What it's like to live in America where everybody can buy guns?

[Gerry Seymour]

Any discussion about the rate of "gun violence" coupled to "Assault Weapons" is a non-starter from the start.

Long guns of any sort are seldom used in "US Gun Crimes"...."Assault Weapons" dramatically less than that.

Ya'll are falling victim to the "If it saves ONE life" mentality linked to media saturation of tragedies that are statistically minuscule. Handguns NY FAR do most of the killing in the USA. This hoopla over assault weapons is a side-show that allows politicians to bathe in the spot light.

Agreed. The statistical incidence of "assault weapon" (a difficult category to define properly, to begin with) violence is quite low. Most gun violence involves handguns, not long guns, yet it's the fear of "military-style weapons" that many use to promote change. I'm no adversary to changes if they are predicated on good principles, but please don't insult my intelligence by pointing at the scary-looking guns. Show me statistics, and aim at the weapons most likely to be used in crime.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sorry...but after more than a decade and a half of LE work I disagree. Legislating "things" only restricts people who obey the rules. And this is from a Narcotics cop.

Laws work only when people are afraid of breaking them or are locked away from society after breaking them so they can't break them again.

If we want to keep bad things from happening with guns we need to look at the PERSON trying to buy the gun...not the slippery slope of gun banning. After semi-autos are outlawed and the next mass killing happens with a pump action shotgun I doubt everyone is going to say "well at least as wasn't as bad as if he had an AR". Hell the Virginia Tech shooter only had small caliber handguns...

I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment. Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void. It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.

Mass killings with a pump action shotgun? Really. That's the best you got? I guess that's why the army gives all of it's front line soldiers pump action shotguns to fight wars. That's why in countries where there are hang gun bans, the weapon of choice for a mass shooting is a pump action shot gun.

And as for you V.Tech shooter with small caliber handguns. That just proves what many people already know including gun lovers. Guns are made for killing.

 

[Tgace]

Agreed. The statistical incidence of "assault weapon" (a difficult category to define properly, to begin with) violence is quite low. Most gun violence involves handguns, not long guns, yet it's the fear of "military-style weapons" that many use to promote change. I'm no adversary to changes if they are predicated on good principles, but please don't insult my intelligence by pointing at the scary-looking guns. Show me statistics, and aim at the weapons most likely to be used in crime.

And the statistics used regarding "Gun Violence" is so cooked and twisted that getting a clear picture of the problem is blocked by politics. Teenage gangbangers shooting each other with stolen (or straw purchased) guns in urban warzones are classified as "children killed with guns". Suicides are lumped into "gun violence" stats.

It's all so much ********.

 

[Tgace]

I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment. Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void. It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.

Mass killings with a pump action shotgun? Really. That's the best you got? I guess that's why the army gives all of it's front line soldiers pump action shotguns to fight wars. That's why in countries where there are hang gun bans, the weapon of choice for a mass shooting is a pump action shot gun.

And as for you V.Tech shooter with small caliber handguns. That just proves what many people already know including gun lovers. Guns are made for killing.

Y'all want to "ban assault rifles". What the F are you talking about?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And the statistics used regarding "Gun Violence" is so cooked and twisted that getting a clear picture of the problem is blocked by politics. Teenage gangbangers shooting each other with stolen (or straw purchased) guns in urban warzones are classified as "children killed with guns". Suicides are lumped into "gun violence" stats.

It's all so much ********.

Yes. And I'd love to see some actual information. I'm not principally opposed to gun control. I simply won't accept it until there's some solid information presented. To date, all evidence presented in the US appears to be purposely skewed toward either gun control or gun ownership. Neither skewing is appropriate.

 

[Tgace]

I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment. Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void. It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.

Mass killings with a pump action shotgun? Really. That's the best you got? I guess that's why the army gives all of it's front line soldiers pump action shotguns to fight wars. That's why in countries where there are hang gun bans, the weapon of choice for a mass shooting is a pump action shot gun.

And as for you V.Tech shooter with small caliber handguns. That just proves what many people already know including gun lovers. Guns are made for killing.

BTW. The Navy Yard Shooter....look up what he used. I've seen the debrief.

Guns are made to send projectiles down range. I've competed in sports that used firearms that had nothing to do with "killing".

 

[Tgace]

And what are our politicians doing? Staging a sit-in because they could push through a "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" gun law that was based on a no-fly list.

While the idea had some bit of merit (terror suspects having limits to weapon purchases), the fact of the matter is that our current system is not "shovel ready" for this.

As it exists, the no-fly list is a "zero due-process" system where anyone can wind up regardless of guilt or even accuracy. It's a mystery how people wind up on it and its a Byzantine monstrosity to get off of if you do.

Denying people their Constitutional freedoms based on this list was a non-starter from the beginning and was FAR more politically motivated than it was ever a realistic proposition. Another one of those "lets pass it and see whats in it" proposals.

Some sort of database populated via a legal, just, and due-process controlled procedure IS the way to go IMO. But something is going to have to be "purpose built" to fit the bill.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Y'all want to "ban assault rifles". What the F are you talking about?

First of all who is "Y'all" referring to. Second, Show me the legislation that was sent to congress to change the 2nd amendment.

What people like you fail to realize, is that people like you aren't the only people with guns, and you sure aren't the only group in the U.S. that buys assault rifles.

 

[JowGaWolf]

BTW. The Navy Yard Shooter....look up what he used. I've seen the debrief.

Guns are made to send projectiles down range. I've competed in sports that used firearms that had nothing to do with "killing".

Your sport isn't made to kill.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Denying people their Constitutional freedoms based on this list was a non-starter from the beginning and was FAR more politically motivated than it was ever a realistic proposition. Another one of those "lets pass it and see whats in it" proposals.

Laws that go against the constitution can not be enforced which leads me back to what I've been asking for.

Show me where there was legislation that called for changes to the second amendment
""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I can tell you already what parts of this amendment has changed and it has nothing to do with guns. A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. You couldn't get this even if you wanted it. The military is so far advance than what any militia could be. A militia couldn't defend a State even if they wanted to. But even so. Like I said. before.

Show me where there was legislation that called for changes to the second amendment. As far as I know. You can go to the store today or tomorrow and still buy a gun be it a rifle or a side arm.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Oh I realize the fantasy exists. Some people believe they are going to lead a popular uprising and the masses of downtrodden oppressed gun owners will step up behind them and "take back" whatever America they think has been taken from them.

But they will be sorely disappointed when it doesn't happen, and it's just them and a dozen buddies with their AR15s in their cinder block and tractor tire bunker, out on the prairie, and they look around and see nobody there to back them.

So then it becomes a standoff with government agents, until everyone gets hungry or bored or both and they all go home. Unless someone gets REALLY stupid and opens fire on the agents. Then they will all be mowed down, and the rest of us will watch it on the evening news as entertainment, and we will all shake our heads at the stupidity of it all. And then we will all carry on with our lives and not even remember the names of the people involved. It'll get a footnote in a history book somewhere.

That is what will happen.

Dump the fantasy.

Hmmm, I guess the founding fathers leading a popular uprising of the masses against a tyrannical and oppressive government was a fantasy? Seems that was history.

Hmmm, hundreds of Sheriff's and Chiefs publicly stating they will not enforce any legislation or E.O. that infringes on the 2A is fantasy. Seems like that's public record.

Hmmm, people willing to stand up against any government that would attempt to strip them of their Constitutional rights is fantasy? I think you'll be in for a big surprise should it ever happen. Of the 80+ million gun owners some will cave and give away their rights one at a time. Tens of millions won't.

Perhaps, and I hope, we never have to find out who's right.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment. Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void. It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.

Technically it would take 3/4 of the states to make a Constitutional change in addition to congressional action. I doubt that would happen honestly. An E.O. overreach on the other hand could be a possibility. Without getting into politics, Hillary has said that Australian style gun bans (read confiscation) are something she's 'look into'. Not being political, simply stating something she's said on the campaign trail. A university professor has already called for removing the 2A. These in and of themselves don't amount to much. But it is that 'slippery slope' concern that folks look at. It is a Socialist tactic, again not being political, simply stating fact. There ARE officials within the government that would very much like to see a disarmed population. Would they ever actually attempt it? Can't predict the future. But much 'media' on the subject is being force feed to a population that only looks at headlines and sound bites but doesn't know about history, socialism, actual statistics on crime and self defense etc.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

And the statistics used regarding "Gun Violence" is so cooked and twisted that getting a clear picture of the problem is blocked by politics. Teenage gangbangers shooting each other with stolen (or straw purchased) guns in urban warzones are classified as "children killed with guns". Suicides are lumped into "gun violence" stats.

It's all so much ********.

And as I mentioned, many anti-gun groups label police shootings and law abiding citizens lawfully defending themselves as 'gun violence' to skew the stats.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Yes. And I'd love to see some actual information. I'm not principally opposed to gun control. I simply won't accept it until there's some solid information presented. To date, all evidence presented in the US appears to be purposely skewed toward either gun control or gun ownership. Neither skewing is appropriate.

Then you didn't look at the links I posted a few pages back from the FBI, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and numerous published articles on this topic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Then you didn't look at the links I posted a few pages back from the FBI, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and numerous published articles on this topic.

No, I haven't yet done so. I hope to have some time this week to look through them, though. I'd love to see some statistics that don't appear to have a heavy bias in either direction.

 

[Juany118]

Technically it would take 3/4 of the states to make a Constitutional change in addition to congressional action. I doubt that would happen honestly. An E.O. overreach on the other hand could be a possibility. Without getting into politics, Hillary has said that Australian style gun bans (read confiscation) are something she's 'look into'. Not being political, simply stating something she's said on the campaign trail. A university professor has already called for removing the 2A. These in and of themselves don't amount to much. But it is that 'slippery slope' concern that folks look at. It is a Socialist tactic, again not being political, simply stating fact. There ARE officials within the government that would very much like to see a disarmed population. Would they ever actually attempt it? Can't predict the future. But much 'media' on the subject is being force feed to a population that only looks at headlines and sound bites but doesn't know about history, socialism, actual statistics on crime and self defense etc.

You are missing something else. The right make up of a SCOTUS court could result in far more stringent gun control. All it takes is a Court to focus on "well regulated militia" and then note that the last Federal Militia Act did away with the formal "well regulated Militia", replaced that with the Army Reserves and National Guard, and made the "Militia" an informal and unregulated entity.

This is why I am a fan of "reasonable" gun control. Universal background checks for all sales (in my State I could sell AR-15's, and all other long guns, out of my house in an unlimited fashion without the need for background checks), mandate that all 50 States connect their databases on involuntary mental health commitments (there are documented cases of people ineligible for firearms purchases in their home State purchasing guns in another) and allow the ATF to digitize their sales database. Both of these would be excellent in terms of addressing straw purchasing as well as preventing ineligible people from making a direct purchase.

I think it would also help politically. Half the reason arguably more stringent measures are starting to gain traction, imo, is because these laws the NRA supported up until the end of Bush into the Obama Administration, are being fought HARD. Politics are often like Newton's Laws of Physics, every action having an equal and opposite reaction. If you do the reasonable thing, it tends to take the wind out of the unreasonable.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

In the UK one doesn't shoot a man with a shotgun, it's not sporting. You use a rifle, shotguns are for taking game.
A man was out hunting when he came across a very beautiful naked young lady in the woods, he asked her 'are you game' she replied 'certainly' so he shot her...................

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The right make up of a SCOTUS court could result in far more stringent gun control.

Agreed. The next President will be be appointing perhaps between three and five Justices. Depending upon whom is elected, the balance could be dynamically shifted.

 

[Buka]

This thread and all this talk of death by firearms and death by motor vehicles...how sad.

Unless, of course, you combine them and get this puppy.

Makes me want to rethink my choices for that Zombie thread.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It's been said before, but is just as applicable now, A firearm should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.