What is sensible gun control, anyway?

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I would sign off on most of BStrong's suggestions. I would, however, go the extra step of establishing an additional layer to the militia, call it the Civil Guard.

Every gun owner is obligated to participate, to make a set number of musters during the year.

This could actually be a community-builder. If you and your neighbor are both armed, it is probably a good idea that you know each other, and will be falling in on the same station if the compost meets the ventilating device.

A bunch of armed and paranoid strangers hunkering in a bunker are not going to be very effective at repelling an invasion or quelling an insurrection, or responding to some emergency like a Sandy-scale storm.

And while we are considering one aspect of the Connecticut tragedy, maybe we shoulld take a look at one other factor and do something about the poor level of socialization inherent in home schooling. Some of the people doing it are really scarey people. Lots of white nationalists are into that, you know.

I'm not sure this is such a good idea. I don't want to have a bunch of out-of-shape Call of Duty players learning more about military tactics, marching around my streets and getting in the way of professional law enforcement.

That being said, I think I would add something that would make purchasing ammunition harder to do and much more expensive.

And to be totally transparent, I'm one of those that think the 2nd Amendment was a horrible idea as written, but I understand that it's here to stay and I'm in the minority.

What we need is smart legislation that will do something to mitigate our gun problem.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So no one disagrees with the interpretation of the so clear 2nd Amendment?

Apparently until a couple decades ago, the Amendment wasn't even interpreted to be an 'individual' right, it was interpreted to be a right for the militia, aka cops and similar organized security, to be armed.

The Constitution is not religious dogma, dude. It's a legal document with sometimes not so clear meaning, and sometimes a need for reinterpretation over time as society and circumstances change.

Anyone else see the irony here?

Sg, you are no fair witness, that's for sure.

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

I'm not sure this is such a good idea. I don't want to have a bunch of out-of-shape Call of Duty players learning more about military tactics, marching around my streets and getting in the way of professional law enforcement.

Why not? And I don't see why they'd be getting in the way of local law enforcement, or necessarily marching the streets. Then again, we probably all have different ideas of what you'd do at a militia muster. There would have to be something for everyone, from the guy who can barely walk to the guy who's a fit and competent hunter.

I still like the idea of having a recurrent licencing/registration of some kind, with reasonable fees, and attendance of your militia/muster granting you a waiver of most or all of those fees.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

That being said, I think I would add something that would make purchasing ammunition harder to do and much more expensive.

Unfortunately most of the ideas in this direction don't seem to be very useful as far as actual safety outcomes. In the USA, in the foreseeable future, we're so saturated with weapons and ammo that trying to keep guns/ammo rare via price or make/model restrictions is not likely to 'work' where 'work' means fewer deadly incidents.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

And you omitted other perfectly valid purposes.

Self defence and protection from tyranny. Yes I did, you know why.

Quote:

Pointing out that you've severely misunderstood the discussion isn't dodging. When you create a fairy tale situation, it's not rational for you to suggest that other people should resolve the problems in the fairy tale. But you already know this.

Sorry, but the tails come from you with nothing to back them up.

Quote:

..

No, it doesn't.....No, it doesn't......Yes, you've accounted for 174% of the gun owning population.

That is not what those statistics say. They show multiple reasons for owning a gun, the most popular being protection against crime just beating target shooting.

Quote:

Yet you've been unable to show where anybody said the vast majority only want a gun for self defense or protection from tyranny.

Only if you ignore the links I have posted and keep your head in the sand over the debates about the Second Amendment.

Quote:

Coming from a culture where people are accustomed to being subjects rather than citizens, being treated like children might feel natural. We feel differently about it here.

Rhetoric with no substance.

Quote:

And we've explained many times that several factors are involved. When someone explains one element, you demand an explanation for another as if it's a freestanding concern. When someone explains that other issue, you jump to yet another, ignoring the previous and the combinations of factors. Of course it's easy to be critical when you're looking at each part in isolation as if you're analyzing it piece by piece looking through a soda straw. Your argument seems to be based on the narrow minded, narrow perspective of the self righteousness people you parrot. And your Gish Gallop tactic is dishonest.

I have a simple argument that the USA's gun culture is a failure because it results in so many innocent and unnecessary deaths.

I have presented evidence for that from the number of deaths compared to other countries and the reasons why Americans feel the need for guns.

My straight forward conclusion is US gun culture is a fail.

Rather than deal with the evidence you prefer your own verbiage and rhetoric, which I do not find convincing in one bit.

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Why not? And I don't see why they'd be getting in the way of local law enforcement, or necessarily marching the streets. Then again, we probably all have different ideas of what you'd do at a militia muster. There would have to be something for everyone, from the guy who can barely walk to the guy who's a fit and competent hunter.

I still like the idea of having a recurrent licencing/registration of some kind, with reasonable fees, and attendance of your militia/muster granting you a waiver of most or all of those fees.



Unfortunately most of the ideas in this direction don't seem to be very useful as far as actual safety outcomes. In the USA, in the foreseeable future, we're so saturated with weapons and ammo that trying to keep guns/ammo rare via price or make/model restrictions is not likely to 'work' where 'work' means fewer deadly incidents.

I just think that having organized militias that are outside of a chain of command is a bad idea. I'm not sure that the police would like to see it, either. You see these self-styled "militias" on TV doing everything from patrolling our border with Mexico to rehearsing "saving" people during hurricanes. They're going to end up shooting one another or an innocent civilian and then it gets real scary. Save the gun play and the law enforcement for the professionals. If they are afraid of the evil government and the impending FEMA death camps, fine, keep their guns locked up at home and ready to use when the black helicopters start to fly. Just don't bring it on the streets.

I understand your point on the ammo. I guess I would respond that ammo ages and, eventually, it degrades to such an extent that it needs replacing. At that time, someone is going to need to purchase new ammunition. And if it is limited and sold at a premium, only those that are serious about their hobby can afford it and then only in smaller quantities.

I think a larger problem is that you can buy ammo from all kinds of sources, including the internet, and that makes it very hard for it monitor and limit. I believe the Aurora shooter had purchased his ammo from many sources.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Shotguns/longuns/sportsmen use: hunting etc: ok
Handguns: licensed and paperwork after proper training ok

Ok.

Originally Posted by mikeyx

any poopstain wanting/claiming to need a machine can kiss my backside.

Sorry, there's already a provision in law for that.

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Sportsmen need a non NRA spoke org.
Disband and outlaw the NRA.

Why? You do realize that's illegal, right?

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

I just think that having organized militias that are outside of a chain of command is a bad idea. I'm not sure that the police would like to see it, either. You see these self-styled "militias" on TV doing everything from patrolling our border with Mexico to rehearsing "saving" people during hurricanes. They're going to end up shooting one another or an innocent civilian and then it gets real scary.

Hm. I guess I'm really thinking of something more along the lines of a meet and greet with some gun safety/maintenance training/reminders optional target shooting. The point being to get out, meet other owners in the community, get some contact between the most and least responsible owners so some good habits can rub off, that kind of thing.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

I understand your point on the ammo. I guess I would respond that ammo ages and, eventually, it degrades to such an extent that it needs replacing. At that time, someone is going to need to purchase new ammunition. And if it is limited and sold at a premium, only those that are serious about their hobby can afford it and then only in smaller quantities.

I think a larger problem is that you can buy ammo from all kinds of sources, including the internet, and that makes it very hard for it monitor and limit. I believe the Aurora shooter had purchased his ammo from many sources.

Ammo that is made with the proper quality control and stored in a cool dry place will last decades with little or no degradation in performance. Waiting for the ammo supply to go away will be like waiting for the supply of booze or drugs to go away if they are prohibited.

Brass can be reloaded many times. Bullets are easy to cast or turn from bar stock. I can make my own brass casings on my hobby lathe. The hardest part is the primer, but I can make it if I can't buy them. If you can bake a cake or assemble a computer from parts, you can probably make your own ammo.

I think the people who were aghast at the 6000 rounds the Aurora shooter bought are naive. 6000 rounds is nothing to the average shooting enthusiast who shoots on a regular basis. When I buy 22lr, it is by the case (5000), when I buy powder, it is usually in 32 to 48 pound lots, primers by the 5000 and I am considered a light weight gun nut.

Buying in quanity is the smart thing to do as long as you are able to store it safely. Just like going to Costco or Sam's Club for food and other stuff. Unless your storage area is a fire hazard, chances are it is safe to store ammo there.

Ranb

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Nessie

[* Nonsense blathering snipped. *]

Since you're having a difficult time remembering what you wrote, and before you start accusing people of lying when is it in fact you who is not representing yourself truthfully, here is what you said...

Originally Posted by Nessie

Lets say you are right and the vast majority only want a gun for self defence or protection from tyranny, but know they do not need a gun for such.

If you can't show where anyone said "the vast majority only want a gun for self defence or protection from tyranny", the appropriate and honest thing to do is admit you can't. If you are going to accuse others of engaging in rhetoric, you might want to make sure it's not actually you who is guilty.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

any poopstain wanting/claiming to need a machine can kiss my backside.

Sportsmen need a non NRA spoke org.
Disband and outlaw the NRA.

Wow, I hope you are never elected dictator. Machine = machine gun? I think the BATFE ensures that only the nicest people in town are allowed to own machine guns. Or do you have evidence otherwise?

Not a big fan of the 1st amendment are we.

Ranb

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

That being said, I think I would add something that would make purchasing ammunition harder to do and much more expensive.

Why? People that purchase many rounds (like myself) will be penalized tremendously.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

What we need is smart legislation that will do something to mitigate our gun problem.

I agree. Knee-jerk reactions like what's being discussed is based on emotions, and nothing else.

[Globert]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

I started this thread after posting in the one about the little boy accidentally shot and killed by his father in their car, not after any of the mass shooting threads. I believe the statistics are something like 500 deaths annually in the US from accidents, though I haven't looked it up lately. It's not the worst number in the world, but is it not worth addressing at all? Right there in the OP I said I was talking about laws that would encourage gun safety, not laws that would stop bizarre, insane tragedies.

I've already signed the gun ban people off as lost causes, but I was hoping that the 'gun control is stupid' people wouldn't mind showing a little more nuance. And most of them have. Thanks for not contributing.

I am sorry I have not followed all of your posts in other threads and with the uproar from CT's tragic events I assumed it was more of the same, my bad.Too, I was surfing threads and coments from news outlets from the Newtown tragedy, and the tone of attacks wore thin. I really think that if one was appraised of the extent of current U.S. laws on the OP one could also see where enforcement of current statute will be sufficient to our current situation. An earnest push towords the ACA covering Mental health care; preventive, emergent, routine, ongoing and destigmatized, would also reduce said abberations. As a gun owner I am already liable for the security of my hardware, every bullet that leaves my gun and where it lands. My father, brother and I took hunters safety course 34 years ago and I look forward to taking it again with my son in January. Twenty some odd years ago Uncle Sam provided me with years of firearms instruction, and the guns I have now are civilian copies of what I have documented proof of training on, and if one thinks they are cosmetically EVIL I cannot help their terror. The father you've enlightened me was the source of your OP will live with guilt and remorse we cannot fathom, and we need him punished further how? I have a gun safe because I have always been a belt and suspenders kind of guy. They give gunlocks away for free. Responsibility and common sense cannot be compelled by legislation, and ORM is only as good as the individual.
I am not unreasonable, I am unrecognized.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

No, the raw data does not support the argument when it is properly filtered. The fact that the data is intentionally misinterpreted is damning. There is a difference between intentional suicide and unintentional shooting.

It depends on how the argument is put. The reality is that more people die from their own weapon than do by someone else's. If the argument is that guns are dangerous to the owners and their family because they are likely to shoot themselves or their family accidently, then the figures are meaningless. If the argument is that possessing a gun means that you or your family are more likely to end up using it on yourself, or themselves than you are to use it on someone else, then it would seriously back that up.

Of course someone that is planning to kill themselves will manage it without a gun on hand, so I do find SG's linking a suicide and a kid being gunned down at a school. True they are bothdead, but remove the gun from the senario, and one will still be dead, while the other would have likely lived.

Quote:

No, the data shows that *unless* you are suicidal, it is safer to own a gun than to not own one.

This is not correct either, the CDC data says nothing about if you are safer with a gun or without them. However, other studies have looked into this, and they have found that even after taking into acount gangs and criminals, you are still more likely to end up getting shot and killed if you carry a gun than if you don't. This would indicate that in fact you are actually safer to not own a gun, well if you don't want to be shot anyway.

[Nursedan]

If an alien, an absolute foreigner to everything American, were to come to America, and he walked into a gun store and found that he could purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition and guns that could potentially kill hundreds, I think he would be surprised and kind of bewildered. It's just weird to me that this is possible.

Of course, a person could potentially simply stab hundreds to death with a kitchen knife, but I've never felt that argument held water.

So...

Since when does this site have so many pop up ads? I haven't been here in a while and these are new, and they make it kind of impossible to read the site. Can someone clue e me in on how to stop them? I use an IPad.

Thanks

[Globert]

Originally Posted by Nursedan

If an alien, an absolute foreigner to everything American, were to come to America, and he walked into a gun store and found that he could purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition and guns that could potentially kill hundreds, I think he would be surprised and kind of bewildered. It's just weird to me that this is possible.

Of course, a person could potentially simply stab hundreds to death with a kitchen knife, but I've never felt that argument held water.

So...

Since when does this site have so many pop up ads? I haven't been here in a while and these are new, and they make it kind of impossible to read the site. Can someone clue e me in on how to stop them? I use an IPad.

Thanks

If an alien, an absolute foreigner to everything American, were to come to America, and he walked into a Supermarket and found that he could purchase thousands of pounds of food and goods that could potentially feed his whole village, I think he would be surprised and kind of bewildered. It's just weird to me that this is possible.

The idea that America should be just like the rest of the world is confusing to me, like the clamors from the river to jump off the bridge, the water's fine.

The majority of murders in America are dealt in single doses, and millions of Americans shoot millions of rounds without ever harming a soul.

Try the computers and internet board for help with your Ipad there are very helpfull people in there.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Really? Few? You're kidding me right now, aren't you?

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/pol...1bd1601cf.html

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/...1820589340.txt

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Hom...174633151.html

There's three different ones. There are most likely THOUSANDS more.

And these are just the ones that the intruder was killed. This doesn't include the thousands of others that you won't hear about, because it wasn't reported by the news.

How exactly did you get from 3 to thousands?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How exactly did you get from 3 to thousands?

Do you really not understand? Those are just 3 that I posted. If I posted thousands of links, I'd most likely be carded from spamming the forum, or flooding the forum.

Here's a nice little stat for you.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year

Yeah, that's thousands.

[Nursedan]

Originally Posted by Globert

The idea that America should be just like the rest of the world is confusing to me, like the clamors from the river to jump off the bridge, the water's fine.

So you see no connection between the availability of guns in America and the exponentially higher number of gun deaths we have here?

Thanks for the computer advice btw

[Globert]

Originally Posted by Nursedan

So you see no connection between the availability of guns in America and the exponentially higher number of gun deaths we have here?

Thanks for the computer advice btw

It correlates as well as MVA's in our Car culture, and one underestimates the number of guns in most comparisons. I usually only see 'Dead per 100,000' or some such population based statistic, and if individual guns were so deadly the 200,000,000 or so of them in private hands should have us awash in blood (no we are not awash in blood) and states with CCW would not have the inconvenient drop in crime after CCW adoption. Aside from plane crash type outliers the true horror is gun free cities and the havoc within.

And those guys have Unstuck my Electronic bacon several times

[Sam.I.Am]

Electronic Bacon would be a pretty good band name...

[Globert]

[Lithrael]

No problem, Globert. It's hardly common practice around here (or anywhere) not to operate on some standard assumptions.

I was hoping not to address current laws so much as imagine what would be ideal from the ground up. Mainly because current laws are all over the place from state to state. You have Florida with next to nothing and Illinois with laws out the wazoo.

Originally Posted by Globert

Responsibility and common sense cannot be compelled by legislation, and ORM is only as good as the individual.

Fair enough.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Do you really not understand? Those are just 3 that I posted. If I posted thousands of links, I'd most likely be carded from spamming the forum, or flooding the forum.

Here's a nice little stat for you.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year

Yeah, that's thousands.

Is there any chance of a proper citation so we can see what the article actually says? Naming the article and at least the lead investigator would be a good start.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

I'm curious, where do guns rights advocates come down on responsible ownership? Of course, everyone wants owners to be responsible, but is there a line, and if so, where is it? I'm not interested in what IS on the books at the moment, more in what you feel the law should be, ideally.

Where would the ideal fall, between no restrictions at all no matter what you have or have not done, and levels of restriction the USA would simply not be able to stomach at this time, such as licencing/permits for guns for hunting, target shooting etc but no legal place for guns as home defense and extremely restricted ownership of handguns, with everything needing to be locked up in separate locations, such as you have in some other countries?

If YOU got to set it up how would you do it? What do you feel is sensible? Do you feel if done right it would be a good way to keep guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of careless people? Do you feel guns should be kept out of the hands of careless people? Felons? Anyone?

Would love to see some opinions on this stuff without the usual over-polarizing.

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here. Obviously "responsible gun ownership" would mean complying with all relevant laws, and keeping your gun safe at all times.

That's quite different to asking, in a hypothetical scenario, what gun control measures should be put in place by the state.

The second question, I don't think I can answer, because I don't know enough about the matter to draw those sorts of conclusions. Frankly, I doubt even the US Government could answer that question right now.

I could, however, suggest a number of different areas that could be explored as possible gun control measures. Of course, as with any sort of legal restrictions, the likely benefits have to be weighed against the resulting loss of freedom. Then you decide if it's really worth implementing those measures.

Ultimately, you have to ask what it is you want to try address, and what it is you want to try achieve. That will guide your gun control laws.

If, for example, you're only interested in stopping massed killings, your best bet is probably to simultaneously try reduce access to weapons by said individuals, and reduce the harm they can inflict in a short period of time (most mass killings only last a matter of minutes). If you mainly want to try prevent suicides, that's a different set of measures. If it's accidental deaths, that's another again. And so on.

Generally speaking though, here's some areas worth considering if the US wants to reduce gun violence:

1. The very first step has to be tackling the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure the USA can really do a lot more, as far as direct gun control, with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

2. The second would be federalising gun control laws. Having stringent gun control laws in one state is totally pointless if the state has open borders with neighbouring states that have less stringent controls. Make gun control a Federal issue rather than a State issue, so there's consistency across the country.

3. Border security. I've heard it suggested several times that were guns banned in the US entirely, they would just be smuggled from Mexico. Now, I have no idea if this is true (some have alternatively suggested the gun trade flows from the US into Mexico), but if it's a real possibility, obviously addressing the US-Mexico Border would have to factor into gun control.

[StankApe]

It flows from the US to Mexico NOW, because we have them. But you ban them, and I don't think the cartels are dumb. They will make phone calls and before you know it, pallets of guns will arrive from S. America along with the pallets of coke and weed...etc

If I was them, that's what I'd do!

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by StankApe

It flows from the US to Mexico NOW, because we have them. But you ban them, and I don't think the cartels are dumb. They will make phone calls and before you know it, pallets of guns will arrive from S. America along with the pallets of coke and weed...etc

If I was them, that's what I'd do!

Do they make guns in South America? I know they make lots of drugs, I didn't realise they were big gun manufacturers.

[StankApe]

I have no idea, I do know that whiskey production in Canada sure skyrocketed after prohibition passed in the USA. I also know that the American gun makers would move their factories overseas as they would still have markets in other places.


All I'm saying is that if you give criminals an opportunity, generally, they are going to find a way to take advantage of it. If the coke lords in S. America find out they can ship guns to Mexico along with the drugs and all they have to do is buy them in bulk and ship them away (no growing or processing like drugs) I'm sure they's be more than happy to make the extra $$$. (and you can't really look at the situation NOW and say "they don't make gun there" or "the gun from the USA not from S America....etc" because the situation now is much different.)

I don't think many people drank Canadian whiskey before 1920 either!

[MinnesotaBrant]

How about havings guns locked up in a police vault with the owners having to check out the gun for a specified time and purpose? Maybe have to give up some DNA to link with the gun in case the gun is then used for a crime? A few finger prints would be nice too.

[Dcdrac]

I think the best approach is to tax them, and increase the costs of permits 100%

The more pwoerful the gun the more tax, the higher the level of the permit you more you pay.

You will have your right to bear arms still jsut it make it very very expensive.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

How about havings guns locked up in a police vault with the owners having to check out the gun for a specified time and purpose? Maybe have to give up some DNA to link with the gun in case the gun is then used for a crime? A few finger prints would be nice too.

Haven't you noticed that one of the common justifications for gun ownership is self-protection? Guns are useless for this if they are stored in a police vault somewhere.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

I think the best approach is to tax them, and increase the costs of permits 100%

The more pwoerful the gun the more tax, the higher the level of the permit you more you pay.

You will have your right to bear arms still jsut it make it very very expensive.

All that does is further the haves from the have-nots. You're well off? Well, here's your gun. You're stinking poor but need to protect yourself from the local gang bangers? Tough luck, fella.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

How about havings guns locked up in a police vault with the owners having to check out the gun for a specified time and purpose? Maybe have to give up some DNA to link with the gun in case the gun is then used for a crime? A few finger prints would be nice too.

Like I would trust the police to keep my guns safe. Check out how often the police and FBI lose guns. Much more often than I do.

Ranb

[Dcdrac]

The have nots, hmmm biggest worry potential gang attack or will I be able to pay the rent this week and eat.....

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Since you're having a difficult time remembering what you wrote, and before you start accusing people of lying when is it in fact you who is not representing yourself truthfully, here is what you said...
If you can't show where anyone said "the vast majority only want a gun for self defence or protection from tyranny", the appropriate and honest thing to do is admit you can't. If you are going to accuse others of engaging in rhetoric, you might want to make sure it's not actually you who is guilty.

Yet I back up what I say, which you do not

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Protection against crime is the reason why 67% of gun owners have a gun. Your utter nonsense of that link accounts for 174% of guns is because you failed to spot there are multiple reasons, right after alleging I did not realise that.

So that is that one covered. The protection against tyranny part is anecdotal from all the appeals to the Second Amendment for having a gun.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

"I own and use guns for hunting, target shooting, clay busting, and self defense, as well as just plain exercising my right to protect myself against any and all oppressors."

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/01/f...#axzz2FhLTPaAa

That lists fifteen reason to have a gun including

"George Washington said: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence..."

http://www.philforhumanity.com/Gun_Ownership.html

"Another reason for gun ownership is protection of an individual’s rights and freedoms from their own government."

As I say, I use evidence, you use rhetoric.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

I'm curious, where do guns rights advocates come down on responsible ownership? Of course, everyone wants owners to be responsible, but is there a line, and if so, where is it? I'm not interested in what IS on the books at the moment, more in what you feel the law should be, ideally.

Where would the ideal fall, between no restrictions at all no matter what you have or have not done, and levels of restriction the USA would simply not be able to stomach at this time, such as licencing/permits for guns for hunting, target shooting etc but no legal place for guns as home defense and extremely restricted ownership of handguns, with everything needing to be locked up in separate locations, such as you have in some other countries?

If YOU got to set it up how would you do it? What do you feel is sensible? Do you feel if done right it would be a good way to keep guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of careless people? Do you feel guns should be kept out of the hands of careless people? Felons? Anyone?

Would love to see some opinions on this stuff without the usual over-polarizing.

Waiting periods and background checks and keeping a closer watch on mentally ill people. I' m 66 and a gun owner for 42 years and I've never hurt anyone.

In the case of the recent school shooter his family had guns which they should have kept out of his reach.

[Dcdrac]

Keep it legal to get and have them but make it harder to do so.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Do you really not understand? Those are just 3 that I posted. If I posted thousands of links, I'd most likely be carded from spamming the forum, or flooding the forum.

Here's a nice little stat for you.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year

Yeah, that's thousands.

You can also use the Gary Kleck study from 1995 which alleges 2.1 to 2.5 million DGUs each year. Problem is these surveys are the result of phoning people up and asking if they have used their gun for defence over the past year. There is no check to see if the use is proper.

There are other studies of DGUs which find that actual defensive shootings are rare. The various reports are by Tim Lambert (Dade Country Florida), Denton & Fabricius (Phoenix), David Hemenway (general study), McDowall & Wiersema (general study), The Violence Policy Centre (general study). The latter reports states

"Out of the 7,875 handgun homicides reported in 1998, only 95 (1.2 percent) were justifiable handgun killings of an assailant previously unknown to the person defending themselves."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninfive.htm

which is backed up by

"the FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010"

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/30/op...fer/index.html

It appears the pro gun side grossly exaggerates the reality of self defence with a gun.

[Dcdrac]

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/l/lynyrd+..._20086135.html

From Saturday Night special - Lynard Skynard

"Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me"

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Yet I back up what I say, which you do not

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Protection against crime is the reason why 67% of gun owners have a gun. Your utter nonsense of that link accounts for 174% of guns is because you failed to spot there are multiple reasons, right after alleging I did not realise that.

Your comment was...

Originally Posted by Nessie

Lets say you are right and the vast majority only want a gun for self defence or protection from tyranny, but know they do not need a gun for such.

Those are your exact words. Read them very, very carefully and tell us how that is contradictory to what you now say...

Originally Posted by Nessie

Protection against crime is the reason why 67% of gun owners have a gun. Your utter nonsense of that link accounts for 174% of guns is because you failed to spot there are multiple reasons, right after alleging I did not realise that.

If you don't see how that does not actually support your first comment, you could ask an English teacher at the high school you attend to parse the two comments and explain how the second does not substantiate the first.

Quote:

So that is that one covered.

If by covered you mean you've failed to substantiate the comment you made, then yes. I'll thank you to take responsibility for your own failure.

Quote:

As I say, I use evidence, you use rhetoric.

I used the exact words you wrote, your rhetoric, and asked you to substantiate your comment. You are unable to do it. Nobody has said the vast majority only want a gun for self defense or protection from tyranny. The evidence you provided contradicts it.

[Nessie]

Yes they are my exact words, part of a response to this apparently now deleted post which remains as a quote in post #148

"Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
This *********** load of **** again? When are you EVER going to *********** learn? Is there something that prevents you from learning? Is it something in that **** water you're drinking in Scotland? WTF man???? Seriously???

You're an ignorant fool if you actually believe I'm scared and need a gun. Some may be. However, the vast majority are not, your ignorance notwithstanding."

So I have picked up Triforcharity's use of the vast majority. So you object my use of the use of the words "vast majority" when the majority is 67% get a gun for protection from crime and 23% get a gun for another reason, is that it? Would you be happier with sizeable majority, or good majority? You concentrate on the rhetoric and semantics and I'll do evidencing.

I am disinclined to take criticism from someone who interprets the statistics as "Yes, you've accounted for 174% of the gun owning population."