General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Leaving the snarky comments aside, it may be important for you to keep in mind that the rest of the world doesn't automatically conform to your standard.

I know plenty about gun storage methods, what I'm asking is for YOU to define what's "responsible" to YOU, the devil is in the details.

There needs to be a sober discussion about it, and a standard agreed upon. I'd be inclined to do as the Australians do, and mandate Gun safes.

Let's try this one then, what happens when someone broke into the house and stole my car, and then used it as a getaway car in a robbery, and ran over a few people while they were at it? was I "socially irresponsible" because my car key wasn't stored in a safe?

It's not the car key that is dangerous, but the car, and in fact the car is kept locked. Likewise, your gun safe would likely also have a key, but can't exactly have a key to a key, can you?

Also, a car is very different from a gun. They should not be equated. Or perhaps we shouldn't arrest people who don't take proper precautions to prevent explosives or poison from being stolen?

Is a gun more like a car, or more like an explosive or poison?

[Vexx]

My rather small wife cannot use our shotgun unless she is able to fold the shoulder stock. It has a pistol grips, which permit her to load the next shell unlike a cylinder style grip where she lacks the finger strength to hang on to it. Basically, the AWB would have prevented her from owning what most of the world considers an acceptable home defense tool because the '94 AWB outlawed the sale of bits that make it 'scary' (and no more deadly) but useable by small people. Are they afraid of small people having access to defensive weapons?

This is what thinking people call *stupid* and why one needs people who are not idiots about a technology writing rules about it.

Oh, and just to emphasize - nearly no one can own a weapon legally that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull. Its been that way for over half a century.

[TooPurePureBoy]

Oh, and just to emphasize - nearly no one can own a weapon legally that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull. Its been that way for over half a century.

No matter how many times this is said it's amazing to me that people still don't seem to be able to absorb the information.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

There needs to be a sober discussion about it, and a standard agreed upon. I'd be inclined to do as the Australians do, and mandate Gun safes.

I have a few issue with mandatory gun safes (note: I'm not against the use of safes, but rather in a mandatory application).

Leaving costs aside, there are potential issues with size and bulk. In my case, there isn't anywhere to secure a safe in my house except in the basement, which is only accessible from a stair on the other side of the house. I hope you can see how that can be a problem should I ever be unfortunate enough to need access to it.

Not to mention for people who live in apartment buildings, where it may be impossible to properly secure a safe - having a safe by itself doesn't mean much if people can simply take the whole thing away, which actually does happen.

It's not the car key that is dangerous, but the car, and in fact the car is kept locked.

And what happens when someone forgets to lock their car? will they suddenly be liable? I certainly don't keep my car locked when it's in the garage as it'd be rather pointless.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Also, a car is very different from a gun. They should not be equated. Or perhaps we shouldn't arrest people who don't take proper precautions to prevent explosives or poison from being stolen?

Is a gun more like a car, or more like an explosive or poison?

Those are all tools that can be used or abused. There is little difference in a legal sense, and all of them have legislation covering usage and possession.

Stricter rules for legal users is not going to reduce access to weapons for the criminal element, although it may reduce accidents around the house.

[Vexx]

To be more focused, I really don't think any of this addresses the "criminal element" very well. Most of the mass shootings have been by people who weren't criminals beforehand (though they were often being treated for mental health issues). If someone wants to reduce access to weaponry to that kind of person, its going to take a combination of gun use/storage regulations and a comprehensive "universal healthcare" of mental health programs.

That's amusing to me because it means anti-tax folks (who are heavily overlapped with gun owners) will have to cough up taxes for it. And gosh, if its such a good idea for mental health, why not for physical health given the incoming train wreck to the economy due to epidemic chronic health failures from a lack of preventative care available?

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Leaving the snarky comments aside, it may be important for you to keep in mind that the rest of the world doesn't automatically conform to your standard.

I know plenty about gun storage methods, what I'm asking is for YOU to define what's "responsible" to YOU, the devil is in the details. I'm certainly not against proper weapon storage, but for me "proper" depends largely on the individual circumstances as opposed to a blanket standard which you seem to support.

Well, I hate to break it to you. Sandy Hook finally brought about an America that is royally pissed:

Have the gun people come up with regulations -- OR -- someone else will do it for them. No, IFs, ANDs, BUTs, or delays.

Originally Posted by kyp275

you realize that's how things are already right? one trigger pull per shot IS semi-automatic.

Ok, then. The use of the magazine should be banned for civilian use, so that civilians have to load single bullets. If you're going to be that picky about it.

Fine. The firing rate for civilian fire arms should be 1 bullet per 10 seconds or so. Got a problem with this?

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

No matter how many times this is said it's amazing to me that people still don't seem to be able to absorb the information.

Yea, make fun of me all you want - because I neither own a gun nor know how to use one. My knowledge on any gun comes from those FPS games. And I haven't played one extensively since Half-Life/Counterstrike. A more recent game that I've played is CoD, just to play zombie mode.

Originally Posted by Vexx

If someone wants to reduce access to weaponry to that kind of person, its going to take a combination of gun use/storage regulations and a comprehensive "universal healthcare" of mental health programs.

And a push to improve the jobs numbers -- the likes of which the current Republicans are not cooperative in working towards. The more people who work, the less inclined they are to turning towards crime.

Someone come up with a gun insurance system already. That's job creation right there.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Have the gun people come up with regulations -- OR -- someone else will do it for them. No, IFs, ANDs, BUTs, or delays.

Personally I prefer ones that are comprehensive, useful, and are bipartisan, but I guess that's just me. Also, I hope you haven't forgotten that rights are not something you can simply legislate away on a whim with a minor majority (though I'd say the small majority will quickly become a minority with your specific proposal).

Ok, then. The use of the magazine should be banned for civilian use, so that civilians have to load single bullets. If you're going to be that picky about it.

Fine. The firing rate should be 1 bullet per 10 seconds or so.

It's not a matter of being "picky" or not, but rather one where you're not even speaking the same language as you know nothing about the subject. I'll consent to a limit of one shot per 10 seconds once you can guarantee that everyone will ever only be attacked by one person at a time, whom will stand still to let the shooter takes a careful aim.

Yea, make fun of me all you want - because I neither own a gun nor know how to use one. My knowledge on any gun comes from those FPS games. And I haven't played one extensively since Half-Life/Counterstrike. A more recent game that I've played is CoD, just to play zombie mode.

It's not about making fun of you, but if you want to have a serious discussion on ANY topic, nevermind one where you're proposing national policies, you should at least try to educate yourself on the matter. What you're doing right now is being the Jack Thompson for guns.

[Ithekro]

Ok, then. The use of the magazine should be banned for civilian use, so that civilians have to load single bullets. If you're going to be that picky about it.

Fine. The firing rate should be 1 bullet per 10 seconds or so.

I am fairly certain that is considered unreasonable...or perhaps just illogical. Especially considering there are plenty of weapons build before detachable magazines were used that carry more that ten bullets and can be fired at more than that rate of fire. Like a lot of those 1870 repeating carbines and lever action shotguns. Or even some revolvers for that matter (I know at least a 9 bullet 9mm revolver and I think there was a 15 bullet .22 revolver at one point). At those most of those things are well over 100 years old in terms of technology.

Plus one can load and fire a single shot pistol faster than 1 round per ten seconds I would think (never tried it with the Thompson Contender).

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I am fairly certain that is considered unreasonable...or perhaps just illogical.

I only wrote that to be snarky.

So, what rate do you want? 1 bullet per second? How about 2 bullets per second (meaning 120 bullets per minute)? What is the satisfactory firing rate to you?

Originally Posted by kyp275

It's not a matter of being "picky" or not, but rather one where you're not even speaking the same language as you know nothing about the subject.

Of course, I don't. I just said that. However, it's irrelevant, when public policy is in discussion. AND people are dying as a result of current policies. Because of this, things MUST be changed.

All I get out of you gun people -- very defensive talk. It's as if you don't want your "toys" changed, just because a bunch of bad apples here and there ruined the party.

Let's look at other things, that affected peoples lives AND can kill. As a result, these things have been subject to regulation:

* Food. Yes, food. The FDA doesn't exist for no reason. Food is regulated to ensure, that what we eat is safe. No poisons, bacteria, etc. Standards are in place to make sure food is fresh AND people are informed about food products, displayed on food labels.

* Cars. Licenses, that expire on a periodical basis. Drivers tests to ensure competency. A whole insurance industry. Traffic laws. The works.

* Drugs. Similar to food. Warnings and labels everywhere. Some drugs require prescriptions, so that not everyone and anyone can get particular drugs. The doctor must approve usage first.

* Highway bridges. To think, it took a few incidences of people (or kids) throwing objects off the side of bridges, onto traffic below. As a result, many bridges were retooled to include those fences, to prevent or make things more difficult for people to toss things over bridges.

And plenty more things, that I don't have time to mention right now.

As far as gun regulation is concerned, background checks are all that I am aware of. Yet, these can be bypassed via gun shows and Internet sales. I'm sorry. That's not enough. The biggest irony about guns -- it is one product designed to KILL and nothing more. Yet, it is not subject to the same level of regulatory standards, as all these other things.

[snip]

So, pardon me for not knowing about guns -- but -- enough crap is enough. Lead the change, or be lead by it.

Show me those gun regulations NOW.

[Ithekro]

Rate of fire presently is "how fast can you pull the trigger or pull back the hammer?" There are very few non-semi automatic weapons out there these days. Especailly in pistols.

In most cases you don't want a fast rate of fire if you need to aim, but in other cases (where you might not have time to aim, or need to suppress an intruder) than you need to get off a lot of shots quickly.

Having all things limited to no more than X number of bullets, or a slow rate of fire, mean that someone can predict when someone is either out of ammo, or reloading (depending on the number of guns they have on them). Similar to the six shooter days when a person had six shots and if you counted you'd know knew they are out.

However if you are trying to defend yourself in your home and all you have is a single shot pistol...either you are going to have to aim carefully, or think of something else. If they have only one shot as well, you migh be able to time your response, but just because you are obeying the laws doesn't mean they are (they might have a two barreled weapon to your single barreled weapon). And yes I can think something like that happened in the 1700s when it was only single shot black powder and flintlocks. Because some people had twin barrel pistols. (nevermind that you can't hit accurately with the things over a few meters distance in most cases).

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I have a few issue with mandatory gun safes (note: I'm not against the use of safes, but rather in a mandatory application).

Leaving costs aside, there are potential issues with size and bulk. In my case, there isn't anywhere to secure a safe in my house except in the basement, which is only accessible from a stair on the other side of the house. I hope you can see how that can be a problem should I ever be unfortunate enough to need access to it.

Not to mention for people who live in apartment buildings, where it may be impossible to properly secure a safe - having a safe by itself doesn't mean much if people can simply take the whole thing away, which actually does happen.

If you can't secure a gun against theft and/or use by minors, then maybe you should not be allowed to keep a gun. For one thing, an unsecured gun could easily be used against it's owner, and is much more likely to be involved in an accident (particular where children are involved).

More importantly if there was no penalty for theft, you'd be leaving a loophole wide enough to drive a tank through. You could have a situation where a person sells hundreds of guns to criminals, and then when they turn up at a crime, he simply claims they were "stolen" from him. As for Safes themselves, I don't necessarily think they need to be mandatory either, but showing you use one should mean you're almost immune from prosecution.

Now, I don't think the penalties for a stolen gun should be very severe (particularly for first time offenders). I'd have a $100 fine for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a 5 year ban on buying a gun for a third offense. If a fourth offense occurred, it would be a lifetime ban.

And if the person is investigated and is found to be selling guns illegally, they should receive an appropriate amount of jail time (maybe 5-10 years), particularly if they are knowingly selling to criminals.

I don't think this is too onerous, the key thing is to provide a deterrent against not safely securing a gun. Very few people will ever actually receive the 5 year ban (and if you do have 3 guns stolen from you, you're probably too scatter brained to
be trusted with a gun anyway.)

[Ithekro]

A significant problem with those ideas of gun safety is that is makes it very unlikely that the gun owner would be able to get to the weapon to use it for self defense (which is what a large number of people buy them for in the first place). Gun safes and trigger locks specifically.

While I can atest that a number of collects keep most of their firearms in a gun safe, the one they use for protection would need to be closer at night, as it would not do to have the intruder between the gun owner and his safe (as it is sometimes impractical to keep the gun safe in one's bedroom).

Gun locks can also get in the way if one has to fish for a key while trying to remain quiet.

[Vexx]

A small gun safe that uses a four finger emergency code and fits under the bed usually meets the bill for night time. Not so great for a shotgun though.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vexx

A small gun safe that uses a four finger emergency code and fits under the bed usually meets the bill for night time. Not so great for a shotgun though.

I own a rifle (handed down to mt from my grandfather), and the few bullets I have are kept in a immediatly accesible, yet small, safe stationed in my room (along with the gun, which is stored in a gun rack). If I ever needed to immediatly equip myself, the entire loading process would take about 40 seconds, the time needed to unlock the gun rack, open the safe, and load a round. Why couldn't someone with a shotgun do the same thing? (Arguably, they are already doing something similar, since their gun shouldn't be loaded, but the bullets would be on hand.)

Originally Posted by Kyuu

The biggest irony about guns -- it is one product designed to KILL and nothing more.

That is where you are not understanding the debate/discussion. To many gun enthusiasts, it is not that a gun is meant to kill (humans), it is that a gun is meant to defend ((against humans). (Obviously hunting is somewhat different (what with the killing), but animals don't have rights, so screw 'em .) Whether it kills or not is secondary. Consequently, they are extremely upset by what they perceive to be a government trying to restrict their ability to defend themselves and their family. (Note I do support bans/restrictions on high capacity ammunition clips and assault rifles, and there are many other comprehensive and intuitive options available to help support gun rights and gun control.)

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I always find this idea rather precarious. Why is it that deaths by guns seemingly so much worse than death by other means? You hear people arguing for gun controls keep pointing to the decrease in gun crime/death after stricter controls were enacted, yet never talked about the overall crime/death statistics. Was there any similar massive reduction in violent crime/deaths in those countries after the gun control laws were enacted?

If you're American, check out the weapons used for assassinations of beloved leaders and Presidents in your history and then re-ask this question
(Hell, check out assassinations of a lot of leaders and adored figures around the world in the last 60-70 years)

And then perhaps we can come back to the issue of 'dying by knife, bat, poison or a flame-thrower' after the issue with gun circulation in the US has been dealt.

The very nature of the weapon was created to gain an edge in wars fought long, long ago. It has no other purpose, the long distance range, tiny ass stray bullets that in the right place can take a life, the silence of it (ie: a sniper rifle), hence it's frowned on more than other 'weapons'.

On a side note, my stance here is being born and growing up in what was dubbed by the BBC 'the Harlem of the UK'. Media overblown but my home town got a bad rep for it and I ended up with automatic street cred x.x;
The amount of black youths pulling guns on each other and gun crime, "apparently" my hometown had the most deaths in London, if not "the UK".
But Black gun crime was a massive problem, to the point the police and parents worked together to create an amnesty program called "Operation Trident" to reduce the circulation without penalty.

You ask 'where's the stats of lesser deaths', I'm not Kaijo or Vexx to pull off some fancy links and journals, I leave it to them two
But I can safely say, the mindset changes.
Priorities changes (study more, make a better future), respect for Life improves, rather than being influenced by gun glorified culture and gang life, you have a chance to see other things around you. I like that the Hellspot next to my home town has become a town that families can live in, you can walk at night without fear of being raped at gunpoint (as was the issue 20 years ago), it's a shadow of what it was.
To not live in constant, immediate fear is truly a blessing.

Most arguments I heard from Americans who were 'we need more guns' was
If 'good' people don't have them, the 'bad' people only will. We need to protect ourselves!
*major, major facepalm*

From what?
If you were a woman in Afghanistan and feared for her life, sure get a gun and protect yourself. If you're in war-torn Syria, sure get a gun and protect yourself. But if you're in 21st century America, with no civil war, yet you want every Tom, Dick and Harry having a gun in possession to feel "safe", for the "just in case", then there's something very, fundamentally wrong with the mentality and fabric of society right there.
When I was a kid and we heard about shootings and rapes and kidnappings, we didn't all think 'we need more guns!' no, the police and others taught us how to be aware, how to protect ourselves, how to be on alert.
The rest we figured for ourselves, you hear a shot, you duck

I'm more surprised that Americans still remain 'surprised' of all the school shootings and public shootings over the last 15 years, while the rest of us just go 'just another day in America, huh', same old story and roll our eyes, the same way we do so when Israel starts attacking the Gaza Strip...again.

Obama's tried to shake up America in ways it hasn't been shaken before (medical care for one), this is to shake up the country again from the day your constitution was written. I wouldn't wanna be him, I actually feel sorry for the guy.

But one thing has proven that leaving things as they are haven't improved anything. I wish you peeps luck, it's not so much the governments I'm worried about but the odd 320 million citizens, their mindsets and divisions. I don't think I've seen America so divided before, and I wonder if as a nation, you people can push forward into unknown waters in order to protect the future lives from unnecessary, senseless deaths.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure there were a few major university shootouts under Bush's 8 year rule, yet there wasn't any major push or shake up for gun control under his command... right?
Why?
*leaves that rhetorical question open...*

[Kaijo]

As anti-gun as I find myself turning, I'll also agree that an assault weapons ban is pointless and useless. The majority of crimes are committed with handguns, so any regulation that is proposed, needs to deal with these.

As Jon Stewart pointed out last night, 57% of guns used in crimes come from about 1% of gun shops. If we had some sort of national database of all guns made and sold, and allowed the ATF to inspect gun shops at random, those few gun shops would be forced to close down or straighten their act up. In one small stroke, we'd eliminate over half the guns on the streets, that are used by criminals.

I'll also repeat the conclusion that several scientific journals have come to, and that the FBI's own numbers point to: a gun in the home means that the family members in that home, are much more likely to come to harm.... vs. a family that has no gun in the home.

So, let's dispel the notion that a gun will protect you. Because though it might, the odds are weighted heavily against that. So, the only valid reasons to own a gun, are hunting and sports, which I will agree are valid reasons.

Having said that, it means we can safely require any guns stored at a home, to be stored in safes, apart from ammo that is also locked up. And for further safety, we can require smart gun technology that allows only the owner (and those he designates) to be able to use his firearms.

Based on the data, these are the conclusions I come to. And Kyuu is right about something... we ARE going to have more gun regulations. If gun rights people and gun owners don't get involved and suggest reasonable compromises, if they go the route of the NRA and mock and criticize from a distance, they'll find they'll get nastier regulations than if they worked with the rest of society.

Call your congress critters and let them know that, as a gun owner, you support gun regulations. Because you know that contrary to the NRA's fear-mongering, the government is not going to take away your guns. And you are willing to accept some inconveniences, if it can help save lives.

Originally Posted by james0246

That is where you are not understanding the debate/discussion. To many gun enthusiasts, it is not that a gun is meant to kill (humans), it is that a gun is meant to defend ((against humans).

I'll help and clarify this. The gun is meant to KILL. A good gun will do that. A bad gun will not. Yes, you can protect people with a gun... by KILLING someone who threatens you or others. So yes, a gun is meant to kill. You can use it to kill animals for food, or kill people to protect others... but in all cases, you are using the primary purpose of the gun: to kill.

Killing isn't wrong, per se. And no disputes the notion that the KILLING aspect of the gun can be used in beneficial ways. But society pays a cost for allowing these guns (both in lives and money). Society, then, has every right to re-evaluate its position on things and call for changes... 2nd amendment or no.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I'll help and clarify this. The gun is meant to KILL. A good gun will do that. A bad gun will not. Yes, you can protect people with a gun... by KILLING someone who threatens you or others. So yes, a gun is meant to kill. You can use it to kill animals for food, or kill people to protect others... but in all cases, you are using the primary purpose of the gun: to kill..

You can use a gun to protect yourself without killing the other person, though. There was an instance in the 1980s, for example, where a woman managed to fend off someone who attacked her with a knife in the backseat of a taxi cab (Woman A being the crazy ex-girlfriend of a guy that Woman B was currently dating) by shooting her in the shoulder, ensuring that an encounter which very well could have resulted in death ended with nothing more than an injury that healed after a few months. There are also stories where warning shots manage to scare away the attacker, which prevents the situation from escalating and results in nobody being killed or even injured.

Not to say that I'm ultimately for or against gun control; just that using guns for self-defense doesn't always mean 'kill someone who's trying to kill you,' but that it can also mean 'deal someone who's trying to kill you a recoverable injury, or scare them off so that nobody gets hurt at all.'

[Ithekro]

Also sometimes the threat of the gun is enough to defend oneself. From the "Beware of Owner" stickers to the sound of an shotgun's pump action working to freak out an intruder. But if the threat is no enough, than sometimes seeing the weapon is enough. Even firing the weapon can be enough without actually hitting the intruder (it's loud and scary).

After that, then it is wounding shots (legs is the prefered target).

After that, than you aim to kill, or if the intruder is also so armed, because unless the intruder is wounded and won't fight back, you have to assume they are going to shoot to kill you (as they did invade your home with a gun out). It is still traditional to aim to wound first.

[Kyuu]

By the way, how many gun deaths in America have occurred since Sandy Hook? President Obama managed to mention on the order of 900 people since then.

Originally Posted by james0246

That is where you are not understanding the debate/discussion. To many gun enthusiasts, it is not that a gun is meant to kill (humans), it is that a gun is meant to defend ((against humans). (Obviously hunting is somewhat different (what with the killing),

Offense or Defense.

Killing is killing. When it comes to Death (or even injury), there is no such distinction. A dead person is a dead person. Any difference between an offensive kill or a defensive kill would be left up to the courts. Even when someone is hurt, there are liabilities.

The point the government has to bring: minimizing the effects of death (or injury) pertaining to guns.

What I find sick -- many argument on the gun side make no effort in that regard. Instead, they're far more concerned about the Freedom and unfettered ownership of guns; at the same time, they do not take responsibility for the political climate, that allows gun violence to occur.

And on that note, I'm sorry. I have to point a finger in that direction. Why?! Because the gun side preferred to retain things as they are -- rather than make the effort to improve the safety of society pertaining to guns.

As for me, and many who voice similar opinions to mine, we oppose the status quo on guns; and things must change (which bears repeating). Thankfully, the Presidency is leading us in this very direction.

To the gun people, do not fight this political change. Do not even hope that it'll blow over. Not this time. If you have recommendations on the nature of safety, then give them! All I hear is nothing more than "defensive talk" -- as if there is no such thing as a "gun problem". The truth is: there IS a gun problem. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

No matter how many times this is said it's amazing to me that people still don't seem to be able to absorb the information.

And yes. My knowledge on guns is limited -- or virtually non-existent. However, that is irrelevant, because the issue is NOT whether people know about guns or not. The issue is directly linked to the sheer fact: many people in America are dying in relation to guns. Until these death numbers drop, the discussion will continue.