All it takes is one bad day for a Good Guy™ to snap. Sometimes they are the only casualty. Sometimes they’re not. Like the coal gas oven, guns make impulsive suicide easy to carry out. Unlike the coal gas oven, if you survive a suicide attempt with a gun, quality of life is massively impacted.
From a safety standpoint, guns are a major hazard to gun owners. And that’s assuming only responsible gun owners. When irresponsible and malicious people are able to obtain guns, everybody is at risk of being caught up on somebody’s self-destructive spree.
I am truly sorry for your loss.
Nobody gives a shit if you want to get pedantic about the AR-15 not being a technical assault battle rifle because it lacks auto fire. Auto-fire isn’t very useful to soldiers. And it is absolutely designed to kill quickly and efficiently in single-fire mode, with a clip size that makes sport-hunting impossible. Against tanks and predator drones, it is useless. It’s an anti-infantry weapon that should absolutely not be in the hands of private owners. And should need be sold to minors under any circumstance.
This is where you and I are different. I am more concerned about the harm to other people, which is why I support limits on natural (and artificial - like bearing arms) rights. It’s why I understand that shouting fire in a crowded theatre should be banned; it is why I support strong libel laws. For you, the death of a friend and the deaths of schoolchildren is an acceptable price to pay for your continued ownership of weapons of rapid lethality.
I don’t typically correct that alone, but there are ton of misconceptions and ignorance out there about the current laws as wells as about the subject. If you’re going to argue your position, please come correct.
I haven’t really taken a true “no regulations” stance. I content with most of the current ones. I could even live with some licensing schemes.
The over arching issues I have is 1) I can’t see in the data where in the past sweeping gun laws have made significant differences in crime in the US. The big 68 act didn’t do anything, crime kept going up. Even when you look at the UK and Australia stats, you can see a downward trend in homicides, but if you didn’t know there was an added ban, you wouldn’t know this wasn’t part of the general downward trend that the US is also having. It is similar to drug laws, use doesn’t seem to correlate to if it is legal or not. The current opioid epidemic shows how something super regulated can still be abused. And Ironically, this new “crack down” affects me because I live in chronic pain and require opioids to function - but now am treated like a fucking addict and require an $80 monthly visit so I can get my pills refilled. But anyway, rant for another day.
The vast majority of laws I see suggested - other than out right bans - I don’t see affecting crime numbers. Possibly if you make it convoluted enough that people in straw purchases aren’t going to go through with it. If you make it expensive enough the poor are less likely to own them. What is worse I have seen gun laws suggested that are literally right out of the Jim Crow era. Or others like the “insurance scheme” which would negatively affect the poor and poor minorities disproportionately. But the majority of proposed laws I see as “feel good” laws. Like the shit with the TSA, they don’t actually make you safer, you just feel good about taking off your shoes and doing the whole security theater.
And the third issue I have is people are talking in generalities with out talking about specifics. They just want more laws. Look back at the last 2 decades, especially after 9/11, and see how just adding more laws in the interest of doing something isn’t always a good thing.
The reason mass shootings get this much interest from the general public is because it affects them (potentially). Even though 99%+ of the homicides aren’t from these mass shootings, they occur where “normal” people are. The fact that murder happens nearly every day in some areas is why people don’t live by “those” people. America has been great at segregating their poor, which appears to be one of the reasons the murder rate in poor areas is so high. But methods to try to weed out the one crazy guy who wants to shoot a school full of kids, and the 99 other people who end up using their guns for crime is probably going to require two different methods to combat.
I’ve said in the past (and above) that I could live with certain licensing schemes. Though like everything else, I have to ask, “When will it be enough.” It won’t stop crime. Possibly we could curb crazies with refinement to NICS. But even if we see a reduction, it won’t end things. At that point the “sensible” guns laws have been passed and one goes to the next natural step, because the people screaming for change now won’t at some point go, “Hey fair enough, we go the modest restrictions in place. We can live with the results.” This is why I present a hard line, even if I can live with certain chips.
Because most people like to shoot targets, not at actual people.
Y’all have a nice Sunday. I am going to the last day at comiccon, if my leg holds out. Hopefully Jae Lee is done with my commission.
If you are going to volunteer yourself as a self-professed expert maybe spend a half second of your handwringing discussing the problem instead of dismissing everyone out of hand based on your feelings.
But then, that would require you to admit there is a problem.
Good news! There are now a wide variety of recreational activities that allow people to engage in feats of marksmanship without requiring private ownership of weapons of war.
One or twice a year I’ll use a semi-automatic rifle to shoot at targets. It’s fun. It happens at this place known as a gun range. Guess how many firearms of any sort I own.
Also, imagine the gall of people to suggest that people who own firearms should have to buy mandatory insurance – it hurts poor people and minorities who “need” firearms! That’s why the same people who object to mandatory firearms insurance also strongly object to the more widespread existing problem of mandatory auto insurance, right?
It is a model that was introduced in 1914 as a hunting/target rifle. Of the hunting rifles and shotguns I own, about half are semiauto. And most of those belonged to my Dad or Grandfather.
Just curious: what is your reasoning behind limiting people to a “limited number of them”?
Easy access is probably one we can agree on. We have had two recent shootings where the psycho was able to buy guns legally, but should not have been able to buy something more dangerous than a spoon, IMO. There is a complicated and expensive system already in place that is supposed to keep that from happening. The system is a hassle for those of us who carefully obey the law. But that is fine, as long as the system is working to actually keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Kind of like the TSA. I don’t mind taking my shoes off, and will not punch the agent patting down my child, because that process is supposed to ensure that we are all safer when we fly.
On the other point, wild hogs are violent, destructive, and smart. They will absolutely kill people. Trapping and poisoning is hard to do without adversely affecting native species. But most people I know who have problems with them also use live traps as part of an overall strategy. Right now my Dad is in West Texas hunting wild hogs. He is using the first AR type rifle he has ever owned, because it is the right tool for the job. Of course it only shares basic cosmetics with either a military rifle or the kind that the shooter used in Florida. It is built to fire a very large projectile very accurately over a very long distance.
Also, the hogs he shoots are going to end up feeding people.
O…K…? I could have sworn the narrative was that compromise was part of the establishment rot, right? That we should choose our candidates based on their willingness to use their bully pulpit to move that ol’ Overton Window, pragmatism be damned.
You seriously don’t see the irony in criticism from Bernie stans trying to take down Democrats by bringing up some dude whose last job was to run the CFPB for the past 8 years, while also being in complete denial about the gun control stances of a guy who’s actually in a position to shape federal law?
For industrial use? Any given rancher or farmer and her employees only needs so many at any one time, just like @navarro and his father needed only so many containers of farm chemicals and dispensers for them at any one time. Limiting amounts of tools to ones necessary to do an industrial job isn’t controversial, including those that aren’t considered dangerous. A business that buys more capital equipment than it needs for operational and reasonable redundancy purposes isn’t going to be in business very long.
Just curious: why do you think firearms would be an exception to that rule?
Yes, and I noted that this is due in large part to the NRA and the industry it represents marketing semi-automatic rifles (including AR-style ones with high-capacity magazines in more recent decades) as worthy weapons for someone who hunts for sport.
As I’m sure you know, a Browning .22 semi-auto like yours is meant as a trainer hunting rifle for children. Its rate of fire, the stopping power of its ammo, and the standard magazine capacities it accepts are very different from those characteristics in AR-style weapons now promoted by the industry and NRA for civilian sport hunting. It’s not appropriate for industrial use, nor really for hunting game any bigger than a possum.
The figure of decades you mention isn’t a co-incidence, either. The coup that began the transformation of NRA from a sport-shooting organisation focused on marksmanship into the right-wing arms industry lobbying organ it is today occurred in 1977.
Good rejoinder. I agree 1 is really THE overarching issue, but also the other things (and stuff I missed!) Are important, too, because the issue is multifaceted. Why is it important to recognize this? Let’s say a person wanted to contribute to the mental health effort. Well, their contribution should not be minimized or dismissed because they aren’t concentrating on number 1. They can still contribute, and other people should do #1 and all the others. That’s really my main point.
“Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.”
He seems to think that, if we do that, there will not be any more mass shootings. He is deluding himself. I am all for universal health insurance, including mental health coverage. That woud be wonderful. But it would not preclude mass shootings if quick-killing weapons are still widely available.
