There are other hunting guns that are not semi-auto, you know. When I say ban semi-autos, but allow hunting guns, it would be reasonable to interpret that to mean that non semi auto hunting guns are, ok. Or if you are not sure, you can ask and I’ll explain. This is hardly a gotcha. I’ve posted frequently on this topic recently, sometimes specifying bolt action and single shot as being appropriate. Reading over my posts in this thread, I can’t see how you could misinterpret this, especially since I talked about hunting with non semi-auto and planning you shot, etc. Anyway, I hope that’s cleared up.
No. I did not say that. I said I was not particularly knowledgeable about the Ar-15, because it didn’t appeal to me. This is something that’s very different from what I actually said. There’s a quote function. Please use it to show something I said, rather than your interpretation.
My argument is that you can get the utility for hunting or target shooting out of a bolt or single shot rifle, as you can out of a semi. I actually think more, but that’s just my opinion. Anyway, you can still hunt and target shoot with a non semi. Your giving something up, but it’s worth it in my opinion to deny a mass killer lethality in scores or hundreds.
The utility of a truck is not replaceable, or technically it is, but banning trucks would cause more hardship than it would save. Banning semis? But you know this? You know you know you can’t just wildly extrapolate and pretend that’s what I am saying. Stop yanking my chain.
I did not ignore it. I responded directly. Post 51.
Look. Your not quoting me, saying I said things I didn’t say, and saying I didn’t respond to things I did respond to. Why don’t you read the posts and quote them? Please.
I would ask you how many times in your life you’ve had to protect yourself with a gun from a bigger/stronger person but I’ve no doubt you’ll tell me a story to justify just such a scenario. Never mind that there are thousands upon thousands of stories where a gun was completely useless in just such a situation or, like for most people in the US, the need never arises their entire lifetime.
It may not be entirely rational, but people get nervous when they feel targets on their backs. They stop going to concerts and games and the like, because they are worried for their safety. They don’t let kids go to events, because they are worried about their safety. They don’t let people enjoy something that the municipality spent resources making, because they are worried about safety.
People don’t always react rationally to events, and anyone telling them to act rationally in the wake of a rather gruesome event like this has no understanding of human behavior. There will be real effects to the economy, real effects to people’s livelihoods.
The concern about being shot at by a spree shooter from a vantage point while attending a crowded event is, IMHO far more rational than the idea of fending off attackers in your home or on the street with your gun, but we are expected to just accept that bit of delusional thinking, no matter the dangers and costs to society.
Thank you so much for gunsplaining your cherry-picked facts to me. I picture you typing that with your legs spread wide.
*Rate of shooting deaths in Norway: Less than two per 100,000 population
Versus the U.S.: A little over ten per 100,000
Rate of gun ownership Norway: less than 30 per 100 population
Versus the U.S.: 101.5 per 100 (yes, more than 100 percent)*
Norway must be drowning in deer. And constantly reeling from all the one mass shooting they’ve had.
Good for you, for that at least. There’s hope for you.
You must be really pissed off at all the gun owners rushing to buy bump stocks in the last week. Not only are they giving your side a bad name, they’re ignoring the NRA’s stated position. What do you think of them?
There are 300 million guns in America or 300,000,000. About 10,000 gun homicides a year. So, 299,990,000 guns are not used to murder a fellow human. The chance of any one gun being used to murder is tiny.
There are about 16 Olympic sports games that use guns. More guns are used in the Olympics (including qualification rounds, of course) than are used to murder in the USA.
In some areas of the USA, notably Alaska, subsistance hunting is still a way of life, without guns those people would starve.
Sport hunting is very common, there are almost 40 million hunting licenses sold in the USA each year. 40,000,000 vs 10000. See the difference?
Shooting skeet is a sport.
Gun collecting is a hobby- many of those 300 million guns have never been fired.
We dont have any good stats on gun use for defense. While it is true that the number of times a gun was used to KILL in self defense was low, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that simply *showing *a firearm prevent many crimes.
IMHO the OP poses the wrong question. Guns are legal pretty much everywhere with few problems associated with it. However, the major reason for that is that there are relatively few of them, their acquisition is well vetted and subject to licensing and (often) proof of need, as well as strict laws on storage and transportation. This, in turn, places significant limits on the number of guns that can fall into the wrong hands through theft or private acquisition. It’s all an inter-related synergy.
The single most frustrating thing I find in the US gun debate is that any proposed gun control measures that could start this synergistic process rolling are smacked down in a two-step process: (a) some rationalization is dredged up about how that specific proposal has loopholes and weaknesses and therefore won’t do much good, but (b) what it will do is inconvenience that ultimate icon and poster child of all things sacred, the blameless and untouchable “law-abiding gun owner”.
I understand the sentiment behind the OP as the basis of debate, but the practical approach is to deal with (a) and (b) above in the following way. Rationalizations about alleged ineffectiveness should be dealt with critically and with a view to documented facts and the recognition that cumulatively, and over time, gun control measures do work, because they work in all other countries. And “inconvenience” to law-abiding gun owners should be taken off its sacred pedestal. Those who choose to own dangerous instruments or pursue activities that pose a danger to the public should acknowledge a responsibility to a commensurate degree of meaningful regulation and therefore some level of inconvenience. Until that happens, this problem is never going to get solved.
Let’s remember, too, that the individual behind many a gun homicide and many of the mass shootings including the last one in Vegas was a “law-abiding gun owner”. Almost every gun owner is “law-abiding” until he isn’t. It’s not a hard line to cross.
I think they are assholes. My father was a gun dealer and I have probably shot more different types of guns than anyone on this board. However, we were always obsessive about gun safety. The only time my father ever scared me was when I accidentally hit my little brother in the neck with a BB gun from 100 yards away. He was absolutely furious and slammed me down into chair and gave me the most harsh lecture of my life even though it didn’t cause any damage.
I have lost friends when they waved (supposedly unloaded) guns around casually and I told them to stop. ALL guns should be treated as they are loaded and I will treat the threat as such. Gun safety is dead simple (no pun intended) and I have zero tolerance for anyone that doesn’t follow it.
Again, there isn’t much you can do about spree killers. They will find a way if they are smart enough. The bigger threat in statistical terms is people that own firearms but aren’t that concerned about safety. You can’t solve the problem of determined spree killers but you can address the problem of kids being killed because they found a loaded gun in their mother’s nightstand. You can also make bump stocks banned. There is no purpose to those other than a cool redneck toy.
However, there is no gun control measure that would have stopped the recent Las Vegas shooting so let’s not kid ourselves. You can’t just legislate away every problem.
How about we ban detachable magazines on rifles? Make the magazine and receiver a single piece. You can have your AR-15 but it only fires a certain number of rounds. We’ll say 30, although I think less would suffice. Once it’s empty, you have to reload it one shell at a time.
Very few people hunt with semi-auto rifles and they’re not very good for home defense, but for those who claim to need one for either reason, there is no need for more than 30 rounds.
A nutball can still do quite a bit of damage with 30 rounds and those rare nutballs with well laid plans can have multiple rifles, but for all practical purposes, most gunmen will be toast once those 30 rounds are spent. It is no longer an assault rifle that can be used to take on a whole police force, it’s a semi-auto that is only good for one brief engagement.
I believe this is true, or at least mostly true for almost all of them. And this is exactly the problem. If owning a ridiculous number – something like 40 – of different and extremely lethal guns didn’t raise a single red flag with anyone, the mind boggles – one could hardly ask for more evidence that existing regulations are completely broken and useless. Of course one could advance the argument that it should be completely legal and unrestrained to own what is effectively a military arsenal. Fine. The consequences are predictable. The tradeoff that some are willing to make between human life and playing with guns is just totally bizarre.
That is not a good argument and the consequences are not predictable. My own father owns a metric shit-ton of guns and most of them have never been fired. He just buys them as works of art. They are collectively worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Gun stock craftsmanship and metal engraving artisanship is a real field of the arts that only a few people in the world can do. People pay dearly for Spanish and Italian shotguns that cost over $15,000 for example just to put them over their mantle. Those aren’t going to be used to kill anyone and it would cause a huge stir if someone tried to confiscate them. That said, they are functional and could be used to kill or injure a large number of people.
How tight does the lockdown need to be and for how long? I am starting to think we need a remedial class in statistics on the SDMB. Yes, it is terrible but so is everything else. You are all going to die.
I’m going to bet that the Spanish and Italian vintage shotguns are not semi-automatics easily convertible to automatic fire and the ability to kill dozens of people in seconds. There is not an equivalency here, and there is easily a rational regulatory basis under which the Vegas killer could have been flagged as a looming danger.
There are legitimate historical gun collectors in all free democracies who manage to go about their business. In some cases the guns may have to be rendered non-operational. Why is that a problem for the collector admiring their “metal engraving artisanship” and putting them over their mantle as “works of art”?
A major factor that contributes to the “terrible” is how preventable it is. Not in the short term in the US, but certainly doable – my cite is: every country in the world. And “you are all going to die” has to be the mother of all bad arguments on any kind of public policy.
I was using the term loosely and meant assault rifle style semi autos. Hunting rifles that happen to be semi auto aren’t really a problem as much as assault rifle style semi autos that a few people actually happen to use to hunt.
I don’t know why you brought up a ban on selling larger magazines. That has nothing to do with my post and I have no feeling either way about it.
