this is one of the silliest.  There's a negligible difference in diameter between a .22 and .223.  The difference in energy is massive.

Yes, absolutely! I totally agree. That is exactly what I am saying.
A breakthrough at last!!!

Thanks

[Gin1984]

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ah yes, your goal is so morally superior I bow to your righteous purpose. Except you haven't shown that anything you suggest would reduce deaths, but okay, ignoring that point for now.

Here are some areas off the top of my head in which I'd like to see compromise from the gun-control crowd, in return for concessions from gun advocates:
1) Pass a federal law that prohibits states and local governments from passing their own restrictions on firearms
2) Allow concealed carry licenses to be used across state lines
3) Make it easier, and more affordable, for those of us with documented experience to obtain automatic weapons
4) Pass a law that states, after this compromise, no further action can be taken in regards to gun control without a super-majority vote
5) Exempt firearms and ammunition from federal, state, local taxes
6) Promote a culture of gun safety and responsibility instead fear-mongering about gun violence

That would be against our Constitution and state's rights.  Funny how that only matters when it gives you something.

[GuitarStv]

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ahh good, I knew you were advocating for improved education requirements and gun safety training courses and increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents.

Err, wait, you are wanting to focus on a small fraction of gun deaths instead of much easier to address groups.

Yeah, those are good ideas . . . and would be a great place to start.  Some education and gun safety training for anyone who wants to own a gun is a no-brainer.  There was vigorous opposition to this in the other thread when I suggested it.

Increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents makes sense too.

I completely agree with the education.  This is, to me, a no brainer.  You have to have drivers education to drive.

That's not necessarily correct...but I agree with education as well.

OK, so the next question would be . . . what form of education?  Would it just be handing out a pamphlet with the firearm?  Would there be a test to ensure that the person purchasing the gun has absorbed the education?  What happens if they fail the test?

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ah yes, your goal is so morally superior I bow to your righteous purpose. Except you haven't shown that anything you suggest would reduce deaths, but okay, ignoring that point for now.

Here are some areas off the top of my head in which I'd like to see compromise from the gun-control crowd, in return for concessions from gun advocates:
1) Pass a federal law that prohibits states and local governments from passing their own restrictions on firearms
2) Allow concealed carry licenses to be used across state lines
3) Make it easier, and more affordable, for those of us with documented experience to obtain automatic weapons
4) Pass a law that states, after this compromise, no further action can be taken in regards to gun control without a super-majority vote
5) Exempt firearms and ammunition from federal, state, local taxes
6) Promote a culture of gun safety and responsibility instead fear-mongering about gun violence

There's only one item on your list that has anything to do with preventing death, so I'll just ignore your other petulant demands.

I've always promoted a culture of gun safety and responsibility, so sure.  No problems with that point, and I doubt you would get much pushback from anyone else.

[forummm]

Based on what I've seen from both sides of the argument (and have for many years), I believe the pro-gun crowd fights so hard against the anti-gun crowd because they feel that the ultimate goal is to ban guns.

I agree that many of the pro-gun people think this. Perhaps it's at least partly because they realize that there really isn't a need for most people in modern developed countries to have guns. Almost no one needs to hunt for food anymore. Or lives in a place where animals (like wolves) threaten their homes and livestock. And if you want to hunt for fun because you like killing animals--OK fine, as long as it's in designated areas where people know that hunting might be going on and voluntarily take that risk that they could get shot and use whatever safety precautions. But none of these applications need anything more than a rifle or a shotgun. And very few people would really need them (a larger number might like to hunt for fun).

Let's say you're really scared and want a gun to protect your home. Well, ignoring the fact that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your family than a predator, you could do all the protecting you need with a shotgun. And you'd be even safer if you just spent a few hundred bucks on a metal door (which actually increases your property value too) so people couldn't get in.

Law enforcement officials have a decent claim about needing different weapons. But even there I think they could get by with a lot less in many cases. In England, most cops don't carry guns. We'd have a lot fewer dead (and frequently innocent) people if fewer cops had ready access to lethal weapons.

There's just really no need for guns except in small cases. And even for those cases, the guns with crazy huge clips and rapid fire rates are either counter productive or just not necessary. Maybe they make you feel like a badass because you could totally kill as many people as you wanted to. Maybe that feeling of power is like a drug that people don't want to give up. But unlike real drugs, it's a hobby that actually leads to the death of other people. And it's really hard to justify letting some people get all amped up about what a badass they are because of some metal and explosives they are holding when that means that tens of thousands of people will die as a result. Maybe pro-gun people realize that they are extracting a heavy cost on society for their hobby.

I do have a problem with you deciding what I should or shouldn't be able to own based on your gut feeling and personal perception.

What if it's based on data?

[Yaeger]

The government does not run the numbers, it gives out funding to researchers who do the studies.  And given that other research has shown that data is least biased when the funding source is government, the ONLY reasonable conclusion to refusing to allow it to be studied is they don't want the answers because they know that the answer won't serve them.

That's like the government funding studies on finding the best way to restrict your First Amendment rights. I mean, who wants the government researching this stuff with taxpayer money? I don't want my taxes going to this, I have a hard enough time justifying studies being done to advocate removing citizen's rights with public money from publicly-funded universities.

[Shane]

It seems pretty obvious that some sort of stricter gun regulations are needed in the U.S., but whether or not meaningful regulations will have any chance of passing the U.S. Congress, and if they do, will have any measurable positive effects is questionable, IMO.

More and more, I'm starting to think the problem is not that guns are too widely available in the U.S. It seems to me like the real problem is the American people. Many people complain about politicians like Donald Trump. Some of them seem to think he's the problem. I think the Donald is just a reflection of the American people. He says what a very large number of Americans seem to really believe, deep in their hearts, and that's pretty scary to me.

I say this as an American citizen who in many ways deeply identifies with what I grew up believing were American values. Lately, I don't feel like I really fit in in the U.S., though. I can't imagine living in about 90% of the U.S. mainland. Maintaining U.S. citizenship and continuing to vote in every election is an opportunity to at least try to make some positive changes from the inside. I guess I could just stay in the U.S. forever and just keep on holding my nose, but I'm not sure how much longer I want to be an American.

One of my brothers has already moved to Europe and is planning on renouncing his U.S. citizenship as soon as he qualifies to get an EU passport. I may not be too far behind him.

[JLee]

Oh boy...

Now listen and learn a lesson that will help you in future debates. DON'T QUOTE WIKIPEDIA as source, unless you check it's sources.

Or at least read the disclaimer as the beginning...!

In this example, the "nice little chart" that purports to support your argument lists 4 references.
T
he first is from a document that has no ISBN number. Therefore unverifiable. Probably because it was published by a magazine! In 2000???
The other 3 are links to websites that do not exist.

Of all the things to argue about in this thread, this is one of the silliest.  There's a negligible difference in diameter between a .22 and .223.  The difference in energy is massive.

Yes, absolutely! I totally agree. That is exactly what I am saying.
A breakthrough at last!!!

Thanks

I'm not sure how it's a breakthrough, but you're welcome.

Now come on. Be honest here.
When you said "You know what would take down a lot of targets indiscriminately?  A shotgun.  You know the universal self-defense weapon that even Joe Biden himself recommends.  A shotgun with 00 buckshot can shoot NINE little ball bearings EVERY TIME YOU PULL THE TRIGGER.  So in 10 shots you can potentially hit up to 90 people." were you really thinking of the Vepr-12?

Is that the shotgun that Joe Biden recommends? Specifically with the 10 round clip? Hmmm.

For what it's worth, an ordinary Remington 870 / Mossberg 500 can hold 8.

What partial solutions will gun advocates will agree to?

We've had many, many posts arguing that:
- there is no problem to fix in the US
- fixing the problem is impossible
- fixing the problem is too costly
- death is the cost of freedom
- researching the problem should not be allowed
- any change makes things worse

Even relatively uncontroversial and simple measures (like making background checks necessary to buy a firearm) are fought against.  There's not much to work with.

How about a compromise. I'll give something up if you give something up of equal value. What you're asking us to do usually involves pro-gun advocates giving something up so you can feel better at night. You're not willing to work with us.

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ahh good, I knew you were advocating for improved education requirements and gun safety training courses and increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents.

Err, wait, you are wanting to focus on a small fraction of gun deaths instead of much easier to address groups.

Yeah, those are good ideas . . . and would be a great place to start.  Some education and gun safety training for anyone who wants to own a gun is a no-brainer.  There was vigorous opposition to this in the other thread when I suggested it.

Increased penalties for owners of guns used in accidents makes sense too.

I completely agree with the education.  This is, to me, a no brainer.  You have to have drivers education to drive.

That's not necessarily correct...but I agree with education as well.

OK, so the next question would be . . . what form of education?  Would it just be handing out a pamphlet with the firearm?  Would there be a test to ensure that the person purchasing the gun has absorbed the education?  What happens if they fail the test?

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ah yes, your goal is so morally superior I bow to your righteous purpose. Except you haven't shown that anything you suggest would reduce deaths, but okay, ignoring that point for now.

Here are some areas off the top of my head in which I'd like to see compromise from the gun-control crowd, in return for concessions from gun advocates:
1) Pass a federal law that prohibits states and local governments from passing their own restrictions on firearms
2) Allow concealed carry licenses to be used across state lines
3) Make it easier, and more affordable, for those of us with documented experience to obtain automatic weapons
4) Pass a law that states, after this compromise, no further action can be taken in regards to gun control without a super-majority vote
5) Exempt firearms and ammunition from federal, state, local taxes
6) Promote a culture of gun safety and responsibility instead fear-mongering about gun violence

There's only one item on your list that has anything to do with preventing death, so I'll just ignore your other petulant demands.

I've always promoted a culture of gun safety and responsibility, so sure.  No problems with that point, and I doubt you would get much pushback from anyone else.

Stunning, how the insulting comments just keep rolling in...could you at least make an attempt to hold a conversation in good faith?

[JLee]

Based on what I've seen from both sides of the argument (and have for many years), I believe the pro-gun crowd fights so hard against the anti-gun crowd because they feel that the ultimate goal is to ban guns.

I agree that many of the pro-gun people think this. Perhaps it's at least partly because they realize that there really isn't a need for most people in modern developed countries to have guns. Almost no one needs to hunt for food anymore. Or lives in a place where animals (like wolves) threaten their homes and livestock. And if you want to hunt for fun because you like killing animals--OK fine, as long as it's in designated areas where people know that hunting might be going on and voluntarily take that risk that they could get shot and use whatever safety precautions. But none of these applications need anything more than a rifle or a shotgun. And very few people would really need them (a larger number might like to hunt for fun).

Let's say you're really scared and want a gun to protect your home. Well, ignoring the fact that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your family than a predator, you could do all the protecting you need with a shotgun. And you'd be even safer if you just spent a few hundred bucks on a metal door (which actually increases your property value too) so people couldn't get in.

Law enforcement officials have a decent claim about needing different weapons. But even there I think they could get by with a lot less in many cases. In England, most cops don't carry guns. We'd have a lot fewer dead (and frequently innocent) people if fewer cops had ready access to lethal weapons.

There's just really no need for guns except in small cases. And even for those cases, the guns with crazy huge clips and rapid fire rates are either counter productive or just not necessary. Maybe they make you feel like a badass because you could totally kill as many people as you wanted to. Maybe that feeling of power is like a drug that people don't want to give up. But unlike real drugs, it's a hobby that actually leads to the death of other people. And it's really hard to justify letting some people get all amped up about what a badass they are because of some metal and explosives they are holding when that means that tens of thousands of people will die as a result. Maybe pro-gun people realize that they are extracting a heavy cost on society for their hobby.

I do have a problem with you deciding what I should or shouldn't be able to own based on your gut feeling and personal perception.

What if it's based on data?

Might I suggest you also campaign for restrictions or bans on alcohol and tobacco?  The societal toll far exceeds that of firearms.

If it was based on data, you would be going after handguns instead of rifles.

It seems pretty obvious that some sort of stricter gun regulations are needed in the U.S., but whether or not meaningful regulations will have any chance of passing the U.S. Congress, and if they do, will have any measurable positive effects is questionable, IMO.

More and more, I'm starting to think the problem is not that guns are too widely available in the U.S. It seems to me like the real problem is the American people. Many people complain about politicians like Donald Trump. Some of them seem to think he's the problem. I think the Donald is just a reflection of the American people. He says what a very large number of Americans seem to really believe, deep in their hearts, and that's pretty scary to me.

I say this as an American citizen who in many ways deeply identifies with what I grew up believing were American values. Lately, I don't feel like I really fit in in the U.S., though. I can't imagine living in about 90% of the U.S. mainland. Maintaining U.S. citizenship and continuing to vote in every election is an opportunity to at least try to make some positive changes from the inside. I guess I could just stay in the U.S. forever and just keep on holding my nose, but I'm not sure how much longer I want to be an American.

One of my brothers has already moved to Europe and is planning on renouncing his U.S. citizenship as soon as he qualifies to get an EU passport. I may not be too far behind him.

I agree entirely.  That was mentioned earlier but it appears to be a far less attractive topic.

[Northwestie]

Ummm, like nope, no reason to change anything.  Some how that translates into reasonable.  Gimme a break.  That is hypocritical. 

[Northwestie]

Based on what I've seen from both sides of the argument (and have for many years), I believe the pro-gun crowd fights so hard against the anti-gun crowd because they feel that the ultimate goal is to ban guns.

I agree that many of the pro-gun people think this. Perhaps it's at least partly because they realize that there really isn't a need for most people in modern developed countries to have guns. Almost no one needs to hunt for food anymore. Or lives in a place where animals (like wolves) threaten their homes and livestock. And if you want to hunt for fun because you like killing animals--OK fine, as long as it's in designated areas where people know that hunting might be going on and voluntarily take that risk that they could get shot and use whatever safety precautions. But none of these applications need anything more than a rifle or a shotgun. And very few people would really need them (a larger number might like to hunt for fun).

Let's say you're really scared and want a gun to protect your home. Well, ignoring the fact that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your family than a predator, you could do all the protecting you need with a shotgun. And you'd be even safer if you just spent a few hundred bucks on a metal door (which actually increases your property value too) so people couldn't get in.

Law enforcement officials have a decent claim about needing different weapons. But even there I think they could get by with a lot less in many cases. In England, most cops don't carry guns. We'd have a lot fewer dead (and frequently innocent) people if fewer cops had ready access to lethal weapons.

There's just really no need for guns except in small cases. And even for those cases, the guns with crazy huge clips and rapid fire rates are either counter productive or just not necessary. Maybe they make you feel like a badass because you could totally kill as many people as you wanted to. Maybe that feeling of power is like a drug that people don't want to give up. But unlike real drugs, it's a hobby that actually leads to the death of other people. And it's really hard to justify letting some people get all amped up about what a badass they are because of some metal and explosives they are holding when that means that tens of thousands of people will die as a result. Maybe pro-gun people realize that they are extracting a heavy cost on society for their hobby.

I do have a problem with you deciding what I should or shouldn't be able to own based on your gut feeling and personal perception.

What if it's based on data?

Might I suggest you also campaign for restrictions or bans on alcohol and tobacco?  The societal toll far exceeds that of firearms.

If it was based on data, you would be going after handguns instead of rifles.

It seems pretty obvious that some sort of stricter gun regulations are needed in the U.S., but whether or not meaningful regulations will have any chance of passing the U.S. Congress, and if they do, will have any measurable positive effects is questionable, IMO.

More and more, I'm starting to think the problem is not that guns are too widely available in the U.S. It seems to me like the real problem is the American people. Many people complain about politicians like Donald Trump. Some of them seem to think he's the problem. I think the Donald is just a reflection of the American people. He says what a very large number of Americans seem to really believe, deep in their hearts, and that's pretty scary to me.

I say this as an American citizen who in many ways deeply identifies with what I grew up believing were American values. Lately, I don't feel like I really fit in in the U.S., though. I can't imagine living in about 90% of the U.S. mainland. Maintaining U.S. citizenship and continuing to vote in every election is an opportunity to at least try to make some positive changes from the inside. I guess I could just stay in the U.S. forever and just keep on holding my nose, but I'm not sure how much longer I want to be an American.

One of my brothers has already moved to Europe and is planning on renouncing his U.S. citizenship as soon as he qualifies to get an EU passport. I may not be too far behind him.

I agree entirely.  That was mentioned earlier but it appears to be a far less attractive topic.

Oh yea - that we're the only advanced country drowning in weapons and its the PEOPLE that is the problem. Brilliant Sherlock.

[JLee]

Oh yea - that we're the only advanced country drowning in weapons and its the PEOPLE that is the problem. Brilliant Sherlock.

If you are arguing that the people pulling the trigger are not a problem, you're delusional and should probably just leave now.

[Yaeger]

Based on what I've seen from both sides of the argument (and have for many years), I believe the pro-gun crowd fights so hard against the anti-gun crowd because they feel that the ultimate goal is to ban guns.

I agree that many of the pro-gun people think this. Perhaps it's at least partly because they realize that there really isn't a need for most people in modern developed countries to have guns. Almost no one needs to hunt for food anymore. Or lives in a place where animals (like wolves) threaten their homes and livestock. And if you want to hunt for fun because you like killing animals--OK fine, as long as it's in designated areas where people know that hunting might be going on and voluntarily take that risk that they could get shot and use whatever safety precautions. But none of these applications need anything more than a rifle or a shotgun. And very few people would really need them (a larger number might like to hunt for fun).

Let's say you're really scared and want a gun to protect your home. Well, ignoring the fact that your gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in your family than a predator, you could do all the protecting you need with a shotgun. And you'd be even safer if you just spent a few hundred bucks on a metal door (which actually increases your property value too) so people couldn't get in.

Law enforcement officials have a decent claim about needing different weapons. But even there I think they could get by with a lot less in many cases. In England, most cops don't carry guns. We'd have a lot fewer dead (and frequently innocent) people if fewer cops had ready access to lethal weapons.

There's just really no need for guns except in small cases. And even for those cases, the guns with crazy huge clips and rapid fire rates are either counter productive or just not necessary. Maybe they make you feel like a badass because you could totally kill as many people as you wanted to. Maybe that feeling of power is like a drug that people don't want to give up. But unlike real drugs, it's a hobby that actually leads to the death of other people. And it's really hard to justify letting some people get all amped up about what a badass they are because of some metal and explosives they are holding when that means that tens of thousands of people will die as a result. Maybe pro-gun people realize that they are extracting a heavy cost on society for their hobby.

I do have a problem with you deciding what I should or shouldn't be able to own based on your gut feeling and personal perception.

What if it's based on data?

No, it's because of the increased restrictions we continue to place on firearms leads to the theory that the Constitutional rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment are being whittled away slowly. The major ones have been:

The National Firearms Act of 1934
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Gun Control Act of 1968
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993

In the public policy sphere it's called Incrementalism - a gradual change in public policies and laws towards an end goal. And that end goal isn't identified as objective, measurable achievement in which to judge the success of the gun control measures. I think all of our gun laws should have a measurable requirement and a sunset clause, i.e. reduce deaths by a measurable amount or the law is automatically repealed after a specified time period.

The answer of blanket bans or burdens on the legal gun owner crowd needs to be justified after the fact. The typical answer here seems to revolve around the issue of moral relativism which isn't a justifiable requirement in order to restrict someone's rights.

[Northwestie]

Even the GOP is getting behind stricter, more uniform gun laws:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[Yaeger]

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ah yes, your goal is so morally superior I bow to your righteous purpose. Except you haven't shown that anything you suggest would reduce deaths, but okay, ignoring that point for now.

Here are some areas off the top of my head in which I'd like to see compromise from the gun-control crowd, in return for concessions from gun advocates:
1) Pass a federal law that prohibits states and local governments from passing their own restrictions on firearms
2) Allow concealed carry licenses to be used across state lines
3) Make it easier, and more affordable, for those of us with documented experience to obtain automatic weapons
4) Pass a law that states, after this compromise, no further action can be taken in regards to gun control without a super-majority vote
5) Exempt firearms and ammunition from federal, state, local taxes
6) Promote a culture of gun safety and responsibility instead fear-mongering about gun violence

There's only one item on your list that has anything to do with preventing death, so I'll just ignore your other petulant demands.

I've always promoted a culture of gun safety and responsibility, so sure.  No problems with that point, and I doubt you would get much pushback from anyone else.

You still haven't proven to us that your recommendations would actually prevent deaths. All evidence points to your 'good-idea fairy' ideals having no noticeable effect on the countries and the cities which have imposed those restrictions. Stop ignoring the data that multiple people have presented over and over and over again.

[Shane]

Apparently Canadians have pretty easy access to many guns, as well, but for some reason they choose to use them to kill each other far less often than do Americans. Thus, my conclusion that the real problem is, at least partly, to do with something inherent in Americans themselves. Isn't this an argument that gun advocates often put forward themselves? Guns don't kill. People do. Right?

[GuitarStv]

Reducing death is the goal, not sleeping fine.  But sure, I can compromise.  What would you like me to give up that's regularly used to kill masses of people?

Ah yes, your goal is so morally superior I bow to your righteous purpose. Except you haven't shown that anything you suggest would reduce deaths, but okay, ignoring that point for now.

Here are some areas off the top of my head in which I'd like to see compromise from the gun-control crowd, in return for concessions from gun advocates:
1) Pass a federal law that prohibits states and local governments from passing their own restrictions on firearms
2) Allow concealed carry licenses to be used across state lines
3) Make it easier, and more affordable, for those of us with documented experience to obtain automatic weapons
4) Pass a law that states, after this compromise, no further action can be taken in regards to gun control without a super-majority vote
5) Exempt firearms and ammunition from federal, state, local taxes
6) Promote a culture of gun safety and responsibility instead fear-mongering about gun violence

There's only one item on your list that has anything to do with preventing death, so I'll just ignore your other petulant demands.

I've always promoted a culture of gun safety and responsibility, so sure.  No problems with that point, and I doubt you would get much pushback from anyone else.

You still haven't proven to us that your recommendations would actually prevent deaths. All evidence points to your 'good-idea fairy' ideals having no noticeable effect on the countries and the cities which have imposed those restrictions. Stop ignoring the data that multiple people have presented over and over and over again.

Nearly all guns owned by criminals are obtained through private sale (http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-where-criminals-get-weapons-412850).  Very few are obtained from gun stores where a background check is mandatory.

Why would making a background check mandatory for all gun sales not also be a deterrent to criminals getting guns?  I don't remember seeing any evidence to the contrary . . .

[Northwestie]

Lone gunman Omar Mateen, 29, left 49 people dead and dozens of others wounded in the massacre at Pulse in the Florida city of Orlando on Sunday. Zimmerman believes there are similarities between the attacks.

But the medical researcher, who was born in the US and moved to Britain in 2001, told the Press Association: “One of the obvious differences was that the Orlando attacker had an assault rifle, my attacker had a bread knife - that is the big difference between living in a enormous, cosmopolitan, urban city like London in the UK and living in the country that does not have strong gun control.

“I think if Mire had access to firearms I would almost certainly not be having this conversation. It is likely other people might also be dead - it was a crowded tube station.

[MoonShadow]

Apparently Canadians have pretty easy access to many guns, as well, but for some reason they choose to use them to kill each other far less often than do Americans. Thus, my conclusion that the real problem is, at least partly, to do with something inherent in Americans themselves. Isn't this an argument that gun advocates often put forward themselves? Guns don't kill. People do. Right?

Perhaps we have a traditionally more resistive, and violent, culture.  Perhaps not.  Regardless, how does this change the facts?  I also learned today that a survivor has stated that the shooter was specifically targeting Caucasians in Pulse.

[Yaeger]

Apparently Canadians have pretty easy access to many guns, as well, but for some reason they choose to use them to kill each other far less often than do Americans. Thus, my conclusion that the real problem is, at least partly, to do with something inherent in Americans themselves. Isn't this an argument that gun advocates often put forward themselves? Guns don't kill. People do. Right?

Stop it. This kind of logic doesn't appeal to the gun haters in a debate about gun control. There has to be a government solution in order to justify our faith in big government solving all of our problems. Your kind of individual responsibility shtick doesn't fly in today's society where we need to be protected like swaddled babies wrapped in a cocoon of safety and, ironically, enforced by men with guns.