Lonestar wrote: ↑
Broomstick wrote: ↑
I wonder if that same argument was used when fully automatic weapons were (essentially) banned?
Considering that the NRA had to fight tooth and nail to prevent Machine Guns from being defined as "self loading and capable of firing 12 or more times without reloading" under the NFA, that might not be the route you want to take.
I wasn't "taking a route". I was actually asking a genuine question. But hey, you're so used to painting anyone not wholly in your camp and a gun-banning adversary you can't actually read what I write.
And, in fact, I am not anti-gun. I am anti-mass shootings. It actually pisses me off that every time those of us who want to be able to go someplace in public without fear of being shot try to quantify the problem guns those on your side start getting into minutiae to distract the conversation from the heart of the matter.
Pointing out that you are arguing from bad faith and using terms tailored made to be all encompassing isn't "distracting from the heart of the matter". You think we don't see what you guys are doing when you use the term "weapon of war"?
And what "you guys" do you think I belong to? I don't belong to either a pro or anti gun club.
If AR-15's are becoming the weapon of choice for mass murder then we need to consider making them much harder to get, or even impossible to get.
It's the most popular rifle type by far in the country. If it was truly the problem you claim it is the percentage of firearm homicides that involve AR-15s would be far, far, higher than what it is.
Then, if the problem isn't the particular rifle but the sort rifle then you better be prepared for the real anti-gun crowd to argue that no one should own a semi-automatic rifle period. Or anything semi-automatic - and I have indeed seen that argument put forward.
How are you going to answer that? "It's our right!" You do
realize that the constitution has been amended 27 times, yes? Personally, I like having the option to own a firearm, or other weapon. But I also realize that if I don't respect the rights (like the right not
to be shot) and opinions of others mine will not be respected, either.
That's not taking everyone's guns away. That is removing from circulation a gun that has become a problem. If you don't want other guns targeted as a problem then it's time for your side to get serious about ways to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. Shrugging your shoulders and saying people being shot like fish in a barrel is the price of liberty isn't going to cut it indefinitely.
Everytime something like this happens I talk about fixing NICS, mandating that the states report to NICS, sending a cop out to interview someone if they attempt to buy a firearm but are on the prohibited list, cracking down on straw purchasing, etc.
I'm totally on board with that. Why do you assume I'm not? If you can cure - or at least significantly mitigate - the problems we have with mass shooting by putting some teeth in the NICS then I'm all for it, but the NRA has done everything it can to stymie such efforts.
You aren't looking for any solution that isn't "ban scary guns".
I don't find an AR-15 "scary". But a lot of people do. Shouting at them that they're idiots is NOT going to win them over to your side.
And, I point out once again, that banning and/or severely limiting ownership of such guns actually does work
to reduce gun violence and death. Which is why places like Australia haven't had a mass shooting since the 1990's. So... what do you have to offer the other side? They have a solution that will work - YOU have to come up with a believable alternative. With the NRA refusing to budge an inch, it's not helping.
The US is the only country - outside of nations in a civil war - that has this problem. That means there is something wrong with us, not with everyone else.
I don't know why you're saying this as if I am unaware of this fact.
But since we're doing the American exceptionalism thing, I'll also point out that America has by far the biggest income inequality amongst develop nations, and our cops are far more likely to to whack random people on the streets while planting evidence.
So... what are you saying? That you bought your guns because you feel a need to defend yourself from the police?
Then it's time for your side to get serious about controlling access. Rights are not unlimited. Your rights end when my begin. My right to be alive is at least as important as your right to own a weapon.
Good news! It is statistically improbable that you will ever get killed by a AR-15. You're more likely to get killed by a .38spl that you just talked about acquiring in that other thread.
On the other hand, if I decided to buy an AR-15 then I'd be far more likely to be killed by an AR-15.
But here's the difference - when I buy a gun I am deciding to assume that risk, just as I assumed a higher risk of dying in an airplane when I decided to take flying lessons, or someone who buys a motorcycle is deciding to assume the risks that come with that. I decide.
When a mass shooter does his thing he decides for everyone else
. People who have decided they don't
want to assume the risk of owning/using a gun have their choice usurped, possibly with deadly results.
Heck, you're more likely to be t-boned by a drunk driver(assuming you drive yourself) than shot.
Never been t-boned. Have been shot at twice - which, by the way, is one of the reasons I left Detroit. Which worked, have not been shot at since around 1981.
There's statistics, and then there are things you can do to alter your chances. If you live somewhere like the UK you can pretty much avoid gun violence by simply not being involved in a gun club or hunting. Here in the US, though, it's not so easy. Given current demographic trends, the people who want to avoid that risk are going to outnumber the pro-gun camp within our lifetime. When they outnumber you, when they are able to out-vote you, if you haven't come up with a viable solution to the current gun violence inflicted on the unwilling you will find yourself in a very uncomfortable position.
Remember what I said about you arguing from bad faith? Because, you sure as heck aren't arguing honestly if you're ranking a fear of being popped by a AR-15 over a Saturday night special.
Me personally? I'm at a low risk for that because I'm not attending crowd events at this point in my life. I'm not in school. I actually do take steps to lower my risk beyond just acquiring guns.
I was not in the market for a semi-auto rifle - I don't need one. My local sheriff department recommended either a break-action or pump shotgun for a home defense long gun, or a handgun if I was interested in concealed carry or might be interested in the future. After talking to a number of friends in real life who are long time gun owners, and trying out various guns, I decided on a .38 because I can control it, and several people whose opinions I value recommended a revolver over semi-auto for a first time gun owner. Wow, I did some research instead of just rushing out and going "hurr, hurr, gimme what everyone else thinks is sexy"
I have zero desire to assemble an arsenal, and if I was in a position to move somewhere I didn't feel a need to arm myself I'd do that instead.
Limiting magazines and things like bump stocks isn't about preventing suicides or LEO fatalities, it's about mitigating the threat of mass death. It slows down the shooting, forces pauses to reload. But I guess your right to own a big fucking clip overrides the rights of others to go to school, church, concerts, or other places and survive to get home at night?
Got it, purely emotional response to black swan events. Not actual gun deaths.
We seem to be having an inordinate number of black swans in this country. Stop trying to divert to conversation to suicides or accidents at gun ranges or whatever - this thread started because of a mass shooting. Stopping firearm suicides or those other deaths is a different category.
And, by the way, you might want to consider that the people dead in the "black swan" mass shooting are actually fucking dead.
They are "actual gun deaths". Just as much gun deaths as suicides, accidents, jealous lovers, or bad cops.
You want to know the difference between suicide by gun and death by mass shooter? The mass shootings are what scare the shit out of the anti-gun folks, those are the ones that are going to get guns banned. The anti-gun crowd can tell themselves they can protect themselves from committing suicide with a gun by... not using a gun to commit suicide. Or just not killing themselves. They feel they can control that. Someone else
shooting them? They don't control that. That's why it scares them.
I wonder what your feeling is on alcohol being available to everyone at 21?
Hell, I remember when the drinking age was 18.
Maybe we ought to ban that because you're more likely to get killed by a drunk driver on the way home from going somewhere than getting shot. Right?
My feeling about alcohol is simple - you can enjoy it as long as you don't endanger anyone else.
My feeling about guns is similar - you can enjoy your hobby as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else, and also use it in genuine self defense. The problem is that in the US we have a problem with "doesn't endanger anyone else". We've made significant inroad into drunk driving and drunk driving deaths. You might want to consider ways to do the same for gun deaths as well.
Actually, my landlord was attacked a couple years ago by two people at a gas station - he never drew his .45, he subdued one with a piece of pipe after which the other ran off. Guns are not the only solution.
Great, fantastic. Glad it worked for him. It doesn't for everyone.
No, it doesn't. Guns aren't a guaranteed win, either. There are no guarantees.
Home intruders? I'm not aware of the need to empty a gun into one intruder before moving on to the second.
I like that you're acting like you're Annie Oakley or some shit who'll drop individuals with one shot when you don't even own a firearm yet.
No, I don't have any illusions my aim is that good. It's a last-ditch move. I would much prefer to run away.
However, I have been in some extremely high-stress situations. I know that retain the ability to act even when frightened. In my home, the longest line-of sight is about 10 meters, and usually more like 1 or 2 - you don't need great aim to hit someone that close.
I also know that there's a possibility that someone will sneak into my home and manage to slit my throat or put a bullet in my head before I can wake up. If a bunch of gang-bangers decide to have a firefight on my street I might get shot by a stray bullet going through a wall or two of my home before I even know there's a problem out there. I know that own a gun, or a bunch of guns, does not guarantee my safety. Nothing
is going to guarantee I'm going to wake up tomorrow. Owning or not owning a gun alters the odds a bit, but it's not decisive, any more than locking your door, or lighting your property, or sleeping with a phone next to the bed so you can call for help is going to guarantee anything.
Most people don't know how successful they will be shooting under high stress situations. They certainly don't know if they'll be able to drop one person with fewer rounds. There are people who have broke into a house, taken 5 .357mag rounds, and escaped only to be picked up later at the hospital. The "6 rounds is all you need" thing is a myth that fudds perpetuate.
If I can't drop and/or scare off an intruder with 5 or 6 shots I'm probably fucked because I have no illusions that I'm some sort action hero. I'm going with .38 because that's what I can control
. For damn sure a gun isn't going to do me any good if the damn bullets are going every which way. I've fired .22s, .38s, .45s, and 9mm. I'm a hell of a lot more accurate with the smaller calibers.
If I'm dealing with someone who can take 5 rounds of .38 or larger I'm just out and out fucked, it's that simple. Owning more guns or a bigger gun isn't going to save my ass in that situation. Which is why I've got solid locks on solid doors, sleep with a phone next to the bed, and have given some thought as to escape routes of this place. My odds are better if I can flee - but you can't always do that.
And no one knows how they'll fare under high stress until they are actually under high stress.
Allll the way back in 2000 when I was at A&M, I had a fish buddy whose family owned a large piece of land in the Valley and operated it as a ranch
Skippy for him. I live in an apartment in a city.