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

[NoStateofMind]

It's called politics. It governs our lives far more than reason. You can play the game well or get fucked by the game. The latter may enable you to emotionally masturbate and crow moral superiority, but at the end of the day you're still fucked. I'd rather take the former.

So public perception is more important to you than your own values?

Saying "its just politics" emboldens the reason why we should not budge IMO. How many times do we bend over to placate some politicians agenda under the guise of security? Don't you think at some point a stand must be made?

For me to give up what I feel is right only to be perceived by the public as an upstanding citizen then I have given up the ability to be a true american patriot. Obviously this is only my opinion and I realize some have no issue with it.

 

[michal1980]

I've been saying this here and elsewhere for months.

The usual response from the far-right gun-owning fringe is always WE MUST OPPOSE EVERYTHING AT ALL COSTS NO MATTER WHAT.

And the average American is increasingly deciding that they simply don't give a shit about what the extremists want. They have marginalized themselves, and they will be marginalized.

The extremists on the right -- including the frothing moron who runs the NRA -- are nearly as much of a threat to responsible gun owners as the extremists on the left.

Wrong.

We have tens of thousand's of gun control laws. Will one more fix anything? That's why most/all of these new should be opposed.

The extremists are the far left gun fearing nutters. That everything something bad happens scream 'OMG must ban guns"

Theres no need for more gun laws.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The article is about gun owners taking more responsibility for themselves. Not new laws.

In what way? What would satisfy the public in this regard?

The point is that the lack of self-regulation by gun owners is part of both why there are so many unnecessary deaths and why people who are not gun owners respond with calls for more gun laws.

As with the above what kind of self regulation should there be?

I ask these questions because to me its a red herring. There will always be someone who does not train, does not inform or is absolutely batshit crazy. So there will always be a forum for further ostracizing gun owners IMO.

 

[michal1980]

The article is about gun owners taking more responsibility for themselves. Not new laws.

The point is that the lack of self-regulation by gun owners is part of both why there are so many unnecessary deaths and why people who are not gun owners respond with calls for more gun laws.

Its fear mongering by the left. plan and simple.

Chicago has the harshest gun laws in the country.

And yet they have a gun problem. Liberal stupid mentality says 'add more gun laws"

How can you deal with people like you, that are so stuck on stupid.

P.S. love you having your buddies send me warnings. Just like the left to use thug tactics to try to silence those they disagree with.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In what way? What would satisfy the public in this regard?

Did you even read the article? Many of the issues are covered.

First and foremost, people want gun owners to secure their firearms. They are tired of children picking up loaded weapons and blowing their (or others') heads off.

I ask these questions because to me its a red herring. There will always be someone who does not train, does not inform or is absolutely batshit crazy. So there will always be a forum for further ostracizing gun owners IMO.

The problem is that it's not just "someone". It's a lot of someones.

And yet they have a gun problem. Liberal stupid mentality says 'add more gun laws"

How can you deal with people like you, that are so stuck on stupid.

Let's see. I post saying: "The article is about gun owners taking more responsibility for themselves. Not new laws."

You respond talking about gun bans in Chicago.

Which of us is "stuck on stupid" again?

P.S. love you having your buddies send me warnings. Just like the left to use thug tactics to try to silence those they disagree with.

I have never told anyone to send you or anyone else a warning.

You know, this sort of stuff is against the rules here. I've ignored all of the snarky comments directed at me about the new forum and my title over the last three days, but if I see one more false accusation of this sort, I *will* report it.

 

[OverVolt]

I've been saying this here and elsewhere for months.

The usual response from the far-right gun-owning fringe is always WE MUST OPPOSE EVERYTHING AT ALL COSTS NO MATTER WHAT.

And the average American is increasingly deciding that they simply don't give a shit about what the extremists want. They have marginalized themselves, and they will be marginalized.

The extremists on the right -- including the frothing moron who runs the NRA -- are nearly as much of a threat to responsible gun owners as the extremists on the left.

Haha if you live on the east coast or a big city you might be tricked into thinking there aren't that many gun owners, but in most rural areas the ownership rate is much much higher.

The "WE MUST OPPOSE EVERYTHING AT ALL COSTS NO MATTER WHAT" came about from the liberals never ending regulations. If they make the magazine size 15 they won't be happy and make it 10. They won't be happy with 10 and make it 7. So on and so on until they completely butcher the 2nd amendment.

NY banned large sodas now they want to ban styrefoam. The bullshit never stops with liberals.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Did you even read the article? Many of the issues are covered.

First and foremost, people want gun owners to secure their firearms. They are tired of children picking up loaded weapons and blowing their (or others') heads off.



The problem is that it's not just "someone". It's a lot of someones.

Admittedly I didn't at first so I went to read it to better understand the argument. Now that I have read it, it doesn't change what I've stated previously. The article seems to imply that gun owners do not think people can be careless with their guns, but I can assure you there are plenty who do. The problem here is that its personal responsibility and not everyone holds the same values. Guns are meant to kill and a careless parent who fails to educate their children about the dangers of it has no one to blame but themselves. Do you think the gun owners are applauding the parent? Hardly!

Mr. Baum makes a stupid claim (or implies) that people don't report stolen guns. I would like to see the data on that because its pure speculation otherwise. I know if someone breaks into my home its reported the moment I notice. Not to mention he seems to think his mini safe "the size of a toaster" is not easily stolen if his home is broken into. This is a pathetic attempt at proving his point and outright dismissed the problem with stolen weapons isn't that the gun owner failed to lock it up its the burglary itself.

"your buddies sending me warnings" wasn't a statement I made. Please edit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

"your buddies sending me warnings" wasn't a statement I made. Please edit.

Fixed. I apologize! Copied the wrong "quote" block.

 

[OverVolt]

WSJ pushes for more gun control by the way. End of story.

They were just trying to write a persuasive argument type article by starting out to support gun owners and then one by one counter argue all the anti-gun control arguments.

 

[monovillage]

WSJ pushes for more gun control by the way. End of story.

They were just trying to write a persuasive argument type article by starting out to support gun owners and then one by one counter argue all the anti-gun control arguments.

Dan Baum and the WSJ sending a warning to gun owners to straighten up and fly right and support additional gun control measures. Gun owners and those that support gun rights have reasonable voices to listen to, they're the SAF and the NRA.

Dan Baum is a former staff writer for The New Yorker, and has written for numerous other magazines and newspapers including the New York Times Magazine, Playboy, Rolling Stone, Harper's, and Wired. He is the author of NINE LIVES: Mystery, Magic, Death and Life in New Orleans (Spiegel & Grau, 2009) and is currently at work on a book about American gun culture, forthcoming from Knopf. He lives in Boulder, Colorado.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Dan Baum and the WSJ sending a warning to gun owners to straighten up and fly right and support additional gun control measures. Gun owners and those that support gun rights have reasonable voices to listen to, they're the SAF and the NRA.

That's another part of the article I find disingenuous. The claim that since only 4% of gun owners are NRA members proves that the NRA doesn't speak for all gun owners. I am not a member of the NRA and yet I am right alongside them when it comes to gun control. I haven't contributed or joined to this organization but I am thankful there is some sort of lobby for the second amendment. Maybe I should join and contribute just to shut dipshits like Mr. Baum up.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have yet to see evidence that gun control, of any form, would curb or stop violence. When the vice president admits that it won't work and the Department of Homeland Security didn't have a problem with "assault rifles" being used as "personal defense weapons" it becomes clear to me there is more of an agenda at hand than an actual concern for human life. This is why I won't budge and if people think that makes me or others like me stubborn so be it. The Executive branch isn't being upfront and honest as referenced above and the very government that says assault weapons are not needed for self defense didn't have a problem labeling them as such until this administration starting making a stink about it.

What you see you see because it is what you believe. You don't know how to see in any other way and thus you do not see what other people see and are telling you here that they see because you are driven by unconscious motivation.

For example, you frame the issue in black and white, you see no evidence if any useful gun control because gun control can't stop violence. Every idiot on the planet knows that but it is not the issue. Gun control laws are passed in the hope of reducing intended effects by making them illegal and punishable, say along the lines of providing incentive for law abiding people to do a better job of keeping loaded weapons out of the hands of kids. Will it stop kids killing with guns? No, but it may and probably will help because one of the issues about gun violence is that guns are made with a capacity to do great harm and the fewer kids that get hold of one the fewer accidents there will be.

So what you see instead of what others see as something along the line of common sense, you see an agenda, a projection of your paranoid inner state onto others, that they are as unreasonable and fanatical as you are and that they will take away your only means of survival, the gun fantasy you have built around yourself as protection, your guns and gun religion.

In this way, by the reaction of normal people to your madness, you create what you fear, an enormous hostility to your religion, a rabid group of atheists that want to stamp it out every bit as fanatical as you are to keep it.

For this reason you should listen to those who are on the side of your religion minus the mental illness who can explain it rationally to folk who are agnostic in a way that makes sense to them, people say, who really do care about needless gun deaths of children by trying to make their guardians more aware of the nature of the knows issues caused by a gun children mix.

 

[michal1980]

Let's see. I post saying: "The article is about gun owners taking more responsibility for themselves. Not new laws."

You respond talking about gun bans in Chicago.

Which of us is "stuck on stupid" again?

you.

You agree that there needs to be more gun control.

Or are you changing your position now?

 

[NoStateofMind]

you.

You agree that there needs to be more gun control.

Or are you changing your position now?

Well I think the distinction he's trying to imply is that the regulation should come from the gun owners themselves and not government. My opinion on that has already been stated above but I thought I would help clarify.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well I think the distinction he's trying to imply is that the regulation should come from the gun owners themselves and not government. My opinion on that has already been stated above but I thought I would help clarify.

In a way he's right, some of gun control should come from gun owners. Securing guns and ensuring they can't fall into the hands of children or thieves is a start.

 

[monovillage]

In a way he's right, some of gun control should come from gun owners. Securing guns and ensuring they can't fall into the hands of children or thieves is a start.

How can a gun owner ensure his/her guns won't fall into the hands of thieves? If they can pry open a door or cut open a safe how can any reasonable person think it can be prevented?

 

[NoStateofMind]

How can a gun owner ensure his/her guns won't fall into the hands of thieves? If they can pry open a door or cut open a safe how can any reasonable person think it can be prevented?

It can't which was the point I attempted to make above.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How can a gun owner ensure his/her guns won't fall into the hands of thieves? If they can pry open a door or cut open a safe how can any reasonable person think it can be prevented?

If this is the case then the only way to ensure the guns won't get into the wrong hands is to destroy all of them.

I can guarantee only a well prepared locksmith can crack my safe.

 

[monovillage]

If this is the case then the only way to ensure the guns won't get into the wrong hands is to destroy all of them.

I can guarantee only a well prepared locksmith can crack my safe.

How much did it cost you ? Do you want to force that cost on to everyone else?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How much did it cost you ? Do you want to force that cost on to everyone else?

I paid $1.200 for it 25 years ago in an auction. Even though my guns are in the safe they all have trigger locks and the ammunition is locked in a separate section of the safe.

Keeping guns in a locked/secure place (gun case/closet) with trigger locks will deter most would be thieves but of course that's far too much to ask of the average gun owner.

 

[Moonbeam]

What do condoms, the logic of gun fanatics, and gun safes have in common? Of course, so which has the highest probability of failure that would make the other two sound like a good bet?

 

[monovillage]

I paid $1.200 for it 25 years ago in an auction. Even though my guns are in the safe they all have trigger locks and the ammunition is locked in a separate section of the safe.

Keeping guns in a locked/secure place (gun case/closet) with trigger locks will deter most would be thieves but of course that's far too much to ask of the average gun owner.

So it's worth about $5,000 now? Maybe $10,000? $15,000? Any thief that breaks into a house will have an easy time cutting any trigger lock or cable lock or gun cabinet or locked file cabinet or cheaper gun safe, an easy time. So unless you're proposing an extremely expensive solution to thieves getting firearms I don't see what effect it would have.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I paid $1.200 for it 25 years ago in an auction. Even though my guns are in the safe they all have trigger locks and the ammunition is locked in a separate section of the safe.

Keeping guns in a locked/secure place (gun case/closet) with trigger locks will deter most would be thieves but of course that's far too much to ask of the average gun owner.

If my home is broken into during one of these robberies we would have to unlock a case, grab keys and unlock a gun in time to stop the assailant. Nevermind the panic that sets in while trying to complete these tasks for my self defense.

Still another red herring as making a law around this or a social order around it still leaves room for failure. Which will result in another law and another and another.

We don't need "common sense gun control" as much as we need "common sense" itself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There's a lot of middle ground between forcing people to install Fort Knox in their houses, and people leaving loaded guns in bedroom side table drawers.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I paid $1.200 for it 25 years ago in an auction. Even though my guns are in the safe they all have trigger locks and the ammunition is locked in a separate section of the safe.

Keeping guns in a locked/secure place (gun case/closet) with trigger locks will deter most would be thieves but of course that's far too much to ask of the average gun owner.

trigger locks can be opened with a bent piece of metal. here's a very interesting, informative, and entertaining analysis of small handgun safes from DEFCON 19:

WARNING: NSFW LANGUAGE
DEFCON19: Safe to Armed in Seconds. A Study of Epic Fails of Popular Gun Safes

frankly, education is your best bet at reducing accidental deaths and reducing the likelihood of a firearm being stolen from the home, aside from laws that mandate safe storage (but we've seen how poorly implemented those are).

why do american drivers suck so bad? our driver education system is shit. people run over their own kids and then the government wants to mandate backup cameras to avoid this tragedy.

no different with guns - you want children to stop shooting themselves? have educated, responsible parents understand what they need to do to protect their children when they are very young, and then teach them how to responsibly handle a firearm and what they should do if they find one when they are old enough. a child who understands and respects a firearm is far safer than one who has absolutely no knowledge of firearms at all.

but this isn't the route we take - we say "ohhhh guns are scary don't touch!" but because children are curious, they do. and since they then dont know how to handle them, they get injured.