I knew there was a reason I liked you.
I’ve been a victim of a viciously violent psychotic; it’s mere happenstance I survived. A handgun would’ve prevented that.
Never again. That’s one area I will never budge a single inch on, ever.
Sorry, we can’t help you if you insist on thinking that guns make you safer. They don’t.
Ever stop to think that you survived only because a handgun wasn’t involved?
What would a handgun do that a home security system wouldn’t?
I think gun control is a very complicated issue. I have no idea what regulations are appropriate and which are not. While very strong measures would certainly sharply reduce America’s homicide and suicide rates, more realistic measures would have smaller effect. We might focus attention on the peculiar aspects of American culture that incubate lunatics like Stephen Paddock, Cliven Bundy, etc., but of course most gun deaths are one-offs, suicides aided by the ease of obtaining guns, results of undertrained or cowardly cops, etc.
Recently, the United States’ population of privately-owned guns actually passed its population of people. Since “people” includes infants, prisoners, and other non-gun owners, those who do own guns evidently own several guns on average. Yet, while obviously the U.S.A. vastly outperforms other developed countries in gun homicides per person, despite that most of these guns are redundant, the U.S. also outperforms in homicides per gun (e.g. “outperforming” Germany 5-1 in homicides per gun).
As far this thread, I am disappointed that OP chose to poison the well:
It is ludicrous to assert that gun control would have no effect on such massacres. Just for starters, the people in Las Vegas were killed by automatic gunfire. Were these automatic rifles truly “bought legally from a gun store in full accordance with state and federal law” ? 
Such rifles have been illegal in all 50 states since 1986.
Actually, no, it’s not.
Lots of stats about gun ownership and gun violence in the US.
Pay particular attention to charts number five, six and seven: more guns = more deaths. Period.
I’ll offer an outsider’s observation on this topic, in the hope that it will be taken as constructive criticism of a country that I greatly admire, and would admire a lot more if it could fix its problems with health care and gun violence.
I think the truly major difference between the US and most other industrialized countries isn’t the gun laws per se, although gun laws are indeed far more restrictive in all of those other countries. The really major difference is the gun culture, and if the problem is going to be addressed, it ultimately has to be a long-term shift in that culture, which suitable legislation may help to start changing but legislation alone is likely not sufficient to really fix the problem.
What I mean by “gun culture” is that in most countries guns aren’t revered as a symbol of national or personal values – either a symbol of the mythology of protection from government tyranny, of personal safety, of responsible adulthood, of freedom, of personal empowerment, or of anything else. They’re just considered mundane but dangerous tools that are acquired out of necessity on the basis of actual need by a very small minority of private individuals who actually have those needs, like hunters and farmers. Many people are surprised to learn that despite gun laws, it’s actually possible in many of those countries to legally buy a pretty wide range of weaponry if you really want it. It’s not necessarily easy, but you can do it. The thing is, almost nobody does. That’s the crucial difference in gun culture. Also reflective of that culture is that it’s unheard of – and extremely illegal – for a private citizen to walk around with a gun in public.
I have absolutely no idea if such a culture shift is possible in the US. I heard an interview with David Frum on the radio this morning. Frum is a moderate centrist-leaning Republican, and he was responding to a comment that after Sandy Hook and after the Orlando shooting and other mass shootings, there was absolutely no change in gun policy. He pointed out that this was not true – there were big changes. The changes were that after those events, gun activism by the likes of the NRA increased, gun purchases went up, and the proliferation of guns generally increased. Indeed, share prices of gun manufacturers went up immediately after the Vegas shootings. And in the period following Sandy Hook, concealed-carry and open-carry laws have been considerably loosened across many states. All those things, too, represent gun culture as it exists today, and it must be sobering to those who hope that events like these will facilitate gun control legislation to know that the culture is barreling along in exactly the wrong direction.
There is zero evidence that he openly carried the guns into the MB.
Your mantra just isn’t true.
HSS can be bypassed
HSS can go down/become useless in a natural disaster
HSS aren’t in the price range of some families in the roughest neighborhoods.
You don’t get to impose your will on others trying to protect their families.
Oh, so it’s not TOTALLY 100% FOOLPROOF PERFECT FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION, so screw it, let’s just let everyone have guns and shoot people up - 30,000 people a year is a small price to pay, because 'MURICA!
:smack:
God, people are stupid.
Guns can be left out where kids can get them.
Guns can be stolen.
Your own gun can be used against you.
Guns can be used for quick ‘n’ easy suicide; other methods are less definitive
(and people that survive a true suicide attempt rarely attempt it again)
With the lights out during a natural disaster, how does your gun help you?
You going to randomly and blindly just shoot?
You don’t have to worry about your HSS accidentally shooting your kid/spouse/friend/brother
My complaints about your preferred method of defense are far superior to your ‘complaints’ about mine.
The biggest problem for me, as a professional problem solver, is that the entire argument over guns and gun ownership in the US has never followed the standard process that we who fix machines, always follow.
That is, examining what has gone wrong, and detailing a repair that directly addresses the exact failure.
The anti-gun-control people, for the most part, stop arguing immediately after citing their opposition to gun control measures of any kind. They make no counter proposals whatsoever (unless you include the suggestion that everyone open-carry a handgun, including small children).
As for statements to the effect that gun-control laws would not prevent a lone nut-case, I suggest firmly that that is an unsupportable assumption. Yes, it is true that the current almost non-existent gun control measures in place in the US would not and could not have prevented this. But since all of the control measures that have been passed have been sharply limited by opponents of all restrictions, that’s about as logical as saying that requiring that the condition of windshield wipers be checked, failed to prevent a broken steering linkage from causing a car to run off a cliff, that therefore that no safety tests of any kind should be required for cars.
We don't know all or even most of the facts about this case yet. We know he had a lot of guns, some of which were illegal in many places in the form he had them, but that's it. We absolutely SHOULD act to prevent a repeat of this, but we really can't act logically or effectively until we know what exactly happened.
I look to the FAA and their accident prevention system for the kind of standard approach that’s needed. In that system, every instance of a failure is examined, and action is taken. There is never a declaration that we should just accept the occasional mass death of airlines passengers as inevitable.
The gun nutters are so scared of what they’ll find if gun violence was properly researched, they prohibit the CDC from any and all such research.
It’s quite telling.
Are you referring to the repealed Dickey Amendment?
I think you accidentally left a ‘repealed’ in there.
Your factual error is telling. Try to offer a cite to support your assertion - wait, you can’t because you’re wrong.
I didn’t read through the whole thread, so don’t know if anyone posted this yet:
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
Of course. What good is a gun if you don’t shoot it?
I think Google would find many hits of gunnists firing in the dark and striking family members. This one is interesting because
- the shooter was a police officer — you know, those brave well-trained gun toters we need to trust.
- the article, describing an incident in Virginia, comes from a U.K. news source. I guess it was too “ho-hum, what else is new?” for the U.S. press.
Just correcting a few factual errors here too, though these are nitpicks.
From current reports, the rifles used were equipped with bump fire type stocks, not full auto. Additional evidence to the contrary may be released but I’m not aware of any right now. Bump fire stocks would be legal to purchase in most states. Full auto rifles are not illegal in all 50 states. I’ve rented them in NV for shits and giggles.
WT actual F are you going on about.
The Dickey Amendment is still in place. The NRA-supported Amendment, nominally says that the funds can’t be used by the CDC for research to ‘advocate or promote gun control’; practically that means the CDC has extremely limited funding to do any proper research into gun violence. Millions of dollars are spent each year on traffic and car safety, millions on cigarette smoking…yet almost no money is spent on something that kills roughly 30,000 people a year for no reason. The NRA has staunchly resisted any attempts to rescind it, even though the author of the amendment itself apparently regrets it.
Please, by all means point out the ‘factual errors’ in the above. Show me all this research the CDC is apparently doing.
If you want to claim that ‘the Amendment doesn’t really prohibit CDC funding’ you’re just pussy-footing around the language and denying what you know is true: The NRA has used the language to block research into the the subject of gun violence, because they know the findings would not be favorable to their favorite toy. In a recent attempt to repeal it, not a single Republican voted for the repeal. Fancy that.
The CDC conducted gun research in 1913 and 1915 under directives from President Obama.
Also, there were roughly 11k gun related homicides. It is disingenuous to include suicide which is a very personal choice.