The Wussification of America

[Soxbadger]

So to steal a point from an earlier post, how much do you 'restrict' the sales? Millions of people purchase and own guns with no problems, how much to you screw them to keep the guns away from a few bad apples? You already have laws keeping felons and crazy people from owning them. What MORE laws do you want in their place? You already have laws making it a crime to shoot people, use guns in commission of a crime and so on, what MORE laws do you want? Somewhere there is a point where restricting the supply of guns on the hope of keeping them away from a handful of bad people that will get them infringes on the rights of others to have them as well. I still call your attempts at restrictions to be just like a poll tax.

 

And nobody anywhere ever said we should allow 'unlimited sales'. You just threw that in there to be absurd and over the top like usual.

 

Well there is a law but it wont ever pass.

 

If you buy a gun, you are responsible for anything that happens to it. Before you buy the gun, they take shell casing so that they can match the bullets. They also put a gps in the gun so that it can be tracked.

 

As the gun owner you are responsible for whatever happens with the gun. If your gun is involved in a murder, you can be convicted of murder, robbery, you can be convicted of robbery.

 

This puts the responsibility on the gun owner. You want a dangerous weapon, that is fine, you take full responsibility for everything that happens with it.

 

I guarantee that would make people think twice about selling guns to random people, keeping their guns not well protected etc.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Effectively this is the case right now though.

 

Thanks to the gun show loophole, anyone who has money can buy a gun from a private seller without a background check. Anyone. It doesn't have to be legal for that person to do so. There is literally no way of enforcing the rules on who can buy a gun when this loophole sits there.

 

There's a website version of Craigslist that effectively does just that, for crying out loud. Anyone who wants to avoid being background checked can go there and find a private seller in an organized way.

Funny, I bought a gun at an auction and had to wait 3 days to get it while they did yet another background check on me, then had to have it sent to a FFL before I could pick it up, had to show 2 forms of ID as well and pay yet more fees.

[Balta1701]

Funny, I bought a gun at an auction and had to wait 3 days to get it while they did yet another background check on me, then had to have it sent to a FFL before I could pick it up, had to show 2 forms of ID as well and pay yet more fees.

Which is exactly how it should be. That's the case if you go to a licensed dealer. But by most estimates, about 40% of gun purchases are not conducted that way, they go through the "Gun show loophole" where no license is necessary. The Congress kept that loophole open under the excuse of not wanting to regulate a guy selling his gun to his neighbor, but the end result is that a substantial fraction of gun purchases go through nothing like what you went through.

[Soxbadger]

The real problem with this debate is that neither side ever wants to start on common ground.

 

Most people agree that they want less people to be killed by violence. That should be the starting point. Now the reality is, most people on both sides also want some sort of solution to stop gun violence.

 

You would think with that much agreement people could come up with some sort of reasonable solution that is okay with both sides.

 

But then again, this isnt really about stopping gun violence. This is about winning elections and riling up supporters.

[Texsox]

Compared to the gun owners that don't do the bad things, a handful.

 

So why do gun owners talk about all these criminals they have to protect themselves from? Hell it's only a handful.

[The Sir]

So why do gun owners talk about all these criminals they have to protect themselves from? Hell it's only a handful.

 

Compared to the the decent gun owners like myself, AD and Jenksb****, the bad gun owners are rare. I crunched some statistics last night and it comes out to roughly 280 of us for every one of them (I'm talking about violent criminals, not idiots who put holes in their own hat bills).

 

But would you say crime is rare?

 

I don't know how to better explain that paradox there. There are a lot of good gun owners for every whacko (armed or unarmed, I might add), but that whacko still exists. And I've said time and time again that my guns are a defense against unlikely situation, and not ones that lurk around every corner. I still don't want to be unprepared should that situation arise.

 

And this doesn't even get into what I think is the real reason for 2A, which has already been discussed here.

[EvilMonkey]

So why do gun owners talk about all these criminals they have to protect themselves from? Hell it's only a handful.

When they come for you, one is too many.

[Quin]

Compared to the the decent gun owners like myself, AD and Jenksb****, the bad gun owners are rare. I crunched some statistics last night and it comes out to roughly 280 of us for every one of them (I'm talking about violent criminals, not idiots who put holes in their own hat bills).

 

But would you say crime is rare?

 

I don't know how to better explain that paradox there. There are a lot of good gun owners for every whacko (armed or unarmed, I might add), but that whacko still exists. And I've said time and time again that my guns are a defense against unlikely situation, and not ones that lurk around every corner. I still don't want to be unprepared should that situation arise.

 

And this doesn't even get into what I think is the real reason for 2A, which has already been discussed here.

 

Can I see these numbers?

[The Sir]

Can I see these numbers?

 

Twice I’ve typed this stupid thing up, and twice this stupid government computer has deleted it. So the explanation gets shorter each time.

 

I can’t find the chart I used last time.

 

But basically, I took the common numbers of 310 million guns owned by 80 million people. I took the FBI’s 2009 statistics, where the violent crimes committed with firearms added up to roughly 307,000. You do the math and the ratio comes out to 260 to 1, not 280 as I previously stated.

 

The FBI does not compile weapons use statistics when it comes to rape, which is tragically underreported anyway. But even if you assume that all 94,000 or so of 2009’s rapes were committed with a gun, which is obviously not even close to true, the ratio only drops to 200 to 1.

 

Now, we could even throw in accidental non-lethal shootings (roughly 23,000) and suicides (roughly 19,000). Do the math again, from our number of 307,000, and it comes out to 229 to 1. If you do it to include our bloated rape assumption, it comes out to 180 to 1.

 

There are things I can’t account for. Not every violent crime is reported. Not every gun criminal is counted as one of my 80 million gun owners (Chris Kyle’s killer, as a recent example). Some criminals steal guns; should the people the guns were stolen from be counted as “bad gun owners” for allowing it to happen? Also, not every one of these 300-400 thousand violent gun crimes is committed by a different person.

 

So the numbers are not perfect. But I think it’s an absolutely fair point to say that overarching gun laws will end up punishing a lot of people who had never done an indecent thing with their weapons.

[illinilaw08]

Compared to the the decent gun owners like myself, AD and Jenksb****, the bad gun owners are rare. I crunched some statistics last night and it comes out to roughly 280 of us for every one of them (I'm talking about violent criminals, not idiots who put holes in their own hat bills).

 

But would you say crime is rare?

 

I don't know how to better explain that paradox there. There are a lot of good gun owners for every whacko (armed or unarmed, I might add), but that whacko still exists. And I've said time and time again that my guns are a defense against unlikely situation, and not ones that lurk around every corner. I still don't want to be unprepared should that situation arise.

 

And this doesn't even get into what I think is the real reason for 2A, which has already been discussed here.

 

I may be in the minority here, but it's the "idiots who put holes in their own hat bills" that concern me the most. There is no good way to eliminate gun violence without severely limiting the Second Amendment. And as long as there is a large supply of weapons legally available, people who wish to obtain a weapon for nefarious purposes will be able to get their hands on them (legally or otherwise). If I were in a position to enact legislation, my legislation would be to create a competency requirement to get licensed to own a firearm, nationwide. Not everyone grew up around firearms. Not everyone treats firearms with the respect that they deserve.

 

The other issue I have with the gun control debate is the use of the term "criminal." Most people are law abiding citizens... until they decide to do something stupid. You don't find out who is the "criminal" until after something like Sandy Hook happens.

 

Note that I don't have a problem with people owing guns. I think there is certainly utility to the responsible use of that tool. But I think that, like driving a car, there should be a competency requirement for use of that tool.

[Balta1701]

Twice I’ve typed this stupid thing up, and twice this stupid government computer has deleted it. So the explanation gets shorter each time.

 

I can’t find the chart I used last time.

 

But basically, I took the common numbers of 310 million guns owned by 80 million people. I took the FBI’s 2009 statistics, where the violent crimes committed with firearms added up to roughly 307,000. You do the math and the ratio comes out to 260 to 1, not 280 as I previously stated.

 

The FBI does not compile weapons use statistics when it comes to rape, which is tragically underreported anyway. But even if you assume that all 94,000 or so of 2009’s rapes were committed with a gun, which is obviously not even close to true, the ratio only drops to 200 to 1.

 

Now, we could even throw in accidental non-lethal shootings (roughly 23,000) and suicides (roughly 19,000). Do the math again, from our number of 307,000, and it comes out to 229 to 1. If you do it to include our bloated rape assumption, it comes out to 180 to 1.

 

There are things I can’t account for. Not every violent crime is reported. Not every gun criminal is counted as one of my 80 million gun owners (Chris Kyle’s killer, as a recent example). Some criminals steal guns; should the people the guns were stolen from be counted as “bad gun owners” for allowing it to happen? Also, not every one of these 300-400 thousand violent gun crimes is committed by a different person.

 

So the numbers are not perfect. But I think it’s an absolutely fair point to say that overarching gun laws will end up punishing a lot of people who had never done an indecent thing with their weapons.

SO it's 1 out of 180 per year?

 

So over say, a 45 year period known as a lifetime...the average comes down to 1 in 4?

[Quin]

SO it's 1 out of 180 per year?

 

So over say, a 45 year period known as a lifetime...the average comes down to 1 in 4?

 

While I'm greatly impressed by those numbers (good job GLtI), I can't help but think...

 

...I really wish it was 1 in 300,000,000.

[The Sir]

SO it's 1 out of 180 per year?

 

So over say, a 45 year period known as a lifetime...the average comes down to 1 in 4?

 

That's a pretty simplistic statement, which doesn't account for recidivism and repeat offenders who manage to avoid getting locked up, or the multitudes of new gunners who come into being every single day, or the black market portion of criminal's firearms.

[Texsox]

So the numbers are not perfect. But I think it’s an absolutely fair point to say that overarching gun laws will end up punishing a lot of people who had never done an indecent thing with their weapons.

 

Nice analysis. Now we would have to look at what the punishment is. Is the punishment not being allowed to mount an M-16 in the bed of your pickup truck? Or is the punishment not being allowed to own more than 10,000 rounds at one time? Or is it not being allowed to buy a gun without a more detailed background search? I hope we all would agree that there are reasonable "punishments" or restrictions that a well regulated militia will follow. Hell, you have restrictions at your work on weapons you can possess.

[Jake]

My assessment from some of the earlier parts of this thread is:

 

When in need of protection, I'd like as large a magazine as I choose.

 

also,

 

When we have magazine limits, that will make no difference because anyone who knows a gun from their asshole won't be any less effective from having to do a .5 second reload.

 

 

[Jake]

Nice analysis. Now we would have to look at what the punishment is. Is the punishment not being allowed to mount an M-16 in the bed of your pickup truck? Or is the punishment not being allowed to own more than 10,000 rounds at one time? Or is it not being allowed to buy a gun without a more detailed background search? I hope we all would agree that there are reasonable "punishments" or restrictions that a well regulated militia will follow. Hell, you have restrictions at your work on weapons you can possess.

 

This is part of the argument I don't like, like you said. Some proposed restrictions (particularly those that are destined to fail) might affect your gun ownership. You wouldn't be able to buy something classified as an AR -- so if you ever wanted to do that, and a few people do, you won't be allowed to. Likewise, the few people that want larger magazines won't be able to get them.

 

The rest though, does not affect your enjoyment of guns. You're not being punished, you're spending 15 more minutes of paperwork to help weed out the assholes that make you look bad.

[The Sir]

While I'm greatly impressed by those numbers (good job GLtI), I can't help but think...

 

...I really wish it was 1 in 300,000,000.

 

So do I.

 

But there's the world we'd like to live in and the world we do live in. I wish that guns were unnecessary because humans were, without fail, incapable of violence. But that's not the case, unfortunately.

 

As a slight segue (and not aimed at you, Quin), this is the same reason I scoff at people who claim conservatives are pro-war. We can have a discussion about specific wars, of course. But please don't say we are pro-war. We're not. Do we support a more aggressive foreign policy? I can admit to that. But do we seek endless war, like that cockroach in the old Men in Black movie who says that war is good for him and his family? Not at all. We'd love it if war was unnecessary but we realize that that isn't always the case. Things are more complicated than that and, sometimes, violence is required as part of the solution.

 

Again, I'm not rejecting anyone's ability to disagree with my support for specific wars. We can totally do that. It's just that blanket term, "pro-war", is far too simplistic and unworthy of use in a serious conversation.

[The Sir]

Nice analysis. Now we would have to look at what the punishment is. Is the punishment not being allowed to mount an M-16 in the bed of your pickup truck? Or is the punishment not being allowed to own more than 10,000 rounds at one time? Or is it not being allowed to buy a gun without a more detailed background search? I hope we all would agree that there are reasonable "punishments" or restrictions that a well regulated militia will follow. Hell, you have restrictions at your work on weapons you can possess.

 

That's a fair point. I'd think I'd draw the line at tanks and fighter jets.

 

But seriously, I think the legal situation right now isn't bad. It generally respects the Second Amendment (as I read it, anyway) and also respects States' Rights. I wouldn't dare live in California, New York or DC, and people who are not comfortable with massive gun ownership can happily avoid living in Texas, Georgia or Idaho.

[The Sir]

My assessment from some of the earlier parts of this thread is:

 

When in need of protection, I'd like as large a magazine as I choose.

 

also,

 

When we have magazine limits, that will make no difference because anyone who knows a gun from their asshole won't be any less effective from having to do a .5 second reload.

 

Because it's about choice. I should be able to own what I want until I've proven that I am incapable of doing so without hurting others. I want 30 round magazines and as far as defending my castle goes, I need them.

 

Does a 25 year old girl with a good-paying job who gets knocked up by her boyfriend NEED an abortion because she doesn't want her highly conservative family to know about her immoral behavior? I would say no. But long ago, the courts ruled that I don't have any say in that. So it's her call. It about what she wants and needs, not about what I think she needs.

 

I wish the GOP would add this into any gun control law that Dems want to send up to the POTUS. If our choice about weapons ownership goes, so does that girl's choice about abortion. I think that's fair.

[Balta1701]

Does a 25 year old girl with a good-paying job who gets knocked up by her boyfriend NEED an abortion because she doesn't want her highly conservative family to know about her immoral behavior?

What immoral behavior?

[StrangeSox]

having sex, duh!

 

I don't know if the smartest move for conservatives is to go down the road equating gun magazines to a woman's control of her own reproductive organs. But if that's the argument they want to make, enjoy an even-tougher 2016.

[The Sir]

What immoral behavior?

 

Pre-marital sex. Whether you think it's a sin or not, the Bible tells us that it is. And the hypothetical parents in this scenario are going to think so too.

[The Sir]

I don't know if the smartest move for conservatives is to go down the road equating gun magazines to a woman's control of her own reproductive organs.

 

What a funny euphemism.

 

Murdering a fetus is controlling one's reproductive organs? No. Keeping your legs shut is controlling your reproductive organs. Abortion leads directly to a death, each and every time it is committed. My ownership of a high-capacity magazine does not do that.

 

But since the law gives you the choice and you vigorously defend that choice to the point of coming up with rosy sounding metaphors to cover the true horror of that choice, who exactly are you to tell me that I don't have a choice on something that matters to me? Why does the right to privacy found in some magical corner of the Constitution apply to this 25 year old woman but not to me and my friends?

 

Please tell me how the horrible results of the actions of a few lunatics merit me losing my Constitutional rights, as if EVERY abortion doesn't end with horrible results (for what it's worth, I'd make one exception and that is danger to the life of the mother).

 

Is this a smart move for Republicans? That's a whole different topic and the answer is probably not. It'd be demagogued to death by the Democrats. But I'm not a GOP strategist so that isn't what I'm concerned about.

[Jake]

The question is how much lethal power should any single person have? On one hand, I've actually thought about doing it a bit similar to Switzerland where soldiers and former soldiers are given much more leeway to own firearms. An important consideration in the USA, though, is that our soldiers actually fight and some of them may need some medical/psychological help upon return before getting special privileges with guns. I'm happy to pay for this with my tax dollar, we can easily redirect that from some of the defense budget bloat.

 

I had often thought, what if we demand much more training? That should help. Well...we like to think our soldiers are the best trained men in the world when it comes to lethal weapons. Maybe it could encourage recruitment, even.

 

Our main problem is there are just way too many guns. Magazine limits and AR bans will to some extent at some point help with mass shootings, but the problem "on the streets" is that there are so many guns, getting one is easy. It will be difficult to erase the problems of a trade that has been too unregulated. We should still try to do things as simple as require enough bookkeeping to see which stores have guns stolen from them, etc. Gun buybacks are great but unless they get a bigger well to pay from, it will be like takings drops out of a bucket.

 

A unique issue to the gun problem is that guns have a much longer shelf life than other things that we try to control. Weed gets old fast and gets consumed faster. For guns, on the other hand, there are guns in my dad's gun cabinet that are much older than me and they are no antiques. Just as lethal and useful as ever.

[Texsox]

How would you be losing your Constiutional rights? You would still be part of a well regulated militia. Wouldn't a lack of restrictions and status as a militia be losing rights?