shape
carat
color
clarity

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

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

  • 0

    Votes: 83 69.7%
  • 1

    Votes: 7 5.9%
  • 2

    Votes: 6 5.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • 4

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • 5

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • 6

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • 9+

    Votes: 11 9.2%

  • Total voters
    119
  • Poll closed .

bee*

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
12,169
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

aljdewey|1343407277|3241401 said:
bee*|1343399165|3241335 said:
I don't think she was saying that people can't be killed with a wallop of a crowbar-however I doubt that there is going to be a psycho going on the rampage murdering 12 people and injuring dozens of others using one. It definitely pales in comparison to the outcome of someone wanting to cause damage with a gun.

Bee, I'm not at all missing her point. The event she's referring to was the robbery of a jewelry store, which isn't in the same class of mass casualty event as someone on a rampage. Because you're coming into this discussion at Mile 6, you've missed that Natascha's arguments for gun control/banning aren't focused on mass casualty events because most gun death/injuries aren't caused by spree killers/rampagers, so my responses to her don't focus on mass casualty.

There's also already been an exhaustive discussion about mass casualty events and whether gun legislation can really be an effective solution in those cases (I don't think it can for the multiple reasons I've outlined.)

Yeah I've read the thread since it started-have only managed to post today as I'm on rotations. I'm of the same opinion as Natascha though in that it's hard to understand what rights are being taken away with increased gun control. I do think this is one topic that really divides people so it's definitely an agree to disagree thing.
 

Sha

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,328
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

And this News Out of Maryland today..

Planned Massacre Foiled by Maryland Cops

http://gma.yahoo.com/planned-massacre-foiled-maryland-cops-144301455--abc-news-topstories.html

One week after Colorado's movie theater shooting, Maryland cops arrested a heavily armed man who told his employer he was a "joker" who was going to "blow everybody up."

Police said today they believe they "thwarted a massacre."

The suspect, identified as Neil Edwin Prescott in a court document obtained by ABC News, was being dismissed from his job. He made threatening statements to his supervisor at least twice on Monday, police said.

Prescott had an arsenal of about 25 firearms at his residence, including semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, according to a police affidavit. Police said he also had high powered scopes and magazines and thousands of rounds of ammunition in "40 large steel boxes."

He was quoted as telling his employer, "I am a joker, I'm going to load my guns and blow everybody up," police said.

"It is clear that the comments made by Prescott reference a recent mass murder which occurred in Colorado within the last several days in which the alleged shooter called himself the Joker, died [sic] his hair red and shot up a movie theater containing men, women and children and showing the 'The Dark Night Rises,'" according to the court document.

Click here to see photos from the press conference

"Prescott also stated that he would like to see the supervisor's brain splatter all over the sidewalk," the document said.

Prescott allegedly acknowledged to his employer that he should not be making these statements over the phone, saying, "It's kind of foolish of me to say this kind of things [sic] over government phone."

"In light of what happened a week ago in Aurora, Colorado, it's important to know that we take all threats seriously and if you're going to make a threat, we will take action," Prince George's County Chief Mark Magaw said at a news conference today.

When police arrived at Prescott's house on Thursday to speak to him, he was wearing a t-shirt with the writing, "Guns don't kill people, I do."

He was taken into custody based on an emergency petition for medical treatment, police said. Authorities said Prescott's demeanor was "very quiet" when he was taken into custody and that he was cooperative.

Law enforcement sources tell ABC News that he is from Crofton, Md.

The man was facing termination from his job with a company doing contract work for Pitney Bowes, a leading company in producing postage meters and machines.

The company released the following statement: "The suspect arrested is an employee of a subcontractor to Pitney Bowes. At Pitney Bowes we have clear security protocol and when we had concerns about this individual, we contacted authorities."

The Prince George Police Department declined to comment, but said they will be sharing more information at a 1 p.m. news conference.

On July 20, shooting suspect James Holmes allegedly opened fire in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater during a midnight showing of the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises." Twelve people were killed and 58 were wounded.

Holmes told police he was The Joker, a villain in the Batman movies, police said.
 

soocool

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
2,827
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I have not read anyone's responses regarding this. I do not own any guns. Though you never know, I may change my mind in the future. I am not pro gun though and when DD was little I asked each parent if they had guns in their home before I would let her go to their home. The reasons I feel so strongly against guns are :

1. My girlfriend's son was killed when he was 11 because he was playing at a friend's house and the kid was showing off his dad's gun. The gun was loaded and my friend's son was killed instantly. The friend who pulled the trigger committed suicide a few years later because the guilt was too much.

2. I have a friend who was worked at a small savings and loan association and was robbed at gunpoint. He later bought a gun because after the robbery he was never the same and a number of years later instead of seeking the help he needed he shot himself.

3. I had a neighbor who would occasionally watch DD if I needed her. She would also watch other children in the neighborhood. Her husband was a hunter and I knew he had guns and rifles and she assured me he kept it all at his hunting lodge. In February (President's Day weekend and after a huge snowfall) 2002, the husband shot the wife in the head and then killed himself. A parent who was dropping her kid off for before school care contacted the son when no one answered the door. The son came and found his parents, the father dead and the mother with a bullet in her head still alive (she was lying there for almost 3 days). The bullet could not be removed and she was paralyzed on her left side.

I don't think I have anything against guns, only the people who have access to them who shouldn't.
 

Sha

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,328
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Dancing Fire|1343406023|3241387 said:
[quote="Sha|1343399058|

We're going to have to part ways on this one, aljdewey. I disagree with your views, but respect them. Don't think it makes sense going around in circles.



another KO for Alj :!: her record goes to 34 and 1 with 34 KO's... nobody whips Alj in a debate!!.. :lol:[/quote]

:roll: Give me a break, DF. In case you didn't properly comprehend my statement, 'parting ways', or 'agreeing to disagree' isn't the same thing as surrender. It means it doesn't make sense to continue rehashing the same points because the likelihood of either side changing their position is very small. My views are still held as strongly as ever and I'd bet aljdewey believes just as strongly in his case too. Obviously, the issue is extremely polarizing, so the debate will likely continue for many years to come. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. ;-)
 

natascha

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
644
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

soocool|1343419437|3241519 said:
I have not read anyone's responses regarding this. I do not own any guns. Though you never know, I may change my mind in the future. I am not pro gun though and when DD was little I asked each parent if they had guns in their home before I would let her go to their home. The reasons I feel so strongly against guns are :

1. My girlfriend's son was killed when he was 11 because he was playing at a friend's house and the kid was showing off his dad's gun. The gun was loaded and my friend's son was killed instantly. The friend who pulled the trigger committed suicide a few years later because the guilt was too much.

2. I have a friend who was worked at a small savings and loan association and was robbed at gunpoint. He later bought a gun because after the robbery he was never the same and a number of years later instead of seeking the help he needed he shot himself.

3. I had a neighbor who would occasionally watch DD if I needed her. She would also watch other children in the neighborhood. Her husband was a hunter and I knew he had guns and rifles and she assured me he kept it all at his hunting lodge. In February (President's Day weekend and after a huge snowfall) 2002, the husband shot the wife in the head and then killed himself. A parent who was dropping her kid off for before school care contacted the son when no one answered the door. The son came and found his parents, the father dead and the mother with a bullet in her head still alive (she was lying there for almost 3 days). The bullet could not be removed and she was paralyzed on her left side.

I don't think I have anything against guns, only the people who have access to them who shouldn't.

Thank you for posting this. I think it is so easy to forget this type of cases and just remember the high profile ones that hit the papers.

This is what I believe that stricter rules could help prevent. When I lived in South Africa things like this were occurring every day. Now living in Sweden I can't remember a single case like this.

Simple by keeping guns properly locked up when not in use could have prevented the first case. Two lives could have been saved simply by keeping the gun in a gun safe. I just don't understand how peoples "freedom" to have guns lying around the house is more important than two boys lives.
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,614
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

I'm going to have my husband read and post b/c I can't articulate what I want to say. I stutter and um uh in real life, so yeah..this isn't any easier.

What I want to say before I have him do that is there ARE things in place, things you have to do before you get a gun. Well, you SHOULD, anyway, but that's b/c we're law abiding citizens, see? Should I decide to be a criminal and need a gun right here and now b/c I'm pissed at someone or want to go down in history, I'm probably not going to go to fire arms classes and go thru a background check and deal w/the 30 day waiting period or whatever it is, and THEN go to the gun shop all legal like, get my gun and then unleash my fury and vengeance upon the unsuspecting masses.

AND, sometimes a law abiding citizen breaks. It happens. I've been so angry and ready to pull my hair out I've had to walk away from my kids and go outside. That's kind of a warning sign, yes? But I handled it. Sometimes people DON'T handle it and things happen to kids. Everyone has a breaking point and nobody knows what theirs is until something happens. Does this mean b/c every single parent on the face of the earth has gotten to the point that they had to walk away from their kids that nobody should ever have kids?

ETA: We DO keep our firearms locked up and unloaded, ammo is stored elsewhere, the kids are forbidden to touch or go anywhere near..they're TAUGHT to RESPECT firearms, not fling them around willy nilly and show kids. My dad NEVER locked his gun case, ALWAYS had them loaded-and we were so scared of what could happen to us or someone else, and what mom and dad would do to us if they ever caught us near that gun cabinet that we never touched and always instructed friends not to touch either. That's how we were raised and that's how we were taught.

I can understand making it a requirement for people to have classes and shooting instruction etc etc. I get that. You should WANT to do that if you have a gun.
 

natascha

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
644
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

packrat|1343421993|3241548 said:
I'm going to have my husband read and post b/c I can't articulate what I want to say. I stutter and um uh in real life, so yeah..this isn't any easier.

What I want to say before I have him do that is there ARE things in place, things you have to do before you get a gun. Well, you SHOULD, anyway, but that's b/c we're law abiding citizens, see? Should I decide to be a criminal and need a gun right here and now b/c I'm pissed at someone or want to go down in history, I'm probably not going to go to fire arms classes and go thru a background check and deal w/the 30 day waiting period or whatever it is, and THEN go to the gun shop all legal like, get my gun and then unleash my fury and vengeance upon the unsuspecting masses.

AND, sometimes a law abiding citizen breaks. It happens. I've been so angry and ready to pull my hair out I've had to walk away from my kids and go outside. That's kind of a warning sign, yes? But I handled it. Sometimes people DON'T handle it and things happen to kids. Everyone has a breaking point and nobody knows what theirs is until something happens. Does this mean b/c every single parent on the face of the earth has gotten to the point that they had to walk away from their kids that nobody should ever have kids?

ETA: We DO keep our firearms locked up and unloaded, ammo is stored elsewhere, the kids are forbidden to touch or go anywhere near..they're TAUGHT to RESPECT firearms, not fling them around willy nilly and show kids. My dad NEVER locked his gun case, ALWAYS had them loaded-and we were so scared of what could happen to us or someone else, and what mom and dad would do to us if they ever caught us near that gun cabinet that we never touched and always instructed friends not to touch either. That's how we were raised and that's how we were taught.

I can understand making it a requirement for people to have classes and shooting instruction etc etc. I get that. You should WANT to do that if you have a gun.

Of course you sometime break, sometimes we all see red and just want to lash out, its part of being human. But most times when we see red we calm down after a while, we think things through and realize that killing someone is not the right thing to do. If to get to a gun you have too calm down enough to remember the combination, get it out of the safe, go to where you keep your ammo and then load the gun before you can shoot, then you have a few more minutes to calm down (which most people do) compared to if you have a loaded gun on you, or on the table, or somewhere easy accessible.

Your family's relationship with guns is what I consider to be healthy and responsible. If everyone that owned a gun had your attitude there would be no need to legislate nor control. But everyone does not have your responsible attitude to gun ownership.

ETA I still think that gun safes should be locked and guns unloaded. While you were properly brought up not everyone is. Say you as a child go to the bathroom and while you told your friend not to touch the guns, children don't always listen and an accident could have happened. Also if you had guests over someone could have stolen a gun. As I said before, I wish everyone was a responsible citizen but there are always some misguided souls.
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,614
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

So..rather than take things away from everyone (the law abiding people basically, b/c criminals and those w/intent to harm will *always* find a way, *always*), why not have mandatory training and make it so you have to be proficient in the use?

JD, I have no doubt will be a zombie killing machine come the apocalypse. My dad's probably the only person who could out shoot him, but dad's got some sort of mad ninja sniper skills. Me, not so much. So, I don't handle them unless JD or dad is there to help me. I have seen Zombieland so I know the rules and all. Double tap, check.

It shouldn't have to be about taking things AWAY. It should be about teaching respect, responsibility and proper handling/storage. Not "oh well that guy there killed 40 people so 20 million other people can't have guns now". Why did he do it? There had to be a reason, and that's more along the lines of what we should be focusing on. Someone doesn't wake up one morning and be of sound mind and body and just decide to kill people.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha|1343407368|3241403 said:
The only way I can interpret this is that you are not understanding what I am saying. What rights are being stripped?

I have never said anything about banning guns.

Look, if I"m not understanding what you're saying, it's because I've asked you to be specific and you haven't. Also, I didn't say YOU said anything about banning guns, but you're not the only one in this conversation. Some have suggested there is no valid reason to own a gun and/or that it shouldn't be lawful to own them. That *is* proposing eliminating the right to own a firearm, which is indeed stripping a right. Multiple people have chimed in saying 'guns aren't allowed in my country', and that's fine - but disallowing guns here means denying millions of law-abiding citizens the very right to own them. That is stripping a right, and I disagree with it unless the benefit outweighs the cost, which has so far not been even close to proven.

natascha|1343407368|3241403 said:
My SO is ex-military and is a great marksman, the firearms he usually carried were an assault rifle and a M240 machine gun (yes carried, he is 6f 2'' and weighs 260 pounds). For his last birthday I got him a gift card at a shooting range to try out some new guns, when we were in Thailand I went with him to a military base because he wanted to shoot some stuff we don't have access to here. I regularly enjoy eating wild meat that some hunters in the family hunt using firearms. Tomorrow I am going to a BBQ at a friends house were I know there are several gun safes filled with firearms. My SO collects swords and daggers. The difference is people don't carry weapons around town, all firearms must be locked up in a safe, my SO collection all have blunted blades so that they cannot be used to hurt people, etc. How are our rights infringed upon?

Again, you are not the only one in this conversation, so the comments I'm making relative to stripping of rights isn't direct at those who aren't calling for a wholesale ban on guns. If that's not you, then feel free to disregard that because I'm not saying it's an infringement of rights to require permits to carry or proper training and storage. What I have said about those measures are - good luck trying to enforce said rules. Unless you have to manpower to do spot-checks on all gun owners to make sure they are in compliance all the time, meaningful enforcement is nigh enforceable. Sure, education is the way to help people understand why they *should* do things, but at the end of the day, a law is a policy and a policy is what you should do, not necessarily what you actually do. There are two ways to achieve compliance; one is voluntary and one is involuntary. Voluntary doesn't require enforcement efforts, but involuntary absolutely does.

natascha|1343407368|3241403 said:
Compare how you are interpreting my words with how things are portrayed in US media. Some things like the new rules in airports have gone down quickly and without too much protest. This due to how things were portrayed in media. Meanwhile the same thing has happened in other countries regarding gun control (eh Australia and England) yet you view this as people rights and freedoms being stripped away. This is probably due to how things are portrayed in the US (its a crazy person who started spree killing, we can't control wackos so why take away peoples rights, etc) meanwhile in other countries there is a lot of discussion regarding how this could have happened and people don't assume that if we add one rule to protect the innocent then it will snowball into us loosing all our rights and freedoms.
Firstly, this barely makes sense as written, but I’m game to try responding anyway. You appear to be intermingling my comments and not understanding where they start and stop.
1. For those who propose banning all firearm ownership, my response is non-support for this idea because this action *would* strip away the right to own firearms by citizens who handle firearms lawfully. This in no way is a protest (at least by me) that if we give up one right, we’ll lose them all. This is limited to the *singular* right to lawfully own and use firearms, ok? I can’t really get much clearer than this.

2. For those who propose banning only large volume discharge weapons (aka semi-automatic firearms, etc): I’m not personally opposed to such restrictions, I do not at all believe they will be effective in stemming mass casualty events. Such laws would only restrict those who are care about being law abiding (which are not the rampage freaks)…..it’s ‘fixing people’ who aren’t the problem and not those who are. The rampagers, being already unlawful, will go to unlawful channels to continue buying unlawful classes of guns.

3. For those who propose better controls and enforcement, no one has yet offered specifics on how you propose to achieve that. “Education” is a fine vague term, but what does that really mean? You think that by teaching people why you think they should lock up guns, they will automatically do so? All the time? Voluntarily? Think again. There’s been a boatload of education on why it’s totally unsafe to text and drive – no one can say they don’t understand or haven’t been told why that’s a dangerous and unsafe activity. Despite that education, people are still doing it in droves……because they believe the consequences won’t affect them. Everyone is invincible in their own heads, and education isn’t going to overcome that. Enforcement does….but there aren’t enough people to police everyone every hour of the day.

Lastly, pay no attention to DF. His fascination and fixation with winning/losing is not shared by me (and I'd guess no one else here either). I'm engaged in this discussion because it's meaningful to me, and because I believe that exchange of ideas helps us all understand each other better, whether or not those discussions reach consensus or not.
 

justginger

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
3,712
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY!!!

I feel like we're going around and around because people hear "gun control" and hit the roof. Control. Not abolition.

I wrote the conditions I require for gun ownership in the other thread. I'd really like to see if anyone on "the other side" (if we're officially taking sides) thinks they are unreasonable. :confused:
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Loves Vintage|1343408987|3241417 said:
......when I was reading yesterday, it seems that there is not a lot enforcement of current laws aimed at gun control. You can buy guns at gun shows without any sort of background check. I'm sure if varies by state, but it seemed like it's common knowledge that dealers aren't necessarily following the rules at gun shows. And, you can buy guns privately, with no checks. And, people also sell guns at garage sales. Not too common 'round these parts, but I saw one advertised yesterday, googled it, and it appears to be quite common. I'm not suggesting that mass murderers are bargain shopping for guns on Saturday mornings, but if you can buy privately without any checks, then what's the point of the checks at all. And, yes, I am aware that people are buying guns on the streets, etc. I guess my point is -- the whole thing is a big mess, and to go back to Thing2's post from whichever thread she posted in, no one seems to care!

LV, I'm glad you acknowledged that things may vary by state, because I do think the overwhelming perception by non-US residents is that no laws or regulations exists at all across the board, and that's not true.

I live in Massachusetts, which is one of the three states with the strictest laws regarding gun and ammunition ownership, possession, and transport. In Massachusetts, you cannot legally buy or possess guns without a license, and there are a few types. FID cards allow ownership of non-large capacity rifles and shotguns only (i.e. hunting); Class A & B licenses you to possess, purchase, and carry guns and ammunition. Class B doesn't allow large-capacity handguns or carrying concealed; Class A does. All licenses dictate how you can carry them in automobile, and all dictate requirements for storage (gun safe or with trigger-lock devices). None of these licenses can be obtained without completing a state-approved safety/gun handling class, applying for the permit/license, and submitting to an interview with a detective in your town as part of that application process. It takes about 4-5 months to complete this process. That license can be revoked at the whim of your local police chief, even without cause, but commonly cited reasons for revocation are accidental discharge, failure to properly store, change in your status as a felon, etc., or failure to follow purchase requirements.

Purchases in Massachusetts must be done through authorized in-state gun dealers, who submit copies of the purchase documentation to the ATF. Guns purchased from out of state dealers must be transferred to you through in-state authorized gun dealers, and you are required to complete and fill out a form for each of those to your local police department and the ATF. You can buy from other licensed in-state private sellers, but you are required to notify the state of the sale within 7 days. If you buy from an out-of-state seller, they have to transfer it to a licensed dealer in their state, who then transfers to the licensed dealer here (and you submit documentation to state). You can't sell more than 4 firearms per calendar year to private individuals, either.

Now......EXHAUSTIVE RULES, right? All licensed gun owners know them WELL......so education isn't the issue. That said, it is damn near impossible to 'enforce' the rules regarding proper storage because there aren't enough people in enforcement to run around spot-checking all the owners! Consequently, violent crimes involving firearms is on the rise in our state!

Despite all this regulation, one of our metropolitan police chiefs said in an interview "Illegally obtained guns are involved in violent crimes roughly 10 times more often than licensed guns.....The licensed gun owners are not the ones getting into trouble."
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

bee*|1343415201|3241479 said:
aljdewey|1343407277|3241401 said:
Yeah I've read the thread since it started-have only managed to post today as I'm on rotations. I'm of the same opinion as Natascha though in that it's hard to understand what rights are being taken away with increased gun control. I do think this is one topic that really divides people so it's definitely an agree to disagree thing.

You guys are confusing the issues (there are several in this thread).

Those (and ONLY THOSE) who propose banning all gun ownership are taking rights away. Banning all gun ownership denies the right for lawful citizens to own/possess guns. Cost (in loss of rights) outweighs benefit.

I've not said that tighter gun controls would strip rights. I've said that tight gun controls would be ineffective at diminishing gun violence because they wouldn't impact criminals and terrorists (who have no problem being unlawful). Gun violence isn't perpetrated by law-abiding gun owners, who are the only ones who would follow tighter gun laws.
 

natascha

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
644
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Aljdewey- When you quote someone and then directly write "I'd agree that it does show how environment and societal norms affects views and reasoning. As some who has been brought up in the U.S., I find your willingness to submit so nonchalantly to the stripping of rights from so very many (for so few) equally astounding." then that -your- means that you are talking to me. So you were saying that I nonchalantly submit to the stripping of my rights. What rights are you talking about? During the last couple of pages no one has been proposing that guns should be banned yet you still focus on rights and freedoms being taken away.

You seem to want a specific foolproof plan that will solve all problems. Well that does not exist but both Just Ginger and I (and I think a couple of more people) have given examples of several measures that we believe should be implemented. The US has a lot more homicides and injuries per firearm than for example Sweden and at the same time we have less police officers per capita. That does indicate that increased control works (without touching anyone rights or freedoms). That is, unless you are arguing that the US either has some genetic anomaly or some environmental effect that creates more killers.

" ..require permits to carry or proper training and storage. What I have said about those measures are - good luck trying to enforce said rules. Unless you have to manpower to do spot-checks on all gun owners to make sure they are in compliance all the time, meaningful enforcement is nigh enforceable."

Well the numbers don't lie. We not only have less police officers, they work less hours per year than yours do, so that means we have even less manpower. Add to that that we are less densely populated and it takes even more man hours to do those spot-checks that you think are so crucially important. Yet our laws and rules work. Of course there will always be exceptions but we have less homicides and injuries, accidents, etc per gun and per capita than the US.

As Soocool examples are an example of deaths that could have been avoided by having a responsible gun control policy. The suspect in the latest massacre bought his assault rifle and body armor legally. If the rules were changed he would not have had easy access to these which would have lessened the death count.

You found my last paragraphs to barely make sense. That is a shame since I had hoped it would make you reflect on how you approach this type of problem and how your understanding of the issue is affected by your environment.

ETA my spelling is awful :oops:
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha|1343420708|3241532 said:
This is what I believe that stricter rules could help prevent. When I lived in South Africa things like this were occurring every day. Now living in Sweden I can't remember a single case like this.

I've just read the gun law requirements in Sweden, and they overwhelmingly mirror the gun requirements in my state (Massachuetts). Restricts types of weapons owned, requires licensing to get/own/transfer guns, background/criminal checks, safety course completion requirements.....all the same stuff. We have essentially all the same controls in place, so why aren't they working here? This is what I'm trying to say.....merely putting rules into place/education doesn't mean they'll always be followed. Rules and education say what one *should* do, but it doesn't force one to do what's expected.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the difference is better work/life balance, better access to physical and mental care, etc etc - all the things that diminish hopelessness, anger, and powerlessness. I still maintain that's where efforts should go to.

natascha|1343420708|3241532 said:
Simple by keeping guns properly locked up when not in use could have prevented the first case. Two lives could have been saved simply by keeping the gun in a gun safe. I just don't understand how peoples "freedom" to have guns lying around the house is more important than two boys lives.

Again, you're intermingling the arguments. Rights are stripped when total ban on gun ownership is proposed. Gun control (i.e. rules/regulations) can only be effective if enough people voluntarily comply or are made to comply involuntary through enforcement efforts. Unless you have the manpower to audit gun storage compliance among licensed users, effectiveness will be limited, and only then in the portion of accidental discharges. It will do nothing substantive to reduce gun-related violence, which is intentional.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha|1343422941|3241555 said:
Your family's relationship with guns is what I consider to be healthy and responsible. If everyone that owned a gun had your attitude there would be no need to legislate nor control. But everyone does not have your responsible attitude to gun ownership.

The bolded is exactly what I've been saying right along.......legislation/control isn't aimed at people who are already voluntarily complying; it's aimed at those who will not voluntarily comply, and compliance will not be achieved unless there is some expectation of enforcement.

Everyone here knows what the speed limits are; they're posted right by the side of the road every mile or so. NO ONE here abides by them *unless/until* there's a police car (enforcement) alongside the highway. So what happens? Traffic is moving considerably faster than the posted speed limit until you get within a mile of the police car. Then traffic slows down, remains slow until they get about a mile past the police car, and then returns to travelling well above the speed limit.

Apply this now to gun control laws. Everyone's supposed to keep guns in the safe or trigger locked, but they get lazy, don't feel like going down to the safe 2 floors below, etc etc........and they get complacent because they don't think anything's going to go wrong. There is no perceived risk.. No one says to himself "crap, I think my house might get broken into tonight, but I don't feel like going down to lock up my gun so I'll just leave it on the coffee table." No, they fail to follow laws because they don't think failure to do so will result in any consequences.....until they DO.

Legislation will not cure that, I"m quite certain. Widespread enforcement could make a dent in it, but that requires adequate ranks of enforcers.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

justginger|1343431079|3241657 said:
NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY!!!

I feel like we're going around and around because people hear "gun control" and hit the roof. Control. Not abolition.

I wrote the conditions I require for gun ownership in the other thread. I'd really like to see if anyone on "the other side" (if we're officially taking sides) thinks they are unreasonable. :confused:

JG, you may not be advocating for gun abolition, but the idea of banning was introduced in this thread by others, and that's why it's *part* (not ALL) of this discussion. One mentioned a change in laws that occurred in Australia to *ban* AND restrict gun ownership. Another poster mentioned that she and her husband had lived in Holland where gun ownership was prohibited.

Speaking for myself, while I'd not oppose gun CONTROL, I don't think it would be effective for two reasons: lack of meaningful enforcement (which affects accidental, spontaneous or suicidal events), and lack of ability to meaningfully impact criminals who don't give a crap about the law.

As I noted earlier, the U.S. states with the most expansive gun control requirements right now are also the states with the highest percentages of gun-related deaths or injuries. Firearm deaths/injuries have increased instead of decreased in the very states that have already implemented the same tighter controls that everyone's calling for in other states.
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,083
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

aljdewey|1343439084|3241735 said:
justginger|1343431079|3241657 said:
NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY!!!

I feel like we're going around and around because people hear "gun control" and hit the roof. Control. Not abolition.

I wrote the conditions I require for gun ownership in the other thread. I'd really like to see if anyone on "the other side" (if we're officially taking sides) thinks they are unreasonable. :confused:

JG, you may not be advocating for gun abolition, but the idea of banning was introduced in this thread by others, and that's why it's *part* (not ALL) of this discussion. One mentioned a change in laws that occurred in Australia to *ban* AND restrict gun ownership. Another poster mentioned that she and her husband had lived in Holland where gun ownership was prohibited.

Speaking for myself, while I'd not oppose gun CONTROL, I don't think it would be effective for two reasons: lack of meaningful enforcement (which affects accidental, spontaneous or suicidal events), and lack of ability to meaningfully impact criminals who don't give a crap about the law.

As I noted earlier, the U.S. states with the most expansive gun control requirements right now are also the states with the highest percentages of gun-related deaths or injuries. Firearm deaths/injuries have increased instead of decreased in the very states that have already implemented the same tighter controls that everyone's calling for in other states.

Have there been any theories or explanations as to why your gun violence has been increasing there, Alj?
 

lyra

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
5,249
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

packrat|1343427993|3241613 said:
So..rather than take things away from everyone (the law abiding people basically, b/c criminals and those w/intent to harm will *always* find a way, *always*), why not have mandatory training and make it so you have to be proficient in the use?

JD, I have no doubt will be a zombie killing machine come the apocalypse. My dad's probably the only person who could out shoot him, but dad's got some sort of mad ninja sniper skills. Me, not so much. So, I don't handle them unless JD or dad is there to help me. I have seen Zombieland so I know the rules and all. Double tap, check.

It shouldn't have to be about taking things AWAY. It should be about teaching respect, responsibility and proper handling/storage. Not "oh well that guy there killed 40 people so 20 million other people can't have guns now". Why did he do it? There had to be a reason, and that's more along the lines of what we should be focusing on. Someone doesn't wake up one morning and be of sound mind and body and just decide to kill people.

Oh dammit, I totally forgot about the zombie apocalypse. I'm gonna have to acquire an assault rifle afterall. :D
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,225
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Aren't zombies already dead? :knockout:
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
Aljdewey- When you quote someone and then directly write "I'd agree that it does show how environment and societal norms affects views and reasoning. As some who has been brought up in the U.S., I find your willingness to submit so nonchalantly to the stripping of rights from so very many (for so few) equally astounding." then that -your- means that you are talking to me. So you were saying that I nonchalantly submit to the stripping of my rights. What rights are you talking about? During the last couple of pages no one has been proposing that guns should be banned yet you still focus on rights and freedoms being taken away.

Go back and look at the comment you wrote that preceded mine. You wrote that you could see how the environment I grew up in influenced my reasoning and views. Since you have no idea about my environment personally, you were clearly speaking to me as a member of a class, that class being "people brought up in the U.S.". You went on to identify your membership in a class of "someone who wasn't brought up in the U.S.", so my "you" spoke to that class, not to you individually. Since some of that class (others posters from other countries) noted that gun ownership was banned in some of their countries and I wasn't limiting it only discussion in the last few pages, it was relevant.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
You seem to want a specific foolproof plan that will solve all problems. Well that does not exist but both Just Ginger and I (and I think a couple of more people) have given examples of several measures that we believe should be implemented. The US has a lot more homicides and injuries per firearm than for example Sweden and at the same time we have less police officers per capita. That does indicate that increased control works (without touching anyone rights or freedoms). That is, unless you are arguing that the US either has some genetic anomaly or some environmental effect that creates more killers.

Implementing law for the sake of implementation is worthless; unless those laws will be observed once enacted, it's not worth doing. You claim "increased controls" work for your country, but I've pointed to states in the U.S. who have adopted gun control policies that pretty much mirror yours (including my state) and yet haven't realized a reduction in gun-related deaths/injuries.

You alluded to enforcement and education being essential, but you can't tell me how it will be meaningfully enforced. Education suggests that if people know why compliance is important, they'll voluntarily do so, but I disagree. Many people don't feel an urgency to comply because they don't believe they will suffer consequences; they have a mindset of "that happens to other people but won't happen to me". People have been told incessantly why it's dangerous to themselves and others not to text while driving, and yet the stories continue to pile up about people killed and injured doing so. Despite a decades-long push to educate drivers about the very real risks of drinking and driving in the U.S., hundreds of people are arrested or killed every day for that very infraction.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
Well the numbers don't lie. We not only have less police officers, they work less hours per year than yours do, so that means we have even less manpower. Add to that that we are less densely populated and it takes even more man hours to do those spot-checks that you think are so crucially important. Yet our laws and rules work.

That's what you claim, but you can't substantiate WHY they work. My numbers don't lie, either. Those laws and rules work for your one nation, but they've been unsuccessful for three U.S. states. Until we can identify WHY it doesn't work here and how to address that (which isn't merely education), implementing laws for the sake of doing so without a reasonable expectation of realized improvement is just a waste of resources and time.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
As Soocool examples are an example of deaths that could have been avoided by having a responsible gun control policy. The suspect in the latest massacre bought his assault rifle and body armor legally. If the rules were changed he would not have had easy access to these which would have lessened the death count.

THIS is where you keep leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions. You assume those deaths could not have happened if the guns weren't legal, and that's flat out untrue. He could have elected to get guns illegally. He could have used explosives. What's pretty clear is that this man was sick AND determined to find a way to kill. Taking away ONE method by rendering it illegal doesn't eliminate the possibility OR the probability that he would still have been able to kill.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
You found my last paragraphs to barely make sense. That is a shame since I had hoped it would make you reflect on how you approach this type of problem and how your understanding of the issue is affected by your environment.

As I've said, you know nothing about *my* environment, because you seem unwilling to accept that environments vary from state to state within our singular country. My state's gun laws are nearly identical to those in your country, so 'my environment' does absolutely influence my understanding of this issue......I understand that gun control laws do not automatically eliminate or even reduce gun-related deaths/injuries, and I understand that "education" will not motivate people to amend their behavior unless they feel they are at risk.

I've been pretty consistently clear about how I approach this type (or any type of problem): Propose solutions that I can believe will be effective, and I'll be happy to support them. So far, that hasn't happened.
 

Lovinggems

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
3,622
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

As I mentioned earlier, I think the difference is better work/life balance, better access to physical and mental care, etc etc - all the things that diminish hopelessness, anger, and powerlessness. I still maintain that's where efforts should go to.


I agree with this, I would like to know what policies you will implement to achieve this?

I also agree that semi automatics should not be sold to the general public, why do they need to have access to it.

I read nearly one in two household in America has a gun, is it true?
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

ksinger|1343439904|3241744 said:
Have there been any theories or explanations as to why your gun violence has been increasing there, Alj?

Unfortunately, no......the CDC reports present the data but doesn't speculate on theories behind the data's results.

The tracked crime statistics show that gun crimes have decreased steadily decreased in the U.S. from 2005-2010 - by about 15%. It noted that while gun crime is down in the vast majority of states, it is UP in states with the most gun control measures in place. So.......gun crime is significantly down in states that have little to no gun control measures, and it's up in the states with the most measures in place. :|
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

Lovinggems|1343450279|3241862 said:
As I mentioned earlier, I think the difference is better work/life balance, better access to physical and mental care, etc etc - all the things that diminish hopelessness, anger, and powerlessness. I still maintain that's where efforts should go to.

I agree with this, I would like to know what policies you will implement to achieve this?

I also agree that semi automatics should not be sold to the general public, why do they need to have access to it.

I read nearly one in two household in America has a gun, is it true?

I can't say I have a full action plan ready to go on it, but there are some ideas that might be worth fleshing out that make sense to me as starting points for discussion. I will confess up front that I do find myself having much more socialistic leanings as I'm getting older, and that's not to say I expressly think our country should morph entirely that way....but we're all affected by the problem, so it makes sense to me we should all be willing to be part of the solution.

*Since gun manufacturers would be negatively impacted by either all-out bans or severe restrictions on private gun ownership, it makes sense to me that they should be willing to invest some money in alternate solutions. This could manifest as added tax on gun/ammunition manufacturers.

*States who benefit from gun sales should also be willing to earmark some percentage of those collected funds (sales tax, gun license application fees, etc.) toward alternate solutions.

*Guns are an expensive hobby, so those buying them lawfully are usually people with reasonably sound means. I'd imagine they could afford a slightly increased cost (tax tacked on), especially if benefits them in continuing to enjoy private gun ownership with fewer restrictions.

These proceeds could then go to programs that reduce the root causes: counselling (anxiety/stress management, anger management, self-worth building) could lessen suicides, heat-of-moment crimes, involvement in drugs or vulnerability to gang participation; career building programs could help people provide for their own needs in non-criminal ways; funding legislation to achieve better national vacation allowances and more family-friendly leave programs to improve quality-of-life satisfaction. These are just some of the things we could try instead. I'm sure there are many more suggestions folks could make in this vein.

For me, solutions where many parties win make much more sense and are exponentially more likely to find support than solutions where many people lose.
 

TooPatient

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
10,295
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

kenny|1343445502|3241805 said:
Aren't zombies already dead? :knockout:

Kenny, I'm shocked! Doesn't everyone know that a zombie is never dead until you've shot it with Hornady's zombie-max ammunition? :loopy:


(Which is a GREAT ammunition if anyone is looking at trying it out! I used it for my physics project :bigsmile: )
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,083
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

aljdewey|1343447520|3241820 said:
natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
Aljdewey- When you quote someone and then directly write "I'd agree that it does show how environment and societal norms affects views and reasoning. As some who has been brought up in the U.S., I find your willingness to submit so nonchalantly to the stripping of rights from so very many (for so few) equally astounding." then that -your- means that you are talking to me. So you were saying that I nonchalantly submit to the stripping of my rights. What rights are you talking about? During the last couple of pages no one has been proposing that guns should be banned yet you still focus on rights and freedoms being taken away.

Go back and look at the comment you wrote that preceded mine. You wrote that you could see how the environment I grew up in influenced my reasoning and views. Since you have no idea about my environment personally, you were clearly speaking to me as a member of a class, that class being "people brought up in the U.S.". You went on to identify your membership in a class of "someone who wasn't brought up in the U.S.", so my "you" spoke to that class, not to you individually. Since some of that class (others posters from other countries) noted that gun ownership was banned in some of their countries and I wasn't limiting it only discussion in the last few pages, it was relevant.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
You seem to want a specific foolproof plan that will solve all problems. Well that does not exist but both Just Ginger and I (and I think a couple of more people) have given examples of several measures that we believe should be implemented. The US has a lot more homicides and injuries per firearm than for example Sweden and at the same time we have less police officers per capita. That does indicate that increased control works (without touching anyone rights or freedoms). That is, unless you are arguing that the US either has some genetic anomaly or some environmental effect that creates more killers.

Implementing law for the sake of implementation is worthless; unless those laws will be observed once enacted, it's not worth doing. You claim "increased controls" work for your country, but I've pointed to states in the U.S. who have adopted gun control policies that pretty much mirror yours (including my state) and yet haven't realized a reduction in gun-related deaths/injuries.

You alluded to enforcement and education being essential, but you can't tell me how it will be meaningfully enforced. Education suggests that if people know why compliance is important, they'll voluntarily do so, but I disagree. Many people don't feel an urgency to comply because they don't believe they will suffer consequences; they have a mindset of "that happens to other people but won't happen to me". People have been told incessantly why it's dangerous to themselves and others not to text while driving, and yet the stories continue to pile up about people killed and injured doing so. Despite a decades-long push to educate drivers about the very real risks of drinking and driving in the U.S., hundreds of people are arrested or killed every day for that very infraction.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
Well the numbers don't lie. We not only have less police officers, they work less hours per year than yours do, so that means we have even less manpower. Add to that that we are less densely populated and it takes even more man hours to do those spot-checks that you think are so crucially important. Yet our laws and rules work.

That's what you claim, but you can't substantiate WHY they work. My numbers don't lie, either. Those laws and rules work for your one nation, but they've been unsuccessful for three U.S. states. Until we can identify WHY it doesn't work here and how to address that (which isn't merely education), implementing laws for the sake of doing so without a reasonable expectation of realized improvement is just a waste of resources and time.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
As Soocool examples are an example of deaths that could have been avoided by having a responsible gun control policy. The suspect in the latest massacre bought his assault rifle and body armor legally. If the rules were changed he would not have had easy access to these which would have lessened the death count.

THIS is where you keep leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions. You assume those deaths could not have happened if the guns weren't legal, and that's flat out untrue. He could have elected to get guns illegally. He could have used explosives. What's pretty clear is that this man was sick AND determined to find a way to kill. Taking away ONE method by rendering it illegal doesn't eliminate the possibility OR the probability that he would still have been able to kill.

natascha|1343436001|3241711 said:
You found my last paragraphs to barely make sense. That is a shame since I had hoped it would make you reflect on how you approach this type of problem and how your understanding of the issue is affected by your environment.

As I've said, you know nothing about *my* environment, because you seem unwilling to accept that environments vary from state to state within our singular country. My state's gun laws are nearly identical to those in your country, so 'my environment' does absolutely influence my understanding of this issue......I understand that gun control laws do not automatically eliminate or even reduce gun-related deaths/injuries, and I understand that "education" will not motivate people to amend their behavior unless they feel they are at risk.

I've been pretty consistently clear about how I approach this type (or any type of problem): Propose solutions that I can believe will be effective, and I'll be happy to support them. So far, that hasn't happened.

Alj, you'd enjoy talking with my husband, and he to you. We've been speaking extensively about this for the last few days. He has some pretty strong opinions on this topic - backed by 15 years of personal experience very deep in the gun world. He is all for background checks and point of sale restrictions - Oklahoma had such a thing back in the 80's no less, but due to certain things, it was dismantled. In any case, like you, he doesn't see that an assault weapons ban would be very effective in reducing gun crime and would be cost prohibitive to enforce. He pointed out, that out here, regardless of whether you own guns or not, gun ownership is something of a touchstone. He alluded to a 22 rifle we own, and said, "The gun has never shot anyone, but you want to take it away from me, a law-abiding citizen? What are you afraid of? And what ELSE are you afraid that you will try to take away from me next?" Spoken as a statement of a bit of the prevailing mindset. I think Love's Vintage asked in another thread if gun owners fear that once it starts it won't stop, and I think he articulated that in the above sentence. Yes, there IS a bit of that apprehension. And again, I can't overstress how truly unremarkable gun ownership is here. People grow up around them - there is still a heavy influence of the farm/hunting mentality here. It's part of why we are somewhat taken aback when we hear people just FROTHING about how EEEEEVIIIIL guns are. And it's hard to not take a bit of that frothing and moralizing personally. Gets the hackles up, even when we know that too is irrational.

And a bit of fun info about "environments". I mentioned in a previous post on this topic that attitudes towards guns in this country should be correlated with population density. It becomes clear to me at least that attitudes, in general, do correlate pretty strongly with that. The states with least restrictive gun laws are almost all the low-population-density states. I know OUR environments could not be more different.

STATE Abbr. Population Land Area Pop. Density Land Area Pop. Density
(Sq Kms) (Sq Kms) (Sq Miles) (Sq Miles)

3 Massachusetts MA 6,497,967 20,305.51 320.01 7,840 828.82
36 Oklahoma OK 3,642,361 177,846.71 20.48 68,667 53.04

ETA - Grumble, drat, blast. The formatting on the above disappeared. Sorry! Here is the link to the site I got that from. Interesting. AND easier to read!!
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/usadensityh.htm
 

amc80

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
5,765
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

aljdewey said:
*Guns are an expensive hobby, so those buying them lawfully are usually people with reasonably sound means. I'd imagine they could afford a slightly increased cost (tax tacked on), especially if benefits them in continuing to enjoy private gun ownership with fewer restrictions.

These proceeds could then go to programs that reduce the root causes: counselling (anxiety/stress management, anger management, self-worth building) could lessen suicides, heat-of-moment crimes, involvement in drugs or vulnerability to gang participation; career building programs could help people provide for their own needs in non-criminal ways; funding legislation to achieve better national vacation allowances and more family-friendly leave programs to improve quality-of-life satisfaction. These are just some of the things we could try instead. I'm sure there are many more suggestions folks could make in this vein.

For me, solutions where many parties win make much more sense and are exponentially more likely to find support than solutions where many people lose.

So I should have to pay a tax to own something I own and use lawfully? It makes sense with something like cigarettes where it affects other people (most of the time...if not through 2nd hand smoke then through increased strain on the healthcare system). But my owning guns doesn't hurt a third party.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

amc80|1343490653|3242022 said:
aljdewey said:
So I should have to pay a tax to own something I own and use lawfully? It makes sense with something like cigarettes where it affects other people (most of the time...if not through 2nd hand smoke then through increased strain on the healthcare system). But my owning guns doesn't hurt a third party.

I own and use a car lawfully -- and I pay an excise tax every year to do so. No one else is harmed by my driving it, so why do I pay the tax? Well, because some of those funds contribute to road maintenance, among other things, so that the very roads my car will drive on are available to me.

Look, in a perfect world, you shouldn't have to pay more for something you own and use lawfully. But, we are not in a perfect world. We are in a situation in this country where the need to reduce gun violence is critical, and some of the proposed solutions are very likely to affect you anyway in the form of more restrictions.

Something has to give, and if we keep on the path we're on and no one's willing to contribute to alternate solutions, those restrictions will come despite the fact that are unlikely to be effective. Would you rather pay a little extra to preserve your current status with less restrictions, or would you rather sit back and say it's not your problem and be dealt more restrictions? To me, the former seems much more palatable.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,225
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

TooPatient|1343460107|3241911 said:
kenny|1343445502|3241805 said:
Aren't zombies already dead? :knockout:

Kenny, I'm shocked! Doesn't everyone know that a zombie is never dead until you've shot it with Hornady's zombie-max ammunition? :loopy:


(Which is a GREAT ammunition if anyone is looking at trying it out! I used it for my physics project :bigsmile: )

Well thank you.
Now I know everything. :lol:
 

amc80

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
5,765
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

aljdewey said:
I own and use a car lawfully -- and I pay an excise tax every year to do so. No one else is harmed by my driving it, so why do I pay the tax? Well, because some of those funds contribute to road maintenance, among other things, so that the very roads my car will drive on are available to me.

.

Not then same thing. You drive cars on roads that need to be built and maintained. No public resources are needed for me to use or own a gun.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Re: How many guns, in total, are owned by people in your hom

amc80|1343502374|3242131 said:
aljdewey said:
I own and use a car lawfully -- and I pay an excise tax every year to do so. No one else is harmed by my driving it, so why do I pay the tax? Well, because some of those funds contribute to road maintenance, among other things, so that the very roads my car will drive on are available to me.

.

Not then same thing. You drive cars on roads that need to be built and maintained. No public resources are needed for me to use or own a gun.

Not sure where you live, but in my area, public resources are absolutely needed for people in my state to use and own a gun. Government employees (state and local) are involved in my state in approving dealers, interviewing gun license applicants, renewing gun permits, etc. etc.

But, for the sake of your discussion, even if we were to agree to set aside the discussion of merit regarding taxes......my question remains the same.......

IF you were faced with having to possibly lose the legal ability to own/use some of yours guns OR incur a tax to keep those restrictions at bay, which would you prefer? If those are the only two factors at play, which do you choose?
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top