discuss Gun Laws

[Bernard Wright]

This is just a hodgepodge of thoughts. I won't distinguish between good and bad people. I'll focus on peoples' actions.

Bad actors shouldn't have guns for committing acts of violence against innocent people, nor for threatening innocent people with potential violence. It would be nice if society could prevent a bad actor from obtaining the gun used in a bad act.

Good actors should have the right to defend themselves and others against bad actors with necessary force. Such force includes the threat of lethal violence, and the use of lethal violence if necessary.

Bad actors don't have regard for the rule of law when acting in a criminal manner.

Society is comprised of individuals pursuing their own interests. Laws are instated to ensure that individuals' rights are not infringed upon by another person or entity. When an individual infringes upon another individual's rights, there are criminal and civil procedures to deal with such matters, overseen by our governing officials. In extreme cases, when the infringing party is a usurping government, it is up to the citizens to protect their natural freedoms from that government. This happens rarely, but it happens. It is wise for an individual to aspire to maintain his/her own personal sovereignty and ability to protect him/herself from unjust threats.

A good actor is responsible for protecting him/herself and, if desired, other people from threats and acts of violence. When police officers are capable of assisting, assistance is welcomed, but the police's main duty is to maintain law and order, not to protect another individual from immediate threat. The individual's primal concern is his/her own personal safety, and this is a responsibility that lies within every individual when faced with a threat of violence.

A gun is a tool. A gun can do a number of things. Here are three examples.

1. a gun can be used to engage in a violent act.
2. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a violent act.
3. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a threat of violence.

We are all players in society with an interest in pursuing our best interests and defending our well-being. Laws that would take guns away from some bad actors are sure to also result in fewer armed good actors who could deescalate violent and potentially violent situations. Violence is not good. Good actors with guns end violent situations more quickly and effectively than good actors without guns do. There are hundreds of millions of firearms on this planet. A bad actor with the desire to obtain a gun will always have the means to locate a gun. Black markets are real.

Good actors should have the legal right to possess guns in order to protect themselves, and others, from bad actors.

 

[Joe N]

They're all interesting philosophical arguments, but the only reason they exist is because the NRA has half of the U.S. brainwashed. Countries with strict gun laws don't have these "concerns".

Facts based on many studies:

• Gun ownership increases the risk of gun-related homicides and suicides.
• Guns are almost twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defence.
• A gun in a home with a history of domestic violence dramatically increases the risk that a woman will be killed.
• Guns intended for self-defence are commonly involved in fatal accidents. Higher levels of gun ownership are linked to higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.

A study done in 2014 even showed that for every self-defence gun homicide in the United States, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides.

Guns do not make people safer! They create the illusion of safety.

 

[Mister Funsky]

Yeah, just saw this thread in current post window and wanted to jump in, and then back out.

On more than occasion in my life, a gun has saved my life. I've been self employed for 90% of my life and at times carried large amounts of cash...it doesn't take a criminal too long to figure out who the main man (or woman) is at a business and target them for robbery.

Had a crackhead once try to get into my house (thinking he was on the other side of town and out of his mind) carrying a machete and insisting he get free drugs...a gun saved me and my family that time as well.

Once I ran a bear out of my garage by firing a weapon in its general direction.

Once I am provided a 24 hour guard(s) to protect me and my family wherever and whenever I (they) live or travel, then you may ask for my weapon.

 

[HotKey]

4. Survival hunting.

imo, to procure your sustenance, is the only partly LEGITIMATE reason to own a firearm. NOT for protection. NOT for collecting. NOT for deescalation. NOT for target practice. NOT for sitting in a platform in a tree and waiting to shoot your prey to saunter by to claim your trophy. NOT for any pathetic fool on to have the ability to pull a 2 inch trigger and end another mans life.

Wish guns were never invented. They turn a coward into a coward with a hand cannon. We only get one opportunity on this earth, and to think that a tiny piece of a lead projectile can steal that opportunity from us, on the whim of some loser.

Even #4, survival hunting. There are alternatives. Learn archery. Use a long bow. Learn trapping. Learn the art of knife-throwing.

Yes, we need to protect our homes and property. So the cycle will not end. It is too late. Because even if homeowner becomes the bigger man, rids the gun, the bad guys will always be the tiny cockroaches who will use that hand cannon. And what chance to we have against cockroaches? Apparently they can survive a nuclear holocaust.

So the world invented guns. We have to live with them now. The only solution would be to eradicate them completely. But how do you eradicate them? The only effective counter-attack is, another gun. Bullets even from a 9mm can travel 1.5 miles! They can print guns from a 3D print machine, so these things don't even have to be made of metal anymore!

As with all responsible decisions in life, it has to come down to the individual. Both the homeowner and the bad guy, have to agree not to use the gun. Will that happen in this lifetime or any?

**

Nichols has it right, guns create the illusion of safety. In turn, it also creates the illusion of courage, and power.

What's real courage? This right here:

Colorado school shooting victim died charging attacker

 

[Joe N]

My stance: Gun laws protect gun manufacturers and distributers who care more about making money than about people's safety. There is no evidence to suggest that gun ownership makes people safer.

Your "logic" is incomplete, and your arguments fail to factor in social, economic, and cultural issues. In a perfect world where everyone can responsibly own and use a firearm, there would be no issues. We don't live in that world.

Analysis of the study I mentioned: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-myth/ (a link to the study itself is in there as well).

 

[Joe N]

Here’s a great read that points out real stats and why owning a gun for self defense is actually more dangerous than not owning one...

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/

Thanks Keith. Really interesting article.

While I definitely fall on your side of the argument (i.e. gun ownership should be eliminated as much as possible), what I've learned is that all these studies are very subjective in nature. Not that the figures are inaccurate, but I think the authors of these articles (on both sides of the argument) fail to appropriately consider the context of the stats they're quoting.

In the case of this article, while they mention guns are more likely to kill the owner than an intruder, they fail to mention how many times owning a gun stops or dissuades home invasions without even being fired. Those are the kinds of comparisons that are needed in order to make meaningful decisions on gun ownership, but it's impossible to get accurate numbers because they rely almost solely on the testimony of the individual gun owners.

Even this fact needs a lot more context:

"Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%."

This is a blanket number, but it fails to take into account where you live, income level, criminal history, and on and on. So maybe a gun owner with criminal history has a 200% better chance of death by homicide, while your average middle class suburban adult has a 5% better chance, or 10% worse chance!

So yeah, the stats are interesting to examine, but context is everything.

 

[Joe N]

You want me to write up the new legislation?

Make handguns and assault weapons inaccessible. Make the rest more difficult to acquire and retain.

Now you'll ask me how to do it. The answer is that it's going to take a long time, a lot of work, a courageous government, and a majority of the population that is brave enough to make the change.

 

[Mister Funsky]

And yet it's a useless fact.

Well, that is your opinion...like sphincters...we all have at least one...dozens actually!!!

I'm moving on now Bernard...interesting side bar to domaining but it's back to work for me!

 

[Joe N]

That’s it? A link that describes how it has worked for other nations?

How about explaining specifically:

• What your proposed legislation would entail
• How it would affect the rate of gun violence in cities where the rates of gun violence are the highest. Let’s start with Chicago.
• What blowback might be received from gun rights advocates and how that would be dealt with on a large scale.

Every nation is different, with different demographics, cultures, histories, etc. That third bullet point should not be overlooked. One should not underestimate the degree to which gun rights advocates are committed to their cause, and the amount of distrust they possess in their government. The countries named in the article were not founded as a consequence of violent revolt by an armed populace in the way the US was. This is a unique aspect of our history and gun rights are tightly aligned with this.

I think it best to give this thread a break. I’ve enjoyed it. Thank you for engaging.

The U.S. was formed 250 years ago. How on earth does that have any bearing on today's Americans and whether or not they should own guns? Germany and Japan have experienced horrible violence in their countries far more recently than the U.S. Heck, it was only 80 years ago that Hitler was rounding people up based on religion and ethnicity. Shouldn't Germans have way more fear and distrust of government than Americans?

How do I specifically explain proposed legislation? I'm not a lawyer.

How do I explain how rates of gun violence would be affected? I'm not a statistician.

How do I explain large-scale blowback risks and how to deal with them? I'm not a game theorist.

There are very qualified people in America who are being paid to do this very work. But before they do, the population and government need to decide to at least explore the possibilities. They need to recognize that there is a problem. And that is what we're debating here: IF there is a problem.

I've shown you there is a problem.
I've shown you why there is a problem.
I've shown you how other countries have solved similar problems.

Unless you have factual arguments that counter what I've presented (and not subjective musings based on opinion and incomplete logic), then ending the discussion is a very good idea.

 

[offthehandle]

If you go to the England a long developed old Country, the police don’t carry, but their citizens they get run over by rented trucks, get cut with a knife and receive horrible acid attacks. So where there are crazy people as there always are everywhere, they will find a way to hurt others. Innane Laws have nothing to do with it.

 

[Mister Funsky]

Where the heck are you living? Did the bear tried to rob you too?

East Coast US...although the bear had successfully entered the garage, he/she was unable to raid my secondary refrigerator before the security system alerted me.

 

[Keith]

How is that not a mental health issue?! If that isn't I Don't know what is lol. Depression is a mental health issue that can be brought on through social media interaction just the same as someone can be brain washed on an extremist forum and decide to make a point by shooting people they don't like the colour, race, religion or anything else of.

To use a term like “mental health” is an illusion created by organizations like the NRA. They don’t want you to realize that people simply kill people with guns, because they can.

If you look at most of these mass shooters, they aren’t insane, in medical terms. They’re crazy, because anyone who shoots someone else is clearly lost. But, they are all sane enough to buy weapons and unlimited amounts of ammo. So let’s not pretend we have people that are legitimately or legally insane, running around shooting up schools. That’s not what’s happening here.

People are dying in mass amounts due to drugs so we make strict laws. People are dying in mass amounts due to guns and we make them easily accessible. Makes no sense.

 

[D Haynes]

To use a term like “mental health” is an illusion created by organizations like the NRA. They don’t want you to realize that people simply kill people with guns, because they can.

If you look at most of these mass shooters, they aren’t insane, in medical terms. They’re crazy, because anyone who shoots someone else is clearly lost. But, they are all sane enough to buy weapons and unlimited amounts of ammo. So let’s not pretend we have people that are legitimately or legally insane, running around shooting up schools. That’s not what’s happening here.

People are dying in mass amounts due to drugs so we make strict laws. People are dying in mass amounts due to guns and we make them easily accessible. Makes no sense.

The shooters might not be certified insane but they clearly aren't right because a level headed person wouldnt carry out such acts. Its not a case of people walking around talking to people that aren't there and listening to voices in their head, that's the stereotypical mental heath issue. It's people that are broken down over months or years by little things happening to them in their day to day lives that they don't know how to deal with. That a mental heath issue too just as much as a raving loonatic.

I completely agree with you that guns should not be made readily available to people, the problem is that there are now so many that taking them all away is an impossible task. So I think we have to accept that guns are alway going to be there so the reason people choose to use them should be the main focus.

 

[D Haynes]

We can’t remove all of the drugs in circulation but we have laws making many substances illegal. Explain the difference with guns please.

Drugs haven't been legal for a long time where as guns have always been a "right" in America. Also a lot of drugs help a lot of people. Once something is at saturation point its much harder to go back. Also its highly likely that most drugs will be legalised eventually. I could also argue that the laws against drugs make no difference whatsoever to people that want to take them the same as laws against guns will make no difference to people who decide to shoot others.

Again, I completely agree with you that guns should not be readily available to people but I think we have to be realistic given the current situation.

 

[oldtimer]

As the party leaders in China are getting ready to start a massacre (mass shooting) in Hong Kong and kill thousands of innocent people just to keep themselves in power it makes one wonder if it might be necessary for people to be fully armed so that they can protect themselves not only against criminals, but also against ruthless and extremist government factions. IMO

 

[Joe N]

I am going with what sounds logical when faced with the realities on the ground, otherwise I have already indicated what I would ideally like to see in the long run, we can only hope that we can eventually evolve out of this situation, but meanwhile I think that decent and law abiding people should have the right to protect themselves and if having a gun can give them an advantage to be able to stay alive in a mass shooting event then I don’t think that they should be deprived of having a chance (no matter how slim) to be able to save themselves.
IMO

This is exactly the problem, though... Americans see guns as a means of protecting themselves. No other first world country views gun ownership in this way. If protection is your primary consideration for carrying, then that thing is coming out as soon as you feel threatened. This is how so many accidental gun deaths occur.

Your straight-line logic makes sense in a narrow tunnel, without other considerations, but it's reactionary. America needs to get to the root cause of the current issues and address them at their core. The country needs a culture shift, and a completely reformed attitude toward guns.

 

[oldtimer]

And I can't blame them! Fear is easy to consume and hard to fight. But that fight needs to start.

Some of their fear is justified, so there has to be some compromise by both sides, I believe that sooner or later there will be forced cooperation between people on the opposing sides of the gun issue in order to come up with solutions that can benefit the society at large. People have been fighting over the gun issue for decades and it hasn’t gotten them anywhere, perhaps its time for people to start cooperating based on the necessities of the situation and their shared values like we all agree that something has to be done to stop kids from getting killed at school. IMO

 

[JB Lions]

This came out today, after the ridiculous pulling violent video games from displays but still selling guns:

Walmart plans to dramatically step back from ammunition sales after ‘horrific’ shootings

• Walmart is discontinuing sales of short-barrel rifle ammunition such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber, discontinuing sales of handgun ammunition and discontinuing handgun sales entirely in Alaska.
• It’s also asking shoppers to no longer openly carry firearms in stores, in states where “open carry” is allowed, unless they are authorized law enforcement officers.
• CEO Doug McMillon announces the changes following two deadly shootings at Walmart stores over the summer.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/03/wal...-from-gun-sales-after-horrific-shootings.html

 

[Bernard Wright]

They're all interesting philosophical arguments, but the only reason they exist is because the NRA has half of the U.S. brainwashed.

I disagree. I contend that the statements I made exist because they hold merit. If you disagree with the validity of any of my statements, please address their flaws on the basis of this lack of validity.

• Gun ownership increases the risk of gun-related homicides and suicides
  Yes.

• Guns are almost twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defence.
  Perhaps gun owners could do a better job of stowing their guns in a safe place. That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from this. It seems like bad actors are very intent on obtaining firearms they should not possess. We should make more efforts to keep guns from being stolen from gun owners who might someday use their weapons for the defense of innocents.
  
  
• A gun in a home with a history of domestic violence dramatically increases the risk that a woman will be killed.
  I think you are pointing out that bad actors with guns are dangerous. I agree here. Your statement makes me wonder whether women who are trained in the use of a firearm, with a gun in the home, are potentially less-likely to be killed. I know of cases where a woman killed her domestic abuser with a firearm. I saw one in the news two days ago. As I stated in my first post, bad actors with guns are best-stopped by good actors with guns.
  
  
• Guns intended for self-defence are commonly involved in fatal accidents. Higher levels of gun ownership are linked to higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.
  This seems valid. Higher levels of car ownership are also associated with higher rates of traffic collisions. It's the driver that causes the crash in most cases. Rarely is the cause the vehicle.
  

A study done in 2014 even showed that for every self-defence gun homicide in the United States, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. If you want to bring that number down from 34 you need to increase the number of "self-defense guns". Is that the solution you are seeking? Double the amount of self-defense guns and we're now down to 17 criminal homicides per self-defense gun. And that's if the increase in self-defense guns doesn't work to dissuade perps from carrying out their attacks. As I mentioned in my first post, guns used by good actors can deescalate violent threats. So, the effect might not be linear. Instead of 17, let's presume the number would be 15.

Guns do not make people safer! They create the illusion of safety.

I can't draw this conclusion from any of your statements except perhaps the first bullet point. But that statement is very vague. Back to cars. Yes, increased car ownership increases the risk of car-related deaths as well. But a driver has the right to own and drive a car, and it is his/her responsibility to respect life and drive safely.

While I'm on the topic of cars, here is another thought. I have seen what seems to be an uptick in the number of police pursuits on TV since I was young. When I see one, I often wonder what will happen when the perp approaches a red light with many stopped cars, or when they approach a slow spot on the freeway. Will the cops move in? Sometimes the chase takes place in residential areas at very high speeds. I often hope that something will slow the perp down. Perhaps a slow moving vehicle will be up ahead. There are a lot of cars on the road compared to when I was young. Do I think the uptick in police pursuits is due to the increase in available cars to steal? I don't. I think a potential car thief might actually prefer to steal a car in a neighborhood where they see little congestion and a chance for a clean getaway. Perhaps a conclusion can be drawn that there might be a negative correlation between car density and police pursuits in this respect. How about suspects who haven't stolen the car, but they choose to try to outrun the flashing lights in their rear view? Should they have been given access to a vehicle they're driving, even though they might someday try to outrun the cops? Interesting thought. Should my right to own a vehicle be revoked because this other person might try to outrun the cops someday? Nope. It's my vehicle. And, the more vehicles on the road, the more likely the cops will have a chance to catch the perp at a congested intersection or similar. Get a V12 on an open highway and watch the police try to catch it. Get a V12 in downtown traffic where there are lots of other vehicles you have a different story. This is true, of course, so long as the rest of the vehicles are also not criminals trying to escape the police. Imagine if all non-criminal drivers had their cars revoked and all that remained were criminals who had stolen a vehicle with no resistance from a good actor? I'm drawing this out a bit. I'll end it here. Good actors with guns are necessary to a functioning society when there are bad actors with guns.

 

[Joe N]

I don't see any clear points being made other than guns exist. They do.

Actually you're the one not making any clear points. I have presented data. You've presented personal opinion and unsupported ideas. Do you have anything to back them up? Show us some studies that prove everyone would be safer if everyone owned a gun.

This is a brave individual who had no choice but to sacrifice himself. A more rational and optimal solution, when possible, is to take out the shooter. There's only one viable way to do that.

This is a false claim. A 2015 study showed that the likelihood of sustaining an injury during a robbery was nearly identical between people who attempted to defend themselves with a gun and those who did not.

 

[Joe N]

Don't you find it odd that no other population in any other developed country requires this right in order to feel safe?

 

[Joe N]

Guns are an easy weapon. A lazy weapon. Swords are not.

Blades force you to take a very intimate role in killing another person. Guns let you dissociate and kill from a distance with little more difficulty than flicking a light switch.

Guns inflict maximum damage with minimal effort, and millions upon millions of Americans can stroll over to their local Wal-mart to buy one with absolutely no requirement to prove that they know how to use it, or are capable of owning it responsibly.

As hilarious as all of this is, possibly the most hilarious thing is that half the country thinks it's a good thing! I have to hand it to the gun lobbyists... They earn their pay cheques and then some. Meanwhile every other country not dealing with dictators or civil war stares wide-eyed and gawk-mouthed at this situation and wonders how so many intelligent people were so badly duped.

 

[Joe N]

Look at the gun laws in Sweden, France, Canada, Germany, or any other developed nation.

Pick your favourite.

Do that.

 

[HotKey]

I don't see any clear points being made other than guns exist. They do.

The clear point is, you do not need nor deserve to have a firearm. Prove that you do.

What are you looking for, Bernard? Perhaps deep down you know there is something off with America's obsession with firearms?

Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privilege. It can only be granted to those who can respect that privilege, not those on a whim some sort of "personal right", where enacting in moments of an unsettled mind can result in consequences forever changed. Moving this line of thought, and implementing it via law, along with then eradicating illegal possession, will take years, decades. But it must be done.

They are like vehicles. In the wrong hands, automatic killing machines. This is why the ability to drive a vehicle requires a license. But even then, look at the damage vehicles have done. Good gun laws is not the only solution. Everything comes down to the individual, and the decisions they choose to make. If someone want a gun, or to use a vehicle to drive down a bunch of innocents, they will find a way to do so, regardless of the laws in place. But we can try, can't we?

"We are at one of the great turning points in human history when the survival of our planet and the restoration of our humanity require a great sea change in our ecological, economic, political, and spiritual values." Grace Lee Boggs

 

[Joe N]

Yeah, just saw this thread in current post window and wanted to jump in, and then back out.

On more than occasion in my life, a gun has saved my life. I've been self employed for 90% of my life and at times carried large amounts of cash...it doesn't take a criminal too long to figure out who the main man (or woman) is at a business and target them for robbery.

Had a crackhead once try to get into my house (thinking he was on the other side of town and out of his mind) carrying a machete and insisting he get free drugs...a gun saved me and my family that time as well.

Once I ran a bear out of my garage by firing a weapon in its general direction.

Once I am provided a 24 hour guard(s) to protect me and my family wherever and whenever I (they) live or travel, then you may ask for my weapon.

Very cool input. And glad to hear you were able to keep your family safe on both occasions.

I'm not arguing that a gun can't be a useful tool. In the right situation, it absolutely has a place. But that's not justification for handing them out like candy...