How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your home?

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Some posters seem convinced that criminals will always have access to guns even if they are outlawed. Well Sweden definitively allows guns we just make it harder for criminals to get them and it seems like it works. A jewelry store in a big mall got robbed last week. It was definitively well planned, they knew which entrance was not guarded, had a get away car ready that they abandoned 15 min after the robbery, got to the store before opening time but after the salespeople had gotten there so it was easy to get in and take the jewelry, etc.

Guess what weapon they used? A crowbar.

do drug addicts have any problem accessing to illegal drugs?

I am not saying that it will be impossible to get guns, I am saying that increased control will make it harder and lead to less homicides, violence, robberies, etc.

Are you seriously comparing guns to drugs? Well it seems like you believe that since we can't completely ensure that criminals won't have access to guns we should therefore allow anyone to get a gun. Or have I misunderstood?

 

[HollyS]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

"Well, people can froth and moralize all they want, but the bottom line is that guns will never be banned completely in this country. Not without what would amount to an intrusion into our lives and a virtual police state and the resultant push-back the likes of which this country is not willing to endure." (ksinger)


BINGO!!


Are you always right??? I could have sworn we once disagreed on . . . something. I don't remember what.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

This is exactly what I mean by all or nothing mentality.

I've already said that I fully agree (again) there is tons of room for options between the two extremes of complete ban and do nothing. My comments above were not at all directed to the middle-grounders, only to those who advocate for a complete ban.

I am not for a complete ban of guns. I am for realizing that the lack of control currently exercised over gun use in some countries is a big problem.

While I'd agree that a better level of control would make sense ideologically, I've yet to see a rational way to implement it. Earlier, I cited some gun fatality statistics from the US government CDC. That same report noted that while gun-related fatalies has steadily decreased from 2005-2010 in the U.S., it is actually *increased* in the states with the most rigid gun laws. California has one of the two strictest gun laws in the country, and they lead the country in firearm homicides. Another, Massachusetts, has also seen an increase. Strengthening restrictions has not actually resulted in less violence. While I agree it's something to strive for, legislation without reasonable enforcement is ineffective.

Regarding the right to bear firearms. I completely understand the reasons behind that being included in the constitution when it was written. Today we live in a different world and no longer is this necessary in order to defend the US right to be a free state.

You sure it's not necessary? Just a mere 10 years ago, clowns from outside our country attacked us with planes and caused mass homicide. You don't think that threatens the security of our 'free state'? I do. Not only do I not agree that it's no longer relevant, I think it's moreso than ever.

But some people still seem to feel that the right to bear guns is inalienable and should in no shape nor form be infringed upon. Some seem to think that increasing control of guns will lead to the infringement of their freedoms in other areas. Therefore in order to "safeguard" peoples freedoms and rights then it seems to be ok that some people will get hurt. This type of attitude is not as prevalent in the countries that I have experience from and I therefore have a hard time wrapping my mind around itquote

I can see where some people do feel that way. Again, in my state, there are some makes of guns that you can't buy new; you're only allowed to acquire them if others in the state sell them or if someone who moves here from another state moves into the state and then sells them. This 'control' has positively nothing to do with safety or whacko containment and everything to do with which gun manufacturers are in bed with which politicians.

I don't think people think it's OK that some people get hurt; I think it's more realizing that some people will get hurt *regardless* of what you do, and so it's about *reasonability* of risk mitigation instead of trying to achieve the unachievable at the cost of the many.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

[quote="natascha|1343267591|
Are you seriously comparing guns to drugs? Well it seems like you believe that since we can't completely ensure that criminals won't have access to guns we should therefore allow anyone to get a gun. Or have I misunderstood?[/quote]


no,not anyone,and only after a background check.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Some posters seem convinced that criminals will always have access to guns even if they are outlawed.

Would you like examples of why?

Drugs - not legal in our country, can be had by nearly any 6th grader in any corner of this country without much effort.
GROWING drugs - also not legal in our country. Tell that to the guys who got busted last week for growing in their backyard.
Cuban cigars - totally illegal in our country due to embargo, and yet available if you know where to look
Alcohol - completely illegal during the Prohibition, and yet speak-easies did robust business.

Making something unlawful doesn't necessarily decrease demand, and sometimes it *increases* demand.

Since laws are made nationally, there is no way to force other nations to behave according to U.S. law. Case in point....while Cuban cigars are illegal in the U.S., they are totally legal in Canada, and when I went there on a long weekend, my husband and his friend lawfully bought and smoked a few. They aren't stupid enough to bring them back, of course, but believe me when I tell you that some people have quite the little cottage industry doing just that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha...you may as well give up,b/c Alj will not lose in a debate. FYI...her debating record on PS is 32 Wins and 1 loss.. sooo.. you ain't gotta chance..

 

[VRBeauty]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

There are probably 10-15 guns in my immediate family (counting myself, my father, and three siblings).

my household has the least.

 

[Imdanny]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

None.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Still on a tangent for my last contribution to this thread - the American economy would collapse without motor vehicles. Calling them a 'convenience' is a gross error. No shipping, no commuting, no fast police or ambulance service. No military assembly, no post service, no imports or exports. If you think the economy is in the crapper now, imagine the commercial sector with no transport beyond bicycles! Heavily enforcing super strict gun regulations would cause no such impact.

No shipping, no commuting, no military assembly? No post service? No imports/exports? Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally? Gosh, all those things existed LONG before cars were invented - they just didn't occur overnight (i.e. *convenience*). I don't know what your history books say, but mine show a pretty robust shipping trade and imports via ocean. Yep - military assembly too, and postal service via horse, etc. etc. Commuting was done by horse or walking; people just commuted less distance. That's still *possible*; it just may not be *preferable*.

There are people who live perfectly fine without cars, and they do so by living in areas where they can function without them OR in making lifestyle choices that don't require them. I'd be curious to know, though, if anyone's contacted the Amish yet to let them know they can't survive without cars. If not, I really hope to go on a ride-along for that declaration for the amusement value.

I think the armageddon-collapse prophecy is a bit overstated, though; as a people, we would surely evolve to adapt. Other infrastructures would arise to meet the new environment.

Even playing devil's advocate, though......there's nothing to say that it would have to be all or nothing. We could elect to just outlaw personal automobile ownership, but leave intact commercial ownership of trucks and planes to facilitate faster movement of goods. Eliminating only personal automobile ownership would *greatly* reduce the likelihood of road rage or people using their cars to injure/maim right? Perhaps we should try it.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I am not saying that it will be impossible to get guns, I am saying that increased control will make it harder and lead to less homicides, violence, robberies, etc.

Are you seriously comparing guns to drugs? Well it seems like you believe that since we can't completely ensure that criminals won't have access to guns we should therefore allow anyone to get a gun. Or have I misunderstood?

Increased control, as you put it, will not necessarily lead to less homicides, violence, etc., because the very people who engage in those unlawful behaviors will also likely have no trouble turning to unlawful sources (which are PLENTIFUL) to obtain firearms. As I mentioned, while the rate of gun fatalities has steadily declined over the past 5 years nationwide in the U.S., it's actually increased in the states that have the strictest gun restrictions (control?) in place.

I'm not speaking for DF, but I don't think he's suggesting that we allow anyone to get a gun, and that's certainly not what I'm suggesting either. I'm suggesting that creating legislation that reduces the opportunity for lawful people to own and use firearms peacefully will not meaningfully achieve the stated goal of reducing violence perpetrated by unlawful citizens.

 

[AGBF]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Sorry Deb, heartily disagree. ANY weapon greases the wheel of killing, and far more weapons are more *readily* accessible than guns. Guns are the LAST weapon to be legally readily accessible on impulse.

Speaking for my state, you cannot purchase a gun without a gun license. To get that, have to complete gun safety training at a state-approved facility. Upon completion, you have to file a license application, and approval of that application requires submitting to an extensive interview with a local detective in your town. When you finally get the license, you have to go to one of the legally authorized dealers to obtain the firearm, and then you have to fill out paperwork and submit it to your local municipality. That takes about 4-8 weeks in my state. This hardly lends itself to impulse.. The only way to hasten that process is to obtain a gun illegally........and in that case, gun laws don't help because you're already operating outside the law.

By comparison, I can get a 10" Kitchen-Aid butcher knife in under 10 minutes at my local Kohl's, and I don't need to worry about the larger guy fending me off with it if I'm able to attack from behind. With slightly more time (30 minutes), I can across the state border to obtain enough explosives at the fireworks retailer to blow up half my city block without so much as a backward glance. With only slightly more effort and a little time spent with Professor Internet, I could go to Agway to purchase enough fertilizer to torch an entire building.

With respect to your skill argument, I can assure you that not everyone could even strike a person by firing a gun, especially mortally. There is skill required there too.

I cannot think of ONE mass shooting incident that wasn't heavily planned and premeditated.....nothing impulse about it. There's a lot less impulse involved in that than there is in running someone off the road or grabbing a nearby kitchen knife in the heat of an argument.

ANYTHING can kill people if the people trying to kill want to kill. That's not exclusive to guns.

I have not had a moment to myself all day and was posting under the handicap of trying to write while being talked at earlier!

I have something I want to say about guns.

As some observers have been pointing out in the past few days, mass murder as we fear it now in the 2012 US is a man's game. Only men do it. Only men get guns and go onto college campuses and into high schools and onto Norwegian islands and into McDonaldses and shoot up lots of strangers. It is my contention that men would not do this if they didn't have guns with which to do it.

You can tell me from now until doomsday that I don't have any proof, but I have seen a lot of little boys play with guns over the years. I have seen a lot of little girls fail to pick up guns which they had every opportunity to pick up. No one is going to convince me that holding a gun is not is not an extension of a boy's (and then a man's) phallus. No other weapon is going to give him the same pleasure that a gun does. Do you really think that an attacker would get the same charge out of storming into a theatre with a big backpack of fertilizer strapped onto his back that he got out of going in with a bunch of pointy rifles in his hand? Please!

That charge that men get from guns in itself is one thing that differentiates guns from other weapons! Are guns easier or harder to come by than other weapons? Who knows. They are far too easy to come by. Fireworks are illegal in some states. I believe that huge amounts of fertilizer being sold raises questions. Probably either could be fashioned into a bomb. Probably someone could make a back yard atomic bomb. But these are the real terrorists who will be making weapons of mass destruction.

Every crazy Tom, Dick, and Harry with megalomania and sociopathic impulses wants a big phallus. That's why guns are different.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

[quote="aljdewey|1343276769|

I'm not speaking for DF, but I don't think he's suggesting that we allow anyone to get a gun, and that's certainly not what I'm suggesting either. I'm suggesting that creating legislation that reduces the opportunity for lawful people to own and use firearms peacefully will not meaningfully achieve the stated goal of reducing violence perpetrated by unlawful citizens.[/quote]


i'd agree with you except to bring back the pony express...

 

[ericad]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Guns don't need to be outlawed. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. I think common sense controls like the following (off the top of my head) would go a long, long way:

1. Require training and testing as part of the licensing process. Require periodic re-testing/qualifying in order to be allowed to keep your firearm (much like law enforcement requires periodic re-qualification).
2. Outlaw automatic weapons. There's no need for a civilian to ever own one.
3. Regulate stockpiling. No civilian needs to own 87 guns.
4. Regulate ammo. No civilian needs to have thousands of rounds of ammunition at a time.

Want a handgun for home protection and self defense? Fine - take a class, pass a test, buy enough ammo to serve that purpose and go on with your bad self. Want a rifle for hunting? No problemo. Take a class, pass a test, buy enough ammo to serve that purpose and go get those deer! Want a bad ass machine gun or semi-automatic whozie-whatsit because you're a "collector" and it's your right to own guns and because it's just so darn cool, and let's add 5,000 rounds of ammo to boot? DENIED.

Responsible gun owners should have no problems with stricter controls that keep us all safer and has the added bonus of making mass murder slightly less convenient for the psychopaths. And then comes that slippery slope fallacy of, "oh if we give an inch, before you know it we'll be living in a police state with all our constitutional rights violated and they'll take away all our guns." I'm not buying what they're selling. There's a middle ground, where common sense can prevail.

Personally, I despise guns, can't stand having one in my house. Hate the look of it, the feel of it, the sound of it and the smell of it. To me, it represents death and destruction and I cringe at the thought of it. The very day my husband changes jobs or retires and no longer needs the gun, it's getting evicted from my house. But as long as he's on the job, I sure am glad he has that gun because odds are, in a dangerous situation, that gun may save his life.

BUT, even so, I don't want guns banned, nor do I think they can't be responsibly owned. I just want them controlled and regulated and will just choose to never touch one as long as I live

 

[Rhea]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Well spoken. Ditto everything you said EricaD!

 

[Jennifer W]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Sorry Rhea, I should read more carefully - I realised after I posted that you already answered.

Not at all! You word it so much better.

It's very interesting having moved here from the bible belt. Complete culture shock! It's amazing to me, knowing a little about the Dunblane shooting, that it took one incident in 1996 to make attempts to keep it from happening again. And to my knowledge, it did until Derrick Bird in 2010. I get scared and worried when I see guns here. Being in London I think I might see the armed response unit a wee bit more often than you do in rural Scotland

I live very near Dunblane, and worked in the community there for a while. The ban on firearms was the result of a public inquiry (The Cullen Inquiry) and an overwhelming amount of public pressure to implement a ban. I'm sure there were people who didn't like it, but most people clamoured for an end to public gun ownership at that time and despite the doomsday predictions of those who disagreed, the change went ahead with apparently no disruption to the fabric of society. Very, very low levels of gun crime in Scotland. It isn't just the shootings where one person has taken many lives, but the day to day absence of firearms means that there are very, very few deaths or injuries relating to their use at all.

Funny, but although I do live in a fairly rural area, I used to have an office police HQ in the nearest town, and the armed response unit was based there. I saw them regularly, although they were training when I saw them, and rarely deployed.

 

[Rhea]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Yeah, from everything I've read it went over a bit better than expected. Of course, I'm reading news and hearing it from English family, not someone who lived close by so thank you! It's all very interesting to me.

I live in the Peckham area with the Peckham Boys gang and postcode wars. Still, I'm always pleased that I don't actually see them that often at all! I just assumed that I'd see them more often than you because of urban gang violence, but I guess not!

 

[Jennifer W]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

The Peckham Boys sound...interesting! Nothing like that where I live, for sure. I haven't seen a police ARU since I left that job, a good five years ago now.

 

[ksinger]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Sorry Deb, heartily disagree. ANY weapon greases the wheel of killing, and far more weapons are more *readily* accessible than guns. Guns are the LAST weapon to be legally readily accessible on impulse.

Speaking for my state, you cannot purchase a gun without a gun license. To get that, have to complete gun safety training at a state-approved facility. Upon completion, you have to file a license application, and approval of that application requires submitting to an extensive interview with a local detective in your town. When you finally get the license, you have to go to one of the legally authorized dealers to obtain the firearm, and then you have to fill out paperwork and submit it to your local municipality. That takes about 4-8 weeks in my state. This hardly lends itself to impulse.. The only way to hasten that process is to obtain a gun illegally........and in that case, gun laws don't help because you're already operating outside the law.

By comparison, I can get a 10" Kitchen-Aid butcher knife in under 10 minutes at my local Kohl's, and I don't need to worry about the larger guy fending me off with it if I'm able to attack from behind. With slightly more time (30 minutes), I can across the state border to obtain enough explosives at the fireworks retailer to blow up half my city block without so much as a backward glance. With only slightly more effort and a little time spent with Professor Internet, I could go to Agway to purchase enough fertilizer to torch an entire building.

With respect to your skill argument, I can assure you that not everyone could even strike a person by firing a gun, especially mortally. There is skill required there too.

I cannot think of ONE mass shooting incident that wasn't heavily planned and premeditated.....nothing impulse about it. There's a lot less impulse involved in that than there is in running someone off the road or grabbing a nearby kitchen knife in the heat of an argument.

ANYTHING can kill people if the people trying to kill want to kill. That's not exclusive to guns.

I have not had a moment to myself all day and was posting under the handicap of trying to write while being talked at earlier!

I have something I want to say about guns.

As some observers have been pointing out in the past few days, mass murder as we fear it now in the 2012 US is a man's game. Only men do it. Only men get guns and go onto college campuses and into high schools and onto Norwegian islands and into McDonaldses and shoot up lots of strangers. It is my contention that men would not do this if they didn't have guns with which to do it.

You can tell me from now until doomsday that I don't have any proof, but I have seen a lot of little boys play with guns over the years. I have seen a lot of little girls fail to pick up guns which they had every opportunity to pick up. No one is going to convince me that holding a gun is not is not an extension of a boy's (and then a man's) phallus. No other weapon is going to give him the same pleasure that a gun does. Do you really think that an attacker would get the same charge out of storming into a theatre with a big backpack of fertilizer strapped onto his back that he got out of going in with a bunch of pointy rifles in his hand? Please!

That charge that men get from guns in itself is one thing that differentiates guns from other weapons! Are guns easier or harder to come by than other weapons? Who knows. They are far too easy to come by. Fireworks are illegal in some states. I believe that huge amounts of fertilizer being sold raises questions. Probably either could be fashioned into a bomb. Probably someone could make a back yard atomic bomb. But these are the real terrorists who will be making weapons of mass destruction.

Every crazy Tom, Dick, and Harry with megalomania and sociopathic impulses wants a big phallus. That's why guns are different.

Deb/AGBF

I'm a feminist to my toenails, but that one is a stretch Deb, AND a tangent. AND you don't need to yell it either.

It may be pleasant to think that gun crime is only caused by every man wanting a big dick, but really, come on. And how many men have you actually been around who own guns? Shooting ranges filled with male shooters? Gun shows? You KNOW what kind of psycho-sexual charge they get from guns how exactly? As my husband quipped, after slowly cutting his eyes over when I told him of your post, "Freud is dead. Best to leave him in the ground."

Most gun crime in this country is NOT the kind we saw in that theatre - perpetrated by men with supposed masculinity issues or some sort of congenital defect that comes simply from being male. It's related to drugs, gangs, poverty and ignorance and ultimately, a feeling of powerlessness. Combine those things with a young male's attraction to danger and our increasingly hyper-safety-conscious culture, and yes, you're going to see gun violence, violence in general.

Alj is correct - banning things doesn't work. As she points out, we have a long well-documented history of such things not working. We can try all day to legislate to pick up the slack when society begins to break down, all such attempts ultimately fail.

You will NOT ban guns in this country. Period. You can yell and scream all day from now until doomsday. It.will.not.happen. There are currently nearly 350 MILLION guns in the US and a population that is extremely divided on ownership and a congress that won't let go of gridlock and states jealous of their power and a constitution that expressly permits ownership and has been interpreted so since the inception of this country. The best we can hope for is effective and uniformly enforced regulations. They've been trying that since the 30's you know. There is a whole slew of laws pertaining to gun sales and ownership. It's not like it's never been tried, it's just that like most bans, most people have IGNORED the laws (I know - people ignoring laws. Who knew??) and many enforcement bodies have been either unable or unwilling to enforce.

 

[Lovinggems]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

The picture of an untrained, untried person with a gun in his or her pocket is unsettling, if you expect they are just waiting for a reason to pull it out & use it. But think about this: of all the articles you've read or heard about shootings, how many were committed by the guns of the thousands of average guys on the street? Close to none. Isn't that why Travon Martin is a big story?

Violence & rage are endemic to all societies & strict gun laws do not prevent shootings. They happen where laws are lenient and where laws are tight. And not only in the U.S.

Recent mass killings by one shooter outside U.S. (does not include injured who survived):

Norway (Anders Breivik) 2011: Killed 77
Belgium (Nordine Amrani) 2011: 7
Germany (Tim Kretschmer) 2009: 15
UK (Derek Bird) 2010: 12
Finland (Ibraham Schkupolli) 2009: 5
Finland (Matti Juhani Saari) 2008 10
Switzerland (F. Leibacher) 2001 14
South Africa (Bulelani Vukwana) 2001 11
Australia (Martin Bryant) 1996 35

Not confined to recent times, either. A sampling of earlier mass shootings:

Japan (Toi Matsui) 1938 30
Germany (Ernst Wagner) 1913 14

This is only a sampling. There are many more, in "peaceful" countries in "peaceful" times. Someone determined to find a way will find a way. That's the sad truth. Fortunately these eruptions are rare. Nobody has managed yet to predict who and when. As Aljdewey said, we can't outlaw fertilizer because someone makes a bomb with it. We can't outlaw knives when people are stabbed. I'm no wiser about this than anyone else & it's tragic.
W
More basic for the future of humanity is the urge to restrict everyone when one individual goes haywire. Benjamin Franklin knew that: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose both.”

--- Laurie

As someone else already mentioned, this was before stricter gun controls and the gun buy back scheme.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I'm a feminist to my toenails, but that one is a stretch Deb, AND a tangent. AND you don't need to yell it either.

It may be pleasant to think that gun crime is only caused by every man wanting a big dick, but really, come on. And how many men have you actually been around who own guns? Shooting ranges filled with male shooters? Gun shows? You KNOW what kind of psycho-sexual charge they get from guns how exactly? As my husband quipped, after slowly cutting his eyes over when I told him of your post, "Freud is dead. Best to leave him in the ground."

Most gun crime in this country is NOT the kind we saw in that theatre - perpetrated by men with supposed masculinity issues or some sort of congenital defect that comes simply from being male. It's related to drugs, gangs, poverty and ignorance and ultimately, a feeling of powerlessness. Combine those things with a young male's attraction to danger and our increasingly hyper-safety-conscious culture, and yes, you're going to see gun violence, violence in general.

Alj is correct - banning things doesn't work. As she points out, we have a long well-documented history of such things not working. We can try all day to legislate to pick up the slack when society begins to break down, all such attempts ultimately fail.

You will NOT ban guns in this country. Period. You can yell and scream all day from now until doomsday. It.will.not.happen. There are currently nearly 350 MILLION guns in the US and a population that is extremely divided on ownership and a congress that won't let go of gridlock and states jealous of their power and a constitution that expressly permits ownership and has been interpreted so since the inception of this country. The best we can hope for is effective and uniformly enforced regulations. They've been trying that since the 30's you know. There is a whole slew of laws pertaining to gun sales and ownership. It's not like it's never been tried, it's just that like most bans, most people have IGNORED the laws (I know - people ignoring laws. Who knew??) and many enforcement bodies have been either unable or unwilling to enforce.

Enormous ditto this entire post. Violence happens when people feel hopeless, powerless, threatened and/or persecuted. It's been happening since the beginning of time, and loooooooooong before the advent of guns.

I'll say again that I don't think it's a happy accident that the nations with extremely low violent crime rates are also the ones that stress work/life balance, promotion of adequate 'down time' to recharge one's mind and spirit, and whose laws and policies exhibit care and respect for their citizens. That is where the work needs to be done, in my opinion.

I'm not at all opposed to some of Erica's ideas on limitations/controls, either, but I remain skeptical that there is a reasonably effective way to enforce such limitations. As I mentioned, violent crime involving firearms has increased in the states that have the most restrictive controls in place. Laws and policies can only outline the expectation, but compliance with those laws and policies comes through effective and adequate enforcement. Despite all the clamoring for 'controls', no one has addressed how they expect that to reasonably be enforced.

 

[Sha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I hear this argument all the time, but I don't think you can equate guns with 'other' things used to kill people at all. Knives, cars, fertilizers were created for particular important functions and are most times used for the purposes for which they were created. It would be senseless to outlaw them for this reason -even though people happen to use them to kill as well. Guns were designed to be killing machines, and although they can be used for protection, self-defense, and intimidation as well- I would venture to say in a lot cases they do exactly what they're designed to do - kill.

Guns actually weren't invented to be "killing machines"; they initially weren't invented for war. Guns were invented after the Chinese mixed a few substances together and discovered gunpowder, and they were developed for two primary reasons: to help them be more effective hunters for sustenance and also for sport. They weren't used as protection until later on.

It's true that someone who really wants to kill someone can find other ways to do it, but I don't think you can deny that guns make killing very easy. With a gun, you can inflict lethal damage from quite a distance away - no need to be close to your attacker and risk being fended off, and you can kill multiple people in several minutes.

Killing is easy for anyone with a strong enough motive, regardless of the way they go about it. If the goal is mass destruction, ANY method of mass destruction is effective. Hand grenades can kill multiple people in seconds and require far less skill than shooting a weapon. Those of you who think inflicting lethal damage is easy and requires little skill are ignoring the fact that 2/3 of the Colorado shooter's victims were not lethally wounded.

If I thought outlawing guns would actually achieve the objective.....to make it less easy for mass murderers to carry out their plans....I'd support it. But what he did wasn't "easy"; it took focus, intent, and MONTHS of planning and resources to purchase. Candidly, it would have actually been easier for him to obtain firearms through non-legal means than through legal ones.

Hunting still = killing, no? The Chinese used the first firearms in war as well. Here's are a few excerpts from my online sources:

Firearms in China

The direct ancestor of the firearm is the fire-lance, a gunpowder-filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower; shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel so that it would fly out together with the flames.[4][5] The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang.[6] The Tê-An Shou Chhêng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens.[7] (Wikipaedia)

History of Firearms (About.com)

* 1232: The Chinese who invented gunpowder (black powder) first used it in a weapon - gunpowder filled tubes aka rockets.
* 1364: First recorded use of a firearm - shooter lit wicks by hand that ingnited gunpowder that was loaded into the gun barrel...

****************

It might have taken him months to stockpile his ammunition - but it was still a relatively easy thing for him to do, compared to ease of getting a stockpile like that in other parts of the world. My point is that any other person out there with evil intent or unstable thoughts (not a hard thing to come by) and a bit of time to spare could be in the process of doing the same thing he did- and in a mere matter of months, this scene could be repeated. The relative ease of getting war-grade weaponry and ammunition - not to mention the TACTICAL/BULLET-PROOF GEAR to go with it , makes it relatively easy for anyone who wants to, to commit mass murder.

And just because someone can use a hand grenade as well doesn't mean we shouldn't restrict other weapons that are just as dangerous, and even more easily accessible.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Hunting still = killing, no?

Depends on how far you want to carry that thought. If I catch a fish with a fishing pole and cook it for my dinner tonight, is that not also "killing"? So should we ban fishing poles as instruments of death? Some people fish for sport, catch and release. Should we then ban all fishing poles so that those who fish for sport cannot do so because of those who fish to eat? EDITED TO ADD: Before someone goes off the deep end, let me be clear - I do make a distinction between hunting/killing for food or sport and killing people. Outside of legal penal codes (and sometimes not even then) or in defense of one's life, I can't think of any acceptable reasons to kill people.

(And before all the PETA folks go off on a rant, save yourselves the trouble......while I'm not myself a sport hunter or a fur-wearer, I have no problem with animals as food and won't even engage in that side of the discussion.)

The Chinese used the first firearms in war as well.

Wholly agree here, but that wasn't their first use and not 'why guns were invented' (in contrast to the contention that guns were created to be killing machines, i.e. war implements). Guns were initially developed to more readily secure animal food sources, which isn't 'warfare'.....it's self-preservation, survival, sustenance. The inkling to use them as weapons of defense and aggression came later.

It might have taken him months to stockpile his ammunition - but it was still a relatively easy thing for him to do, compared to ease of getting a stockpile like that in other parts of the world.

I'd have to disagree with this. Now you're talking about ammunition and not the actual firearms, and the components necessary to build ammunition can be all obtained legally and QUICKLY via the internet without so much as a driver's license......which leads us back to the discussion about how far do you try to reach?

This recurrent idea from you and others that ease is somehow a requirement of the process to planning mass casualties seems wholly unfounded to me. Most of these wingnuts are 1) ridiculously smart and 2) seem to enjoy the process and details of planning the event as well. Ease isn't really a factor here. Faced with an obstacle to get around, it would appear that successfully finding a work-around even further bolsters the ego of the perpetrator.

My point is that any other person out there with evil intent or unstable thoughts (not a hard thing to come by) and a bit of time to spare could be in the process of doing the same thing he did- and in a mere matter of months, this scene could be repeated.

And you somehow truly believe that adding an extra few months of prep-time will be the magic solution that causes them to rethink their plans? "Well, I'd hoped to wipe out a whole bunch of people within a few months, but ONLY if I can do it without much effort and involvement.....if I have to actually be creative to overcome barriers, that might make it less attractive to me. Naaaaaaaaah - nevermind."

Do you seriously believe this? I sure as heck don't. Look at the YEARS spent planning the World Trade Center attacks. After the first unsuccessful attack in the mid-90s, several preventions were adopted to make it 'harder' for subsequent potential attackers. OBL and crew spent years fastidiously working on all the intricacies of overcoming (and mocking) those attempts to dissuade terrorist attacks. Spending more time or expending more effort seems to only add more incentive to those who wish to do harm.

And just because someone can use a hand grenade as well doesn't mean we shouldn't restrict other weapons that are just as dangerous, and even more easily accessible.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the 'easily accessible' argument just doesn't fit. The most easily accessible weapons are those obtained outside of legal sources/channels. No waiting period, no drivers license required, no gun permit/license required, nothing! How you can think that obtaining a gun through legal channels is somehow easier than through non-legal channels is just mind-boggling to me.

 

[HollyS]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

"Making something unlawful doesn't necessarily decrease demand, and sometimes it *increases* demand." (alj)


And then the nefarious types (like the Mafia and drug cartels) get involved and start dealing in whatever has been outlawed, and everyone is so much better off than they were before. So very much safer.

Prohibition is a fine example. Yeah, that worked.

 

[Sha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Hunting still = killing, no?

Depends on how far you want to carry that thought. If I catch a fish with a fishing pole and cook it for my dinner tonight, is that not also "killing"? So should we ban fishing poles as instruments of death? Some people fish for sport, catch and release. Should we then ban all fishing poles so that those who fish for sport cannot do so because of those who fish to eat? EDITED TO ADD: Before someone goes off the deep end, let me be clear - I do make a distinction between hunting/killing for food or sport and killing people. Outside of legal penal codes (and sometimes not even then) or in defense of one's life, I can't think of any acceptable reasons to kill people.

(And before all the PETA folks go off on a rant, save yourselves the trouble......while I'm not myself a sport hunter or a fur-wearer, I have no problem with animals as food and won't even engage in that side of the discussion.)

The Chinese used the first firearms in war as well.

Wholly agree here, but that wasn't their first use and not 'why guns were invented' (in contrast to the contention that guns were created to be killing machines, i.e. war implements). Guns were initially developed to more readily secure animal food sources, which isn't 'warfare'.....it's self-preservation, survival, sustenance. The inkling to use them as weapons of defense and aggression came later.

It might have taken him months to stockpile his ammunition - but it was still a relatively easy thing for him to do, compared to ease of getting a stockpile like that in other parts of the world.

I'd have to disagree with this. Now you're talking about ammunition and not the actual firearms, and the components necessary to build ammunition can be all obtained legally and QUICKLY via the internet without so much as a driver's license......which leads us back to the discussion about how far do you try to reach?

This recurrent idea from you and others that ease is somehow a requirement of the process to planning mass casualties seems wholly unfounded to me. Most of these wingnuts are 1) ridiculously smart and 2) seem to enjoy the process and details of planning the event as well. Ease isn't really a factor here. Faced with an obstacle to get around, it would appear that successfully finding a work-around even further bolsters the ego of the perpetrator.

My point is that any other person out there with evil intent or unstable thoughts (not a hard thing to come by) and a bit of time to spare could be in the process of doing the same thing he did- and in a mere matter of months, this scene could be repeated.

And you somehow truly believe that adding an extra few months of prep-time will be the magic solution that causes them to rethink their plans? "Well, I'd hoped to wipe out a whole bunch of people within a few months, but ONLY if I can do it without much effort and involvement.....if I have to actually be creative to overcome barriers, that might make it less attractive to me. Naaaaaaaaah - nevermind."

Do you seriously believe this? I sure as heck don't. Look at the YEARS spent planning the World Trade Center attacks. After the first unsuccessful attack in the mid-90s, several preventions were adopted to make it 'harder' for subsequent potential attackers. OBL and crew spent years fastidiously working on all the intricacies of overcoming (and mocking) those attempts to dissuade terrorist attacks. Spending more time or expending more effort seems to only add more incentive to those who wish to do harm.

And just because someone can use a hand grenade as well doesn't mean we shouldn't restrict other weapons that are just as dangerous, and even more easily accessible.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the 'easily accessible' argument just doesn't fit. The most easily accessible weapons are those obtained outside of legal sources/channels. No waiting period, no drivers license required, no gun permit/license required, nothing! How you can think that obtaining a gun through legal channels is somehow easier than through non-legal channels is just mind-boggling to me.

To use your argument, then - all of the new security measures that the U.S implemented post 9/11 were futile, since the terrorists will find a way to hurt us anyway? Should the U.S have done nothing? The fact that 9/11 occurred in the first place highlighted the fact that several security loopholes existed. The new measures helped to close some of those loopholes and prevent other terrorist acts from occurring.

That's not to say that all incidents will be prevented, or that some persons won't find a way to circumvent the barriers. I agree with you there. But barriers and restrictions can work. The fact that SOME people may find a way around them is not a reason to not put them in place.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

As with many other things, there are multiple legal uses for guns, including hunting and sport. I do believe it would be an injustice to deny millions of citizens the right to engage in those legal uses under the guise of trying to stop the half-dozen or so whackos per year who go on a rampage (who, properly motivated, would still find another way to kill.).

But, there have been 56,060 people shot in the US so far this year. 170 today. Those numbers include suicides. And, those numbers included injuries, not just deaths. Shouldn't we care about those people too? Not just the multiple victims of the half-dozen crazies per year. I do think the people in this country who want meaningful gun CONTROL (there, I put the big scary word in caps!) care not just to help prevent the 6 or so psychos per year (I think it's a lot more than 6, but short on time to research atm), but care to prevent the suicides, the accidental shootings, the stray bullet killings, the shootings that just maim but don't kill, etc. etc.

Oh, and those numbers are per the Brady Campaign site. I did check the NRA site first, but couldn't find any statistics.

Oh, and I don't think gun control in the US would ever include a total ban. No doubt, there are plenty of people who would completely flip out and just start shootin', in the name of their Constitutional right.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

You probably should not have a gun unless you are definitely willing to use it, practice, get a license.

Here in Nevada, a license isn't necessary unless you want to carry concealed (CCW). We are an open carry state, which means you are free to walk around with a gun in plain sight. Occasionally I will see someone doing this and it always catches me off guard. I have a hand gun and my CCW, but the gun is a bit too big to carry around (it's a Ruger SR9c, in case anybody cares). I'm looking to buy a smaller one that I can easily have in the jogging stroller for when I go on runs by myself.

Have you all seen this video? http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/07/20/elderly-man-chases-shoot-robbers?videoId=236594012
Two guys went into an internet cafe and attempted to rob it. There was an old man there who had a concealed handgun. He pulled it out and started firing at the two men. I don't think I've ever seen two grown men scramble and flee so fast.

Just curious. So, in Nevada, you can have a loaded gun, and you don't need to have it on your person? You can just toss it in a baby stroller? Uhm, is it gonna be holstered, and why not just wear it? Wouldn't it be easier to access when you have a gun pointed at you? You know, rather than digging through all the baby gear in your stroller basket?

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

As with many other things, there are multiple legal uses for guns, including hunting and sport. I do believe it would be an injustice to deny millions of citizens the right to engage in those legal uses under the guise of trying to stop the half-dozen or so whackos per year who go on a rampage (who, properly motivated, would still find another way to kill.).

But, there have been 56,060 people shot in the US so far this year. 170 today. Those numbers include suicides. And, those numbers included injuries, not just deaths. Shouldn't we care about those people too? Not just the multiple victims of the half-dozen crazies per year. I do think the people in this country who want meaningful gun CONTROL (there, I put the big scary word in caps!) care not just to help prevent the 6 or so psychos per year (I think it's a lot more than 6, but short on time to research atm), but care to prevent the suicides, the accidental shootings, the stray bullet killings, the shootings that just maim but don't kill, etc. etc.

Oh, and those numbers are per the Brady Campaign site. I did check the NRA site first, but couldn't find any statistics.

Oh, and I don't think gun control in the US would ever include a total ban. No doubt, there are plenty of people who would completely flip out and just start shootin', in the name of their Constitutional right.

Exactly!!! Most deaths and injuries are not caused by spree killers, something a lot of people tend to forget.

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha...you may as well give up,b/c Alj will not lose in a debate. FYI...her debating record on PS is 32 Wins and 1 loss.. sooo.. you ain't gotta chance..

How is she winning? It's more of beat your head against the wall situation .

 

[natascha]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I am not saying that it will be impossible to get guns, I am saying that increased control will make it harder and lead to less homicides, violence, robberies, etc.

Are you seriously comparing guns to drugs? Well it seems like you believe that since we can't completely ensure that criminals won't have access to guns we should therefore allow anyone to get a gun. Or have I misunderstood?

Increased control, as you put it, will not necessarily lead to less homicides, violence, etc., because the very people who engage in those unlawful behaviors will also likely have no trouble turning to unlawful sources (which are PLENTIFUL) to obtain firearms. As I mentioned, while the rate of gun fatalities has steadily declined over the past 5 years nationwide in the U.S., it's actually increased in the states that have the strictest gun restrictions (control?) in place.

I'm not speaking for DF, but I don't think he's suggesting that we allow anyone to get a gun, and that's certainly not what I'm suggesting either. I'm suggesting that creating legislation that reduces the opportunity for lawful people to own and use firearms peacefully will not meaningfully achieve the stated goal of reducing violence perpetrated by unlawful citizens.

Increased control does not mean change the laws but don't enforce them. Increased control means actual change.

And yes actual increased control will lead to less homicides, violence, etc because many of these deaths and injuries are not caused by criminals or premeditated. Accidental killings and injuries, stray bullets, etc will greatly diminish if there is less easy access to guns and if gun owners have to properly store there weapons. Another big impact would be on non premeditated shootings. There are many cases of people getting into a fight and not thinking just shooting, other times a spouse cheats and the other part goes into a range and shoots. These types of shootings can be greatly diminished through responsible control. Also while there will always be a black market for guns it will be much harder to get a hold of them. Less wanna be thugs and gang members will have guns, less robberies will be committed with firearms.

Please look at the example I posted previously, a jewelry store was robbed and did they have guns,no , they had crowbars. While crowbars can cause a lot of damage it pales in comparison to what guns can do.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

To use your argument, then - all of the new security measures that the U.S implemented post 9/11 were futile, since the terrorists will find a way to hurt us anyway? Should the U.S have done nothing?

That's not at all my argument. My consistent argument has been this: it's nonsensical to infringe on a wide majority of law-abiding citizens (by banning firearms) in a misguided belief that doing so will effectively resolve a problem (mass casualty events conducted by non-lawful citizens) that's already far wider in scope than the targeted infringement.

So, speaking to your question above about enhanced security measures......if the goal of new airport security screening and carry on limitations was to "stop terrorism", then yes, I'd consider that futile because the scope of the goal (stopping terrorism) would be broader than the reach of those measures and therefore unachievable. When you set a goal, it has to be defined narrowly enough to be reasonably achievable *and* the benefits must outweigh the costs.

I personally think the goals of airport security enhancements were to a) make air travel safer by correcting exposed deficiencies that could diminish safety and b) to restore citizens' confidence in their safety during air travel. Even with an achievable and narrowly defined goal, though, not all ends justify the means.

I'm willing to endure some inconveniences (removing shoes during security lines, limitations on liquids in carry-on, offer my bags for visual inspection, etc.) in the name of safety, but I'd not be willing to submit to strip-searches or submit to having my blood drawn for analysis during screening. If such measures were proposed, I'd oppose them because they'd mean infringing/intruding on a significant majority of lawful citizens for very little perceived incremental gain.

The fact that 9/11 occurred in the first place highlighted the fact that several security loopholes existed. The new measures helped to close some of those loopholes and prevent other terrorist acts from occurring.

I agree that 9/11 helped to expose pre-existing complacencies and deficiencies in security (which I acknowledged above). While the new security measures may have prevented some terrorist activities, they did not 'stop terrorism'; and even more important, they did not materially infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens (though the new body scanner equipment may be on or super-close to that line).

That's not to say that all incidents will be prevented, or that some persons won't find a way to circumvent the barriers. I agree with you there. But barriers and restrictions can work. The fact that SOME people may find a way around them is not a reason to not put them in place.

And I'll agree that barriers and restrictions can help *reduce*, if not eliminate, and I support barriers and restrictions for their reductive benefits AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INVOLVE stripping away rights from millions of law-abiding citizens. *That* is the point at which I find reason to resist.