Inherently? I guess not.
However, whether it is actually more dangerous depends on how the guns will be disposed of. People who own more than one gun may be more likely to participate in private guns sales without background checks. Also, when the original owner dies of natural causes, there are more guns to fall into hands that may shoot them at something other than deer and waterfowl.
And, the more guns in the house, the more guns taken by the burglar.
So then let’s get rid of burglars.
What percentage of murders are committed by people who own multiple guns? You do understand that when we talk about “gun murders” we’re talking, 99% of the time, about gang violence and clueless “honor” cultures, right? Legislating based on the specter of the survivalist with the home arsenal is just extending the Feinsteinian principle of banning scary-looking plastic attachments to banning scary-looking people, rather than using evidence.
Protect constitutional rights by not having any restrictions what so ever on gun ownership, ammunition, carrying, etc., while at the same time prohibit the criminal and civil prosecution of a person who kills a gun owner, gun carrier, gun seller, or gun manufacturer.
Problem solved.
(That, or grow up and join the rest of the civilized world in implementing serious gun control.)
Oh no! The president disagrees? Good thing we don’t live in a dictatorship!
A longer quote from Obama, including parts omitted:
(my bold)
I take a different position. I agree with this guy:
If Obama is frustrated and stymied on 2nd amendment issues, I consider that a success.
The type of people who join Obama in wishing he could fire the voters for failing him tend to support gun confiscation in between their daily burnt offerings to BHO’s framed picture. What a surprise.
You propose to promote the killing of gun owners, sellers, and manufacturers. Somehow I don’t see this as hyperbole from the gun control crowd.
An easy test to see if your “reasonable” limitations are such:
Would you accept similar “reasonable” limitations on, say, abortion rights?
If not, why do you think your limitations are at all reasonable?
à la Damon Runyon’s The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet, my money would be on the culture with the most firepower predominating.
I don’t know that it is. I’m in a weird place about this anymore. I am firmly in the “gun rights” camp, but there are things that I would be willing to see happen. I would be OK with universal background checks, and I would be OK with gun registration under certain conditions. The Devil is in the details. Here’s what I proposed a while back:
That said, there is no such thing as “common sense” gun regulations. If I came out and said that I considered abortion to be murder, I might say that any restriction is “common sense”. Of course, to most people that wouldn’t make any sense, and so it is here. There are regulations that exist and regulations that don’t yet exist. To someone like me, a gun owner who has never done anything with his guns but punch holes in paper, the regulatory environment is “common sense” enough.
So, tell me what you want. Don’t try to tell me what to think, don’t pretend it’s going to benefit me, don’t blow sunshine up my ass. Tell me what you want. I’ve told you several times since Sandy Hook what I would accept and under what conditions. You tell me why your ideas are better.
If you are serious about this, only the rich can own a hunting rifle, since only the rich can afford a truly secure gun safe.
I have relatives who sometimes carry handguns. I politely wish they didn’t. But I’m more against arresting them if one of their guns is stolen, whether in a mugging or a burglary.
Solving problems by sending more and more people to prison, to the point of our having the world’s highest incarceration rate, has been tried and failed. Sending a whole new big group of people to prison, because they made an honest mistake when it comes to securing their gun, would be a cruel waste of tax dollars.
Most “gun control” laws originated in attempts to drive up the price of guns so that poor, particularly poor black, people could not access them. So I guess this proposal is right at home.
That is not so. I am not rich, I do not have a huge gun safe, and nobody will steal my firearms unless they tear my house apart. But that’s just quibbling.
I’ve noticed that when I put forth a plan that will a) make gun owners responsible for their guns, b) weed out some proportion of people who shouldn’t own guns, and c) create a system of accountability, I get objections even from people who want gun control, complete with the rare exceptions that they can envision happening to people they care about, but accept no such scenario from gun rights advocates. Remarkable.
So, I repeat, what do you want? I already know the answer, but I want you to man up and say it. Just come out with it.
Certainly. I’m pretty sure that all our wisest philosophers have all said the same thing. That’s why living in a war zone always has such delightfully great outcomes for everyone involved. I myself prefer to live where there aren’t bullets flying around, but I’m funny that way. Some believe that there’s a valid philosophical argument to be made that the more desirable and ultimately more robust society is one where people aren’t killing each other with increasingly powerful weaponry, but far be it from me to suggest such a radical idea here.
Still, if there can’t be effective gun control – and clearly there cannot in this political climate – I say the next best strategy is to make it mandatory for everyone to have a gun and carry it around at all times. Bill Maher was on the right track when he said, “gun-control people have to stop pressuring Starbucks to ban guns. I want my gun nuts overcaffeinated, twitchy, and accident-prone. That way, the problem will take care of itself.” I can only add that I especially approve of everyone in bars carrying a gun. It’s good to have the right tool handy in case of political disagreements, perceived insults, differences over girlfriends, etc. Or, as in the last ten dozen or so mass shootings, having the right tool handy in case you’re just generally pissed at the world. Because there has never been a negative outcome from anyone having a gun in any of those situations.
Well, I consider Obama a gun banner, so I’m totally fine with him being stymied. I like you think there can be things put in place that would address some of the problems in the country, but there is no way I’d support them in the current environment.Let’s look at your examples:
If the gun control people actually want these things, then they would need to contemporaneously provide a system that prevents abuse. For example, #1 background checks - The risk is that this is used as a way to restrict purchase. By allowing the government to be an intermediary in a transaction, they have the ability to deny that transaction. So safeguards must be put in place so this power is not abused. Things that would have to be addressed: Creating a registry, undue delay, mandatory delay. I could see a system like e-verify which is voluntary and open to the public being a decent alternative. There is no need to include serial/make/model of the firearm, and records should be destroyed instantly upon approval. Something like that may work.
#2 - some statutory penalty and damages would need to be imposed for improper use of a registry, such that it would make it prohibitive for anyone to attempt to. Even then, I’m generally opposed to a registry of any kind. I do not think it’s viable to have the government maintain a list of what I own.
#3 and #6 go together I think. You can’t hold people accountable for stolen weapons. I think as long as people aren’t prosecuted for stolen weapons, mandatory reporting seems tenable. Without a registry this is a less powerful tool, but can exist independently, as long as there are provisions for ignorance of items stolen.
#4 - HIPPA I don’t think is the issue with mental health records being submitted to NICS. I think it’s that NICS reporting isn’t mandatory in most states and the data is woefully incomplete. I think disqualifying events should be mandatory to report to NICS.
#5 - no problem here. In my state I have no avenue to carry, ever. All states should be shall issue - I think a test of laws, responsibilities, and proficiency is fine, as long as it is no more difficult than police must pass. I prefer constitutional carry since it eliminates the ability for states to play games, but as long as people can carry in a way that isn’t prohibitive I’d be okay.
Of course, the gun control supporters typically avoid offering any meaningful concessions or even contemplate that safeguards would be required for the things they propose.
From one authoritarian extreme to another. No gun rights advocate wants people to be forced to do anything - having the choice is the key. Your desired outcome is to remove choice.
It’s funny, we did an extensive thread on guns in barsthat started over 5 years ago. The same predictions and insinuations you make here were made at the time. They did not, and have not come to pass. But I do find it telling that people on the gun control side appear to want tragedy to happen - either as an ‘I told you so’, or to further their agenda. Both Muffin and yourself have actively wished for more people to die. That’s beyond unseemly.
I really question the whole point of wanting to ban high capacity magazines. Anyone who is even fairly competent with his/her firearm can make a magazine change in seconds. I fail to see how limiting magazines to say 15 rounds does anything except make a shooter carry more magazines.
A lot of arguments in favor of gun control boil down to “more guns equals more gun violence”, and that therefore the only direction that gun ownership can take that will reduce gun violence is down. This presumes that the relationship between gun ownership rates and violence rates is linear; that double the gun ownership rate and the gun violence rate will double. But the evidence seems to contradict that. Consider that Shall Issue did not lead to gunfights over parking spaces, carry in bars has not lead to the mass slaughter predicted, and now states with no permit requirement at all for carry have not at least yet shown an uptick in gun violence as a result.
I’ll repeat an assertion that I’ve made several times before: since criminals, sociopaths and irresponsible yahoos already have all the guns they want, there’s almost literally nothing that could make the gun violence situation in the US worse. We’re probably at or close to the peak of a bell curve: the worst people have guns while only a small percentage of law-abiding responsible people routinely carry. Too few to create a “herd immunity” where crime or violence with guns is likely to be deterred or countered by armed self-defense or good samaritans.
Gun control has been tried, in that it used to be illegal to carry in most states and permits were “May Issue”, usually meaning no; and this didn’t stop gun crime and violence. Carry proponents would like to test the opposite strategy- what if at least a quarter or more of the people in a random crowd were carrying? What if committing robbery or assault was as risky as Russian Roulette? What if there were no “fish in a barrel” situations for shooters to exploit? There is anecdotal evidence that in times and places where carry was ubiquitous among average people, the result was surprisingly crime and violence free.
Considering that more children under 5 have gotten measles this year than been shot, maybe we should start looking at other rights of Bill Maher to restrict if we want to save lives. You sure pick some dumb heroes.
Well, I’ll repeat my disagreement with that, then. There are two huge fundamental errors in that reasoning.
The first is that it promulgates the delusion that society has some sort of basic duality, that it is comprised of a distinct “criminal class” who were all apparently born that way, and then a class of eternally “law-abiding citizens” who can do no wrong, ever. This doesn’t represent the real world. The reality is much more fuzzy than that and, unfortunately, much more dynamic and unpredictable and changeable. The upstanding “law-abiding citizen” who gets suddenly and unexpectedly fired, the upstanding “law-abiding citizen” who suddenly finds his wife having an affair with his best friend – these are all just human beings and potentially put a large population at risk when they are in possession of powerfully destructive weapons. As Rebecca Peters has said, “If you have a country saturated with guns – available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed – it’s not unusual guns will be used more often.” Indeed the Sandy Hook shooter was essentially a sympathetic if disturbed young man, raised in an upscale home with a loving mother who bought some high-powered guns for target shooting as a misguided attempt at parental bonding – all very legal, all very respectable and all socially condoned.
The second major fallacy in your reasoning is the fatalistic idea that there are so many guns around that nothing can be done. No one claims that a solution can be achieved overnight. But important things can happen over time, even if it takes decades or generations eventually leading to fundamental changes in culture – beginning with basic attrition of supply and buyback and amnesty programs like in Australia where hundreds of thousands of guns were recycled into useful commodities that don’t kill people. And legal changes that recognize that, for example, much as one might like to have a gun in the home for “protection”, the reality is that “a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present” (cite: Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)). Or the idea that if someone trespasses on your property, you’re perfectly justified in blowing his head off. In the evolution of civilized culture it’s generally recognized that force may be met with justifiable force, but that in the absence of such justification, what you have there is what is technically called “murder”. Whether such cultural and legal changes are realistic in the US in any reasonable future I don’t know. I do know that they’re possible, given the political will.
If you think it’s “unseemly” to wish for more people to die, then your issue is with the NRA, the corrupt politicians that they control, and the gun nuts pushing for even more gun proliferation – not with those of us trying to make a point about the lethality of guns.
You’re right, it doesn’t represent the real world. Of course, this characterization is one that you’ve concocted on your own. It has no relation to what Lumpy stated.
Somehow you are probably able to reconcile these statements - I’m not able to. I don’t think either is accurate, not the paraphrase of Lumpy, nor your conclusion about the political climate.
Australia engaged in a nationwide gun confiscation. Are you supportive of that?
No. The NRA does not wish more people to die. You said that on your own. If you’d like to rephrase or withdraw that comment, go right ahead.
