It has, on a small scale at least. If “more gun ownership” was an effective means of reducing gun violence then we’d expect to see that play out in states which have fewer legal barriers against owning and carrying firearms.
- It’s about both. You can’t make a caricature of a gun owner as someone whose only paranoid concern is self defense. As you seemed to ignored my illustration, MOST guns at a gun store are not made for defense. Certainly some are. You may be a shooter with 10 target guns, and then have one pistol for defense. My dad has probably 2 dozen guns, and not one of them would I consider a good defense weapon. I think his Remington 870 is as close as he comes, and he doesn’t even have any buck shot rounds.
The original statement that started this was that motorcycles weren’t bought with the intention of possibly hurting someone, and “The same cannot honestly be said about guns.” I think I made my point that many guns are bought with out the intention of using it for defense.
- Geeze, what is with the hyperbole today? Let’s all run around with full auto guns with nuclear tipped baby seeking bullets!
When making a law that addresses a problem, it should both be effective in solving that problem, as well as not harming or interfering the general populous. I content many of these proposed laws would only affect honest citizens, and not the criminals they target.
You can see this is the case elsewhere where stronger laws have done little to help the problem, and just caused more issues with honest people. Has the TSA really done anything to make us safer? Is the BILLIONS spent on it justified? Have all the civil liberties that have been picked away in the name of the war on drugs acceptable? Are the number of people caught and incarcerated worth the number of honest people subjected to undue scrutiny? How much more government intrusion/protection should we have? Maybe this NSA thing is ok, we don’t want another terrorist attack. Wide scale monitoring via CCTV and facial recognition should reduce crime, right? One shouldn’t mind intrusion of privacy and warrantless searches if one has nothing to hide.
- Well you are all over the map with scary hypothetical situations that account for a sliver of gun use. Some of them are silly and absurd. Several of them are cherry picking the extreme, rare cases. You can play this game with anything.
You could be sitting across from your boss and leap over and kill him with a pair of glasses or a pen. You could decide to pack your car full of tanks of gasoline and drive into a Starbucks with a lit road flare. You could choke on a Cheeto laughing at Jay Leno. etc etc
ETA - I take back what I said about Jay Leno. Suggesting a situation where one would laugh at him is as ridiculous as your examples.
1 Like
So you argue that most guns are not bought with any intent to be ever used for “defense.”
Hm.
I’d rather have that use stay (or become) restricted:
- Restricted by requiring training and permits for use in public lands, if and where such use is acceptable (e.g. hunting?).
- Restricted by requiring disassembly and containment (e.g. checked-in if in airplane) while transported in public lands, if use is not acceptable.
- Restricted to confined areas otherwise (e.g. shooting clubs, personal properties).
- Restricted to people who are adults and background-checked against relevant mental disabilities and violent criminal history.
- Restricted to non-threatening use.
- Etc, etc.
I believe that in CA you have to declare every car sale to the state.
I believe that in CA if you do not use your car (in public areas?) you still have to register it every year as Planned Non Operation.
That’s a good thing. One can try to avoid them, if wanted. How could I do that for small guns?
Last time I checked, with my phone I cannot shoot people across the street.
In the US, I actually want the government to know who has guns. I know, this is does not sound paranoid enough.
Apple and oranges.
Operating a gun in public places is inherently less private, and more dangerous than making a phone call or driving a car around in public places.
1 Like
Why exactly are you so worried about encountering a gun? Do you live in a bad neighborhood? Is there a high murder rate in your area? The number of guns used to hurt someone is a tiny percentage of those out there.
You just have to think positively, is all!
1 Like
That is not my point.
My point is that the “defense” bit is part of the concern. It’s the nature of the thing.
If it makes you feel better: I do not like the idea of people in the street carrying crossbows any more than if they were carrying guns.
That is a good thing to care for.
But now, how are limitations on concealed-carry affecting honest citizens, I do not understand.
None of this relevant, except for “How much more government intrusion/protection should we have?” We should have less in some areas, more in other areas. It’s about balancing things for living in a civilized society of humans (please no “commie” strawman). Your liberties stop where mine start, and reciprocally.
How did “warrantless searches” jump into that picture?
That “sliver” was very public. All of it from recent past.
This simply demonstrated that your “the kid with the gun in the waist” was an oversimplification.
That is rather unbelievable.
On the other hand, “you could be sitting across from your boss and kill him with a gun.” somehow sounds much more in the realm of achievable things, for someone inclined to do so.
Essentially all of these things that you want already exist. You need a hunting license to hunt, even on private lands, for both safety and conservation reasons. You can only shoot guns in certain locations which tend to include some rural private property (not all), certain public forests, and licensed firing ranges. You can’t just go shoot guns in the middle of your suburban neighborhood because you feel like it. Buying a gun requires a background check. The way this is done could probably be updated a bit but fundamentally this process is already in place. It is already illegal to threaten people with guns. The exact method by which you must transport guns varies from place to place. California for instance requires all guns to be transported unloaded, and many of them (depending on type) must be secured in a locked container.
I don’t even want to continue the car analogy, because while it has some broad similarities at a high level, you can’t really argue the minutiae of an analogy like that because the more and more specific you get the more and more you just realize cars and guns are not exactly the same. We seem to have crossed that line already.
But really, what is it you want that isn’t already happening? Do yo want better background checks? Or do you just want to be angry about people who want guns for “defense”? Because I don’t even understand your point. You really want to make a distinction about whether the purpose of a gun is defense or not, and clearly, though you don’t seem to want to accept it, many guns are not designed or purchased for defense, and further, I don’t even see why this matters. I just don’t get why you care so much about whether or not they’re for defense. You don’t really seem to have a position here except that guns are scary.
Clearly. I don’t know what you want the government to do with this information, though.
2 Likes
There is a parallel to be drawn here, but it isn’t what you think. Motorcycles (or any vehicle) generally only need to be licensed if they’re operated on public roadways. Same for drivers - AFAIK you can drive anything you want without a license, so long as you’re doing it on private property.
Same goes for guns: You don’t need a license to purchase one, or use it on your own property. You do generally need a license to carry it in public places (except for open-carry, which has far fewer practitioners than concealed carry).
1 Like
I am one of them; just getting cynical about the chances of anything getting better.
That number is higher nation-wide per capita than for any other “western” country.
I could turn your argument around. Something like: “Why exactly are you so worried about hiding your guns? Do you live in a bad neighborhood? Is there a high murder rate in your area?”
Totally understandable. But such things do wax and wane. We needn’t always let cynicism be the wilting force that the NRA would like it to be.
Restrictions: I’m not saying that there are none, just that certain ones are necessary. Your post seemed to say that you did not want any at all.
Better background checks: Yes.
Defense or not: Just two faces of the issue, each to be considered. Yes => there are consequences. No => why is control such a problem. Still wondering.
Registry: Mostly for traceability. Though clearly it wont happen today or tomorrow…
Scary: I live near a city that is regularly in the top-ten for gun deaths.
The percentage of guns that are used to hurt people isn’t the statistic that matters, it’s the percentage of people who are hurt by guns.
If a billion new guns were suddenly distributed across the U.S. we’d probably see a sharp reduction in the gun-to-crime ratio even as the number of people getting shot increased.
1 Like
Pretty much- and why is making records confidential loosening the laws? It doesn’t make it any easier to get a gun…
1 Like
i agree that the social cost is people hurt/killed by firearms. i don’t agree that more guns automatically results in more people being shot. it might. it might simply because there would be more guns available to ‘steal’. no one wants to go to prison. the easiest way to go is to commit a felony (most violent crimes are) with your own gun. maybe even more people would die, get maimed, be wounded, or just get injured. maybe the opposite would happen. the sudden arrival of a billion extra guns is a fairly extreme occurrence to consider. maybe all crime would drop off somewhat.
I am not sure I understand your concern. Are you worried that someone defending themselves will somehow hurt you? What scenario do you see playing out, and how likely do you think it actually is?
[quote=“nicolas, post:87, topic:16366”]
But now, how are limitations on concealed-carry affecting honest citizens, I do not understand.[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with the limits and licensing for CCW for the most part.
[quote=“nicolas, post:87, topic:16366”]
None of this relevant, [/quote]
It’s an illustration of broad, heavy handed actions designed to target a certain element that catches all of us within its net of influence.
[quote=“nicolas, post:87, topic:16366”]
except for “How much more government intrusion/protection should we have?” We should have less in some areas, more in other areas. It’s about balancing things for living in a civilized society of humans.Your liberties stop where mine start, and reciprocally. [/quote]
I can relate to that. I just don’t think further restricting me is going to make you any safer. If one wishes to reduce gun crime, one needs too look at the source of that crime and attack that.
[quote=“nicolas, post:87, topic:16366”]
That “sliver” was very public. All of it from recent past. This simply demonstrated that your “the kid with the gun in the waist” was an oversimplification. [/quote]
Well first off if your main exposure to firearms is the news, TV, and movies, it’s little wonder you are unaware of the much broader use of firearms for sports and games, target shooting, plinking, etc. Second, you are all over the map with your examples. Do you want to address safety to prevent accidents? Gun crime? Sensationalistic but extremely rare mass shootings? Different issues with different solutions.
I saw it on TV - it has to be true.
What do you mean by hiding? You mean for like registration?
You’re right, I should have said the percentage of people who hurt others with guns is a very small percentage of the number of gun owners.
You just go and put the snark back in, mister.
Obama has nothing to do with the [red] state gun laws.
And any federal gun law is a non-starter due to, again, red states’ collective wisdom.
i’m sorry. i don’t like disrespectful treatment of human tragedy by the media. i also don’t agree that even the current level of censorship in american news is acceptable.
Bumper stickers do not encourage thoughtful discourse.
The difference is your likelihood of dying on the road with a seatbelt is still probably higher than that of you getting assaulted. Humans suck at risk assessment, and you’re no exception.
