The Wall Street Journal: Gun owners are setting themselves up for gun control.

[zsdersw]

Asked and answered. The NRA isn't stupid; they realize some laws are going to be passed.

The point of this exercise is to make sure the gun control crowd expends the maximum amount of time/money/energy passing legislation.

In the end, it's all a numbers game. Assuming the gun control crowd has 100 units of time/money/energy to expend, if they expend 50 units of energy per new law, that's 2 new laws enacted. Now if the NRA and law-abiding gun owners decided to bend over and give the gun control crowd some freebies, the average amount of energy needed to be spent per law would drop, and more laws would be passed. Time/money/energy is a finite resource.

We know what the ultimate goal of all gun control advocates is: disarmament. It's the only logical progression using their flawed logic. You can make them fight for it, or you can bend over and take it like New Yorkers just did (30-->10-->7-->?).

This is precisely the kind of idiocy I had hoped to avoid. You're no better than the gun control zealots you criticize.

 

[jpeyton]

This is precisely the kind of idiocy I had hoped to avoid. You're no better than the gun control zealots you criticize.

It's not idiocy, it's politics. We're not having a discussion on how to restructure 200 years worth of established political process in our country (as flawed as it may be).

You want results, play by their rules.

 

[zsdersw]

It's not idiocy, it's politics. We're not having a discussion on how to restructure 200 years worth of established political process in our country (as flawed as it may be).

You want results, play by their rules.

No, what you're talking about is solidly idiocy. I asked what should be done, if anything, within existing laws. You provided me with a tinfoil-hat diatribe about the inevitability of more laws and how our only hope is to stem the tide as much as possible. That's not a solution, it is firmly a part of the problem.

 

[Tom]

No, what you're talking about is solidly idiocy. I asked what should be done, if anything, within existing laws. You provided me with a tinfoil-hat diatribe about the inevitability of more laws and how our only hope is to stem the tide as much as possible. That's not a solution, it is firmly a part of the problem.

I know its hard to believe but there are people who care more about 30 round magazines than they do about the death of children.

Or to be more accurate, they are living in a movie, where the way to save children is to have somebody with a gun kill the bad guy before he kills the children.

That lady in CT, she was living in a movie where she needed lots of guns because the world was crumbling ands somebody, not sure who, was coming after her comfortable life and she needed an ar-15 to protect herself. This movie is one we can watch parts of, produced by the NRA.

As it turned out, her son lived in a different movie where we don't know what was happening, but maybe he was hurting and his Mom and that school were the things that caused him to hurt, so he had to get rid of them.

Anyway, if a person thinks the answer to a problem is to kill someone then obviously they don't want any restrictions on the means to do that.

 

[zsdersw]

I know its hard to believe but there are people who care more about 30 round magazines than they do about the death of children.

Or to be more accurate, they are living in a movie, where the way to save children is to have somebody with a gun kill the bad guy before he kills the children.

That lady in CT, she was living in a movie where she needed lots of guns because the world was crumbling ands somebody, not sure who, was coming after her comfortable life and she needed an ar-15 to protect herself. This movie is one we can watch parts of, produced by the NRA.

As it turned out, her son lived in a different movie where we don't know what was happening, but maybe he was hurting and his Mom and that school were the things that caused him to hurt, so he had to get rid of them.

Anyway, if a person thinks the answer to a problem is to kill someone then obviously they don't want any restrictions on the means to do that.

All of the silly bans and bullshit your "side" is advocating are just as stupid.

If a person thinks the answer to a problem is to kill someone no restriction or number of restrictions is going to be enough to stop them.

 

[Tom]

All of the silly bans and bullshit your "side" is advocating are just as stupid.

If a person thinks the answer to a problem is to kill someone no restriction or number of restrictions is going to be enough to stop them.

I'm not in favor of bans either. I am in favor of regulation and restrictions, and accountability, but not bans.

I'm less concerned with that than I am with our culture stop feeding the idea that death is the answer and telling middle aged women they are safer with an ar15 than they are without one.

I haven't thought this next thing through but it occurs to me as a culture we should treat owning guns more like smoking and less like having a fire extinguisher.

Like its more likely if you smoke you'll die younger, and if you have a gun around you're more likely to die a violent death than if you don't. But smoking and owning a gun ought to be legal.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I'm not in favor of bans either. I am in favor of regulation and restrictions, and accountability, but not bans.

I'm less concerned with that than I am with our culture stop feeding the idea that death is the answer and telling middle aged women they are safer with an ar15 than they are without one.

Are you sure they aren't safer with one? The AR-15 platform is a really good choice for a home defense weapon since it is easy to handle, hold sufficient ammo, and with the proper ammo has a reduced risk of over penetration compared to many popular handguns.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I know its hard to believe but there are people who care more about 30 round magazines than they do about the death of children.

Or to be more accurate, they are living in a movie, where the way to save children is to have somebody with a gun kill the bad guy before he kills the children.

That lady in CT, she was living in a movie where she needed lots of guns because the world was crumbling ands somebody, not sure who, was coming after her comfortable life and she needed an ar-15 to protect herself. This movie is one we can watch parts of, produced by the NRA.

As it turned out, her son lived in a different movie where we don't know what was happening, but maybe he was hurting and his Mom and that school were the things that caused him to hurt, so he had to get rid of them.

Anyway, if a person thinks the answer to a problem is to kill someone then obviously they don't want any restrictions on the means to do that.

actually, what people care about are rights guaranteed (not granted) by the constitution. just because many other people choose not to exercise that right doesn't mean i shouldn't be able to do so.

i'm not going to be in court any time soon. why do i need the 5th amendment? i have nothing to hide from the police. why do i need the 4th amendment? i'm not going to incite a riot, why do i need the 1st amendment?

about 18,000 people per year commit suicides with firearms. why are we not looking into better mental health services and encouraging people to take advantage of them?

8000 people are killed every year by handguns (homicide vs suicide). so why are we trying to ban "assault weapons" when they account a small fraction of yearly firearm deaths?

why aren't we trying to keep children safe by promoting safe handling of firearms to prevent accidental deaths, which (probably) kill more children per year than mass shootings?

why aren't we ensuring that the background check system is supposed to work as it should? IIRC thousands of discrepancies are never investigated every year simply because ATF does not have the resources.

oddly enough, in the case of the Sandy Hook guy, he actually was denied the sale of a firearm based on his background check. so in that instance, the system worked. he then proceeded to murder his mother and steal her weapon. no AWB or background check could have avoided that.

and hypothetically....let's supposed the AWB passes. 10 round magazine limits. no "assault weapons." how is any of this going to stop the next mass shooting? it won't. because you can just as easily buy 2-3 pistols for the same price as a rifle, pre-load 10 magazines, and then go on a shooting rampage.

and there is literally nothing this legislation can do to stop it.

these pieces of legislation are motivated by fear and emotion, and virtually zero logic. THAT is why people who support gun rights are so vehemently opposed to it. none of the proposed actions are "reasonable" because they won't actually do any good.

 

[Tom]

actually, what people care about are rights guaranteed (not granted) by the constitution. just because many other people choose not to exercise that right doesn't mean i shouldn't be able to do so.

i'm not going to be in court any time soon. why do i need the 5th amendment? i have nothing to hide from the police. why do i need the 4th amendment? i'm not going to incite a riot, why do i need the 1st amendment?

about 18,000 people per year commit suicides with firearms. why are we not looking into better mental health services and encouraging people to take advantage of them?

8000 people are killed every year by handguns (homicide vs suicide). so why are we trying to ban "assault weapons" when they account a small fraction of yearly firearm deaths?

why aren't we trying to keep children safe by promoting safe handling of firearms to prevent accidental deaths, which (probably) kill more children per year than mass shootings?

why aren't we ensuring that the background check system is supposed to work as it should? IIRC thousands of discrepancies are never investigated every year simply because ATF does not have the resources.

oddly enough, in the case of the Sandy Hook guy, he actually was denied the sale of a firearm based on his background check. so in that instance, the system worked. he then proceeded to murder his mother and steal her weapon. no AWB or background check could have avoided that.

and hypothetically....let's supposed the AWB passes. 10 round magazine limits. no "assault weapons." how is any of this going to stop the next mass shooting? it won't. because you can just as easily buy 2-3 pistols for the same price as a rifle, pre-load 10 magazines, and then go on a shooting rampage.

and there is literally nothing this legislation can do to stop it.

these pieces of legislation are motivated by fear and emotion, and virtually zero logic. THAT is why people who support gun rights are so vehemently opposed to it. none of the proposed actions are "reasonable" because they won't actually do any good.

I agree with just about everything you said.

So where's the responsible gun owner's legislation alternative ?

 

[jpeyton]

these pieces of legislation are motivated by fear and emotion, and virtually zero logic. THAT is why people who support gun rights are so vehemently opposed to it. none of the proposed actions are "reasonable" because they won't actually do any good.

Exactly, too many people in this thread are operating under the assumption that "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE".

We don't need to do a single thing that relates directly to firearms. We should explore options that deal with a range of other issues, from the nonavailability of mental health care to our culture of violence (especially exposure to younger children), and the quality of our parenting. These don't directly relate to firearms, and would have a wider positive impact if we addressed them.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I agree with just about everything you said.

So where's the responsible gun owner's legislation alternative ?

ask the 535 idiots in congress.

 

[jpeyton]

So where's the responsible gun owner's legislation alternative ?

Alternative to what, the status quo?

The status quo has provided us with a 50% reduction in firearms related homicides over the past 20 years.

The status quo is fine. I look forward to the next 50% reduction as we move forward with our existing laws.

 

[OverVolt]

All of the silly bans and bullshit your "side" is advocating are just as stupid.

If a person thinks the answer to a problem is to kill someone no restriction or number of restrictions is going to be enough to stop them.

Whats on the table right now is a ban though. 100~some guns are outright banned by name. The NY example is valid. They went from 30 to 10 and are now pushing or already have a limit at 7. When will it stop? Total disarmament? Most of our rights are under attack in the name of perceived security, especially the 2nd amendment.

If people were being rational (which they are not) then I am 100% supportive of better background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and giving law enforcement better tools to stop straw purchases. Those are all reasonable solutions, and honestly should have been stopped a long time ago.

I wouldn't even be here arguing if that is what the bill said, because thats fine. The bill however is total knee-jerk stupidity. The people who want more gun control, I'm not sure why they are so adamant about defending it because they are getting more than they could ever want, and then some.

From the "preventing another tragedy" perspective, the best approach I feel is in better care for the mentally ill, especially in the male 20-30 in a single mom family demographic, which seems to be the key problem. Since Adam Lanza was in a divorced family age 20-30, as was that other Joker guy, and I think the last few mass murders have all been 20-30 year old sons in a single mom family or separated family etc. I think it could be targeted rather effectively if they have mental health problems, get them some therapy and treatment.

 

[OverVolt]

I agree with just about everything you said.

So where's the responsible gun owner's legislation alternative ?

Gun control didn't work in the past why would it work now :awe:

And why aren't the stricter laws working in Detroit, Chicago, and DC?

Anyway, not much can be done to prevent tragedies. There is no perfect mix of laws that will result in a society having zero mass murders.

Like I said, I'm okay with better background checks, better laws to prevent straw purchases, closing the gun show loophole, maybe a mandatory class on gun storage, those would all be effective, and prevent a number of tragedies from ever occurring.

Stuff like magazine capacity, "assault weapon" bans, or banning certain pistols by name (aren't the manufacturers just going to make a new but slightly different model and rename it?) are a super infringement on the 2nd amendment with the ultimate goal of disarmament since the liberals apparently don't know when to stop even after they keep failing to make effective laws the first time and the second time and the third time. They take failure as an indication to just double down on even stricter laws and try harder at being wrong.

Anyway, magazine capacity and whatnot, won't make much of a difference. Someone hell bent on murder-suicide is just going to have to buy more magazines. I'm not sure where the logic is that it would somehow reduce the fatalities. People like to say "assault weapons are meant to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible." or something like that. It's a total misrepresentation because ALL guns are dangerous. You could just say "A shotgun is meant to do as much damage as possible with as little effort as possible" or something. It doesn't matter. All guns are dangerous.

So the gun control guys have to make up their minds. Do they actually want to prevent tragedies, better background checks, help for the mentally ill in key demographics, that type of thing. Or do they just want to get rid of the 2nd amendment? Which is a totally different argument.

 

[zsdersw]

.

.

FINALLY, you're saying what you are for... instead of merely what you're against.

I'll have to mark it on the calendar, as that doesn't happen much in P&N in general or within gun threads specifically.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm not much of a P&N guy I mostly got dragged into here kicking and screaming only to find compared to everyone else I wasn't kicking and screaming loud enough

The whole liberals vs conservatives thing gets old in here. The liberals ARE legitimately annoying to me after awhile. Before it didn't bother me. On most issues I lean liberal, except gun control and the economy. Also the whole erosion of liberties trend is becoming more obvious.

 

[blankslate]

i'm not going to be in court any time soon. why do i need the 5th amendment? i have nothing to hide from the police. why do i need the 4th amendment? i'm not going to incite a riot, why do i need the 1st amendment?

By this logic you should not be against closing any loopholes in gun checks that will reduce the chances criminals and mentally ill people obtain firearms *even* if it is not their primary avenue for access...

After all as a law abiding citizen closing the loopholes would not prevent you from buying the firearms you want (unless you desire really exotic examples), although you may be inconvenienced by waiting longer.

about 18,000 people per year commit suicides with firearms. why are we not looking into better mental health services and encouraging people to take advantage of them?

Closing the loopholes would help with this. However, a big source of firearms for criminals apparently are Federal Firearms Licensees who violate the rules and knowingly sell firearms to people without the prerequisite background check.

Crack down on enough of these people and people who shouldn't have firearms will try other avenues to obtain them. Yes stolen handguns are an issue but criminals are probably more likely to obtain them from another avenue than theft.

Additionally if black market dealers are reduced there might be an increase in criminals obtaining firearms from gun shows in certain states where background checks aren't strictly enforced at such events.

Enforce the laws that regulate access. Especially straw purchasers. AZ. in particular was very lax in enforcing regulations regarding those type of purchasers. Perhaps so lax that the laws may just have not existed in some cases.

about 18,000 people per year commit suicides with firearms. why are we not looking into better mental health services and encouraging people to take advantage of them?

Oddly enough a laissez faire attitude toward firearms and an opposition to health care reform tends to be a common position of conservatives (not always but often enough).

In other words people who typically support gun advocacy would also be typically against changes to health care accessibility that would increase the general populaces access to mental health services. Generally speaking.

However, once they realize that doing so can or might lessen the instances of mass murders to some degree, they might accept the necessity of increasing access to such services.

Especially since it's the horrific nature of mass shootings that tends to incite the general public about firearms than other types of murders.

The question is are you bringing it up as a talking point or would you actually be more likely to support measures to make access to those services more easily available to those who need them?

why aren't we trying to keep children safe by promoting safe handling of firearms to prevent accidental deaths, which (probably) kill more children per year than mass shootings?

This is something that should be under the purview of responsible parents. If a parent has both children and firearms then they should teach their children the proper safety rules.

What about other children whose parents don't own firearms? well, schools can teach children about guns without having to teach a full gun course. They would just have to teach the students to act as if every firearm they come across that is left laying out or lost by an irresponsible person as if it is loaded and that the proper course of action is to notify an adult of the weapon.

oddly enough, in the case of the Sandy Hook guy, he actually was denied the sale of a firearm based on his background check. so in that instance, the system worked. he then proceeded to murder his mother and steal her weapon. no AWB or background check could have avoided that.

and hypothetically....let's supposed the AWB passes. 10 round magazine limits. no "assault weapons." how is any of this going to stop the next mass shooting? it won't. because you can just as easily buy 2-3 pistols for the same price as a rifle, pre-load 10 magazines, and then go on a shooting rampage.

and there is literally nothing this legislation can do to stop it.

this is were we differ the most. In the eventual next mass murder I want the perpetrator to be limited in the amount of rounds they can fire before reloading or switching to the next loaded weapon. Sure with practice reloading a magazine fed weapon is quick, however they would still have to do so more often than if they possess larger capacity magazines.

When they are forced to reload or switch to another weapon they are opening up small windows of opportunity. Yeah it might not make a difference at all but by the same token a small window where the person is not firing might allow for all the difference in the world.

Perhaps the shooter may not have practiced enough reloading his magazines that he experiences an operator induced failure. Even if that doesn't happen and it comes down to the extremely unlikely instance of the shooter stopping himself, after a moment of clarity and sanity, while reloading... then lower capacity magazines requiring more reloads is worthwhile.

In my opinion increasing the small chance of that is worth the inconvenience of only be able to purchase 10 or 15 round magazines for pistols or 20 or 30 round magazines for rifles.

However, I would be for increasing the access and efficacy of mental health services, cracking down on black market dealers, and implementing better methods of performing background checks before another AWB if only to lessen the likelihood of networks letting Wayne Lapierre spew his dreck on the air.

 

[jpeyton]

In the eventual next self-defense situation, I want the law-abiding gun owner to be limited in the amount of rounds they can fire before reloading or switching to the next loaded weapon. Sure with practice reloading a magazine fed weapon is quick, however they would still have to do so more often than if they possess larger capacity magazines.

I fixed it for you, because this is the only statement you can make with certainty.

With a few hundred million standard capacity magazines in circulation, I can tell you this:

The person obeying the capacity limit: law-abiding gun owners
The person defying the capacity limit: criminals

I think people really have no idea how many 30 round magazines are out there. Hundreds and hundreds of millions; made of steel, aluminum, or plastic. With minor care they will easily last generations.

Capacity bans are a joke.

 

[OverVolt]

I fixed it for you, because this is the only statement you can make with certainty.

With a few hundred million standard capacity magazines in circulation, I can tell you who this:

The person obeying the capacity limit: law-abiding gun owners
The person defying the capacity limit: criminals

I think people really have no idea how many 30 round magazines are out there. Hundreds and hundreds of millions; made of steel, aluminum, or plastic. With minor care they will easily last generations.

Capacity bans are a joke.

Yup.

I don't even have 30 round mags. Maryland already has a cap at 20. The whole thing is just dumb though. The only people with big magazines ARE the criminals.

Plus they just never stop. 10 isn't restrictive enough so they make it 7. So dumb. Its not like if someone is shooting at you to begin with it'll save your life if they have 3 less bullets, you are getting shot at after all.

 

[blankslate]

I fixed it for you, because this is the only statement you can make with certainty.

That's BS. And you know it. The other statements in my post (#117) also have some degree of certainty.

Regarding the average (not all however) conservatives' attitude toward health care reform and 2A it is fairly accurate.

As for criminals obtaining guns from theft compared to other methods?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/how-criminals-get-their-guns/60300/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html



Theft is not the only avenue.


Is it not true that 2nd Amendment advocates tend to be conservative? Is it not true that conservatives mostly opposed the ACA? Of course it is... yet only recently have some started talking about mental health access.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/maga...a-sideshow-to-the-gun-control-debate-20130124

Anyway like I said

I would be for increasing the access and efficacy of mental health services, cracking down on black market dealers, and implementing better methods of performing background checks before another AWB if only to lessen the likelihood of networks letting Wayne Lapierre spew his dreck on the air.