Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

What kind of firearm law do you think would drastically reduce these mass shooting?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (15541points) February 22nd, 2018

People are saying sensible, so for this conversation we won’t go into outright banning.
In your opinion what kind of firearm law would work, yet not punish the law abiding firearm owner that just wants to enjoy shooting sports and hunting.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

184 Answers

KNOWITALL's avatar

Armed security in schools, fed subsidies for low income districts.No state should allow minors in posession without an adult present at all times, or to purchase.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sounds sensible.thanks ^^

gorillapaws's avatar

Guns should be limited to weapons that require manual interaction between each shot (bolt-action, manually cocking, etc.). Ammunition should be limited to some reasonable muzzle energy, and things like armor-piercing rounds should be banned. Getting a gun should require a permit, testing, a written and shooting exam, and documentation. All weapons should have their ballistic characteristics logged in the National Integrated Ballistic Identification Network. Getting a gun permit should require a background check, waiting period, and a mental health examination. If your weapon is ever used in a crime, you will be civilly liable for the damages (even if it’s stolen).

thisismyusername's avatar

@gorillapaws: “Getting a gun permit should require a background check, waiting period, and a mental health examination.

How would this work exactly? Who does the mental health examination, and how long is that process? Do you need to see a state-issued therapist for x number of months in order to get clearance? What types of mental health measurements would be used, and would this apply to a single license attempt or would this mean being included in a national “no-buy” list? What would happen if you disagreed with the assessment?

I have too many questions to even list here. Do you think it would be difficult to pass this mental health examination while still being a threat? Couldn’t people learn how to pass such an exam?

@gorillapaws: “If your weapon is ever used in a crime, you will be civilly liable for the damages (even if it’s stolen).”

Not sure how this is just in any way. Can you elaborate? If a hunter has his gun stolen, and that gun is then used to kill a few people, that hunter is then guilty in some sense for those murders?

gorillapaws's avatar

@thisismyusername I’m not a psychologist so I don’t know what’s an appropriate technique for mental health evaluations. Surely they could rule out some disorders like schizophrenia where the subject has problems with delusions and hallucinations. I know there are some form of objective tests that are difficult/impossible to fake (for example they can measure arousal in pedophiles) perhaps such tests could be developed (or have already been developed) to objectively measure someone’s risk for anger/rage issues or desire to harm others.

Maybe it’s a decision made by a panel of mental health professionals, perhaps you can appeal, or get re-evaluated every x years.

“If a hunter has his gun stolen, and that gun is then used to kill a few people, that hunter is then guilty in some sense for those murders?”

Not guilty in a criminal sense but has legal culpability in a civil wrongful death sense. So yes, if your guns get stolen and they’re used to kill someone I love, I should be able to sue the shit out of you. If you want to buy a gun, then you should be responsible for it being secure at all times.This may mean that gun owners have to buy insurance. I’m ok with that.

funkdaddy's avatar

Limit capacity to something like 8 or 10. Make it a little harder to load a new magazine.

I think those two rather small changes would limit the damage a single individual can do without harming anyone’s ability to defend themselves against anything you could reasonably argue you’ll encounter. It wouldn’t affect hunters, or people who shoot for sport.

I understand there’d be tons of existing, larger capacity, things out there. But we have to start somewhere. Eventually things like 30 round magazines should need the type of permitting and registration we have for automatic weapons now.

These aren’t the sweeping changes some people are looking for, but if the goal is truly stopping mass shootings, and getting something done to that end, I think it’s a reasonable middle ground.

thisismyusername's avatar

@gorillapaws: ”’Surely they could rule out some disorders like schizophrenia where the subject has problems with delusions and hallucinations. I know there are some form of objective tests that are difficult/impossible to fake (for example they can measure arousal in pedophiles) perhaps such tests could be developed (or have already been developed) to objectively measure someone’s risk for anger/rage issues or desire to harm others.”

So, it sounds like you are saying that certain types of mental illness (schizophrenia) would preclude you from purchasing a gun. But not depression? Bipolar disorder?

I wonder if you’re not over-simplifying this significantly. Mental health is not something that can be evaluated via an exam. It’s also not something that is static. And there is so much stigma associated with mental illness. To now add the possibility that the government would have access to your mental health status or records or be able to test you in order to put you on a list that limits your rights is not going to find much support. And I don’t think it should. This sounds really problematic.

@gorillapaws: “Not guilty in a criminal sense but has legal culpability in a civil wrongful death sense. So yes, if your guns get stolen and they’re used to kill someone I love, I should be able to sue the shit out of you.”

Wow. Out of curiosity, is this type of thing (which I disagree with immensely) something that is being proposed? Would something like this have support by any significant portion of the electorate?

@gorillapaws: “This may mean that gun owners have to buy insurance. I’m ok with that.”

I couldn’t disagree with this sentiment more. This is punishing the poor via yet another insurance.

gorillapaws's avatar

@thisismyusername As I stated above, I am not a psychologist. I don’t know what mental disorders would make someone too risky for gun ownership. I’m sure other countries that have tight gun rules have figured it out though.

“I couldn’t disagree with this sentiment more. This is punishing the poor via yet another insurance.”

Well gun owners are punishing society to support their “sport,” “hobby” or whatever. This is about taking responsibility. If you want a gun produced and added to the number of weapons in circulation for your amusement, then you’re responsible for it. It looks like there’s over 33k gun deaths in the US every year. What about the fucking cost of that? How many billions of dollars worth of lost wages and lives ruined does that total? Why should non gun nuts be forced to absorb that cost to society?

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

An electric govener that can overrided by the police.

thisismyusername's avatar

@gorillapaws: “It looks like there’s over 33k gun deaths in the US every year. What about the fucking cost of that? How many billions of dollars worth of lost wages and lives ruined does that total? Why should non gun nuts be forced to absorb that cost to society?”

Right. Half of those are homicides. But are you really asking about the “cost to society” in “lost wages”?

If you support gun ownership at all, why choose to harm the poor and mental health in service of this goal? In other words, why not just ban guns completely?

DIsclaimer: I have never – and will never – own a gun. I’m not a hunter. But I have an issue with your proposals, which don’t seem to have any support, will have detrimental effects to health care, target the wallets of the poor, and don’t seem like they would be effective.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@gorillapaws Your idea that a firearm owner if his /her gun is stolen and used in a violent crime the gun owner is partly responsible for.
How about if your vehicle is stolen and hurts someone close to me,are you responsible for that as well??
Magazine capacity is a great start up here semi-auto rifles are only allowed a five shot mag, and handguns are only allowed a 10 shot mag.
You have to pass a test to show you can operate a car why not a firearm as well?

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 We call guns “weapons” for a reason. We don’t call vehicles, toothbrushes, or beer bottles weapons even though they all can be used to hurt someone. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but we have a serious problem in this country of straw purchasing firearms, especially in southern states with weak gun laws, being transported and resold in the northern states. Having gun owners take responsibility for their weapons is a good way to solve this problem, and also encourages gun owners to keep their weapons well-secured.

kritiper's avatar

All persons 18 years of age and older will be trained and proficient with a handgun, be made fully aware of the rules of proper gunplay, and will carry a suitable handgun at all times.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Gorilla We don’t even register guns in Missouri. Unless you want conceal and carry. People pass guns down in families, and people who dont own homes have guns. I have a few, none ever hurt anyone, and I’d pass all your tests. I think you underestimate our way of life. Gun nut is also not appropriate labeling, to us it’s more normal than being vegan or gay. Thats why we don’t trust our rights to liberals.

kritiper's avatar

(For crying out loud! When will conservatives quit saying that liberals want to take our guns away?? What a load!!)

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

I don’t think laws can help much. The problem is cultural. Bans and limits will work in the US about as well as Prohibition.

A huge number of Americans are convinced that they are living in imminent danger from “illegals” and minorities and terrorists.

The NRA and other conservative groups stoke the fear. It’s deliberate. It sells guns and scares people into voting Republican against their real-life interests.

I don’t know how we can solve it.

zenvelo's avatar

In addition to the background checks, and no weapons of war, Presumption of Liability, and Proof of insurance. And permit renewal every two years.

No more than 30 rounds of ammunition outside of a licensed practice range.

All gun shops in the US to close for 30 days after any mass shooting.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “Thats why we don’t trust our rights to liberals.”

Hey, if you want to join the Missouri National Guard’s “well regulated militia” and want to keep and bear your arms in the National Guard’s armory, then I don’t have any problem with your “rights.” The sad thing is that tens of thousands of Americans are killed every year from guns, it’s like a 9/11 attack almost every month. So there is a problem. In 11th grade a classmate of mine went home after school and blew his brains out. I’m sure his parents would have said the same thing about their guns as you believe about yours.

The fact is that a shotgun is more than enough firepower to protect yourself, from 99.9% of home defense scenarios and is probably the best choice due to the spread and the fact that the shot generally won’t penetrate through multiple walls and hit people you don’t intend to. I’ve fired AR’s an AK-47, and a bunch of other guns. Assault rifles are ridiculous. They’re crazy accurate and easy to use. I was putting bullets through the same hole in the center of the bull’s eye.

I’m sorry if you don’t like the term “gun nut” but with so many preventable deaths occurring because of NRA supporters, I think anyone in that group is at least partially nutty.

Aethelwine's avatar

(lurking and supporting @gorillapaws)

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorilla Most of us agree AK’s should be restricted. Trump will not alienate his voters who are pro gun. I’m sorry your friend killed himself, but that wasn’t the guns fault, or the NRA, or the gun seller, or mine. You can’t prevent a mental break in humans, but we can work to find a reasonable solution to wmd’s.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “I’m sorry your friend killed himself, but that wasn’t the guns fault”

This chart says differently

There’s a good chance that if he tried to overdose, or hang himself, that he might have survived.

Do you think my friend’s parents believed their gun kept their family safer than not having it? You’re more likely to be shot and killed by a gun if you own one.

MrGrimm888's avatar

In addition to what some have said, I would like for there to be people who investigate a would be buyers social media. Many of these shooters have manifestos, or other obvious warnings there.

All these new checks, and balances costs, should be added to the tax of the firearm. I’m OK paying twice the price for a gun, if I know it will reduce such mass shootings…

ragingloli's avatar

Only allow single shot muzzle loaders.

cookieman's avatar

(Gun ownership is) more normal than being vegan or gay. Thats why we don’t trust our rights to liberals.

@KNOWITALL: Where I (being from Boston) would say “Being vegan or gay is more normal than owning guns. That’s why we don’t trust our rights to conservatives.”

I know you are being sincere, but this socio-geographic divide is our biggest problem as a country. Sharp idioligical divisions informed by drastically different life experiences.

I’ve known and loved oodles of vegans and gay people my entire life. Outside of law enforcement or military, I’ve never known a single gun owner.

thisismyusername's avatar

So, @SQUEEKY2 asks, “What kind of firearm law do you think would drastically reduce these mass shooting?”

Am I correct in stating that so far, the suggestions have included….

- Developing some kind of mental health examination and/or allowing the government access to a therapist’s records.
– Increasing the cost of gun ownership by requiring every gun owner to purchase insurance that would cover them if their gun were stolen and used in a crime.
– Hacking gun candidates’ social media accounts to search for trouble signs.

Is there anyone here that has any concerns with the above? Despite Trump’s and Ryan’s claims about the connection between mental illness and mass shootings may not be supported by the evidence. Why are we focusing on mental illness here? Do you see any harm in further stigmatizing mental illness?

Increasing the cost and putting that burden on the poor and working class is a regressive tax.

And should we be encouraging the loss of privacy by the social media thing.

got to run…will finish my comment in a bit…..

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Cookieman I agree. I keep trying to talk here to get your pov, and let you hear mine, but no one ever wants to hear it. If the election proved anything, it’s the fact that the left is balled up and unwilling to compromise or even listen to the rest of us. It’s disheartening to be called a gun nut for having a few guns, we are just people. As an analogy, it’s like illegal immigration. The left acts like it’s a given they’ll be allowed to stay, they’re already here after all and no deportation is feasible if we are compassionate. To many of us our guns are our lawful right as legal American citizens, so we are just as upset with these psychopath murderers as everyone else. Just as the left would’t want all illegals tarnished because of the bad actions of a few, it’s the same for responsible gun owners. I really think we can compromise without demonizing entire groups of people different from ourselves.

flutherother's avatar

What in tarnation do you need all these guns for?

gorillapaws's avatar

@thisismyusername I don’t think people who are suffering delusions and hallucinations should have firearms. You can call that stigmatizing, but I also don’t think people who are blind or have epilepsy should be driving.

As far as insurance “Increasing the cost and putting that burden on the poor and working class is a regressive tax.”,

It’s called capturing the cost of a negative externality. It’s analogous to forcing polluters to pay a carbon tax.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Flutherothers Why do trans folks want to use a bathroom that doesn’t match their gender? Personal choice. And it’s our legal right to bear arms.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL…In a well regulated militia… You guys always love to conveniently leave that part out.

thisismyusername's avatar

@gorillapaws: “I don’t think people who are suffering delusions and hallucinations should have firearms. You can call that stigmatizing, but I also don’t think people who are blind or have epilepsy should be driving.”

Yes, it is stigmatizing to make this the focus of your solution to solving mass shootings. The mentally-ill are not the problem. And accepting yet another expansion of the surveillance state in order to accomplish this seems absurd.

Additionally, I believe you might have mentioned re-certifying every 2 years. Do you think this might miss some people? Schizophrenia doesn’t usually occur before late teens or twenties for men. You could be a gun owner your whole life, yet go undiagnosed for years. You might start with some strange thoughts or hallucinations and pass them off. You’re not going to admit to experiencing these for years, until things get out of control. So, at this point, you go get help, which triggers the government to raid your house and take your gun?

Disclaimer: I used to work with adults who suffered from schizophrenia.

@gorillapaws: “As far as insurance “Increasing the cost and putting that burden on the poor and working class is a regressive tax.”,

It’s called capturing the cost of a negative externality. It’s analogous to forcing polluters to pay a carbon tax.

Notice who you are placing that cost on? It’s not gun manufacturers. It’s not the rich. It’s the poor. Of course this is a regressive tax. And the byproduct of such a thing would be to generate a lucrative insurance industry (like health insurance) that would also have a vested interest in maintaining the legal status of guns – because it will be profitable for them.

rojo's avatar

People keep throwing around the term mental illness as the reason du jour for gun violence so in a way the NRA has, once again, deflected blame from the WMD’s in question. Don’t get me wrong I understand and agree that the gun in question is just a tool but it a very effective and deadly tool to be sure and so we should not lose sight of its lethality and be deterred in discussing how to limit its availability..

But using a blanket term “mental illness” does nothing to address the actual problem and only serves to stigmatizes all who suffer from it, the vast majority of whom are not violent. It is like calling ALL undocumented aliens “rapists and murderers”. It is bullshit.

The problem is unresolved anger issues or rather the mechanism that leads to anger. The problem is that we do not teach how to deal with such without resorting to violence, It does not address the issue of why we, as a society, seem to have a greater percentage of anxiety and stress that reaches explosive levels. It does not address the very American method of dealing with problems violently both on an individual and a societal level. Until we learn to come to grips with this, admit we have a problem with it and then both deal with it on both the individual and societal level we will not be successful in eliminating these violent acts. But we seem to ignore the fact that we even have a problem, an addiction if you like, to violence and violent acts. We need to get over the wild west “shoot first and ask questions later” mindset that might have worked in earlier centuries but not with todays civilization.

And this is not to say that we should not take additional steps in the interim to reduce the destructive capabilities of those prone to such actions. We don’t wait until we have worked out all the kinks before we implement a plan. Baby steps, proactive steps leading to a workable solution.

Just my personal opinion but it bothers me that we are willing to militarize our schools rather than make the necessary adjustments to our entire society. It leads me to wonder where we go from here. Once schools are no longer targets and those with violent intent move on to easier ones, do we then militarize them too and then the next and the next and the next until we end up with a heavily armed and heavily armored police presence in every building and on every corner? Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want America to be; a heavily armed police state where we can all own an AR-15 but our actions, our lives, are scripted from cradle to grave and you have to travel from one walled, razor wire enclosed compound to the next in your armored SUV, passing through checkpoints, metal detectors and body scanners while flashing our open carry license in its Kevlar holder?

Where do you draw the line?

When do you say “enough” and start addressing the actual problem of what is the root cause of stress, anxiety and anger that drive people to pick up a gun and take it out on others?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@rojo Looongg but super great answer,thanks.^^

SQUEEKY2's avatar

How about simply a multi tiered personal firearm license per person?
1. you can just purchase rifles(hunting and target) and shotguns.
2.You can purchase hand guns and the guns listed in tier 1.
3.you can purchase assault style rifles and the ones listed in 1,and 2.
Each step requires different tests, back ground checks, and requires safe storage of said firearms,and must be renewed every 5 years to be able to keep and use said firearms, failure to do so can and may result in the surrender of said firearms?
One must always have the license on them when they have a firearm with them for whatever reason, failure to produce the license may and can lead to the surrender of said firearm they have with them at that time.
The license is required for all firearm sales private or retail.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Why are we focusing on mental illness here?

To deflect from the problem and clog the conversation.

Mental health care needs improvement but there is no reason to tie that conversation to guns. The distraction was inserted into the national discussion to divert talk away from guns.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But isn’t it a mental illness issue that brings a person to pick up a gun and use it against anyone?
Regardless if it was anger that first caused it?
We all get really mad from time to time but we are not going to kill another person especially with a gun because we simply got mad for whatever reason.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I will agree with those that don’t like stigmatizing those with a mental illness, with those who commit these mass shootings.

Just the same we LAW abiding firearm owners don’t like being stigmatized as gun nuts simply because we like shooting sports and firearms.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

But isn’t it a mental illness issue that brings a person to pick up a gun and use it against anyone?

Yes, it can be. But that same mental illness issue was evident long before the gun was picked up.

It’s not related to guns. Separate topic. It is a deliberate distraction. Don’t be fooled.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But it’s an illness that could and does turn dangerous and should be recognized so can be treated, and doesn’t turn into a horrific mass shooting.

Any rational person regardless of race,colour or anything else isn’t going to pick up a gun and shoot innocent people, sure anger has a lot to do with it, and should be addressed as well but that anger caused the mental issue that made the person start shooting.
In the end it’s still a mental illness that was the issue.

thisismyusername's avatar

^ @SQUEEKY2 – See my comments and links above. Mass shooting does not = mental illness, and mental illness certainly does not equal mass shooting. @Call_Me_Jay is correct that this is a deflection and an attempt by the right to blame someone else (like is done with immigrants, for example).

Not only does conflating mental illness and mass shootings not solve anything – it causes a host of other issues, including the stigmatization of mental illness and the reduction in mental health services, the expansion of the police/surveillance state, and is unjust (see ACLU).

Including mental health in the discussion – other than to simply support the separate effort of expanding mental health coverage and services – is a distraction and an unjust one. It will cause more harm, and it’s no surprise that the right wants the discussion to go in this direction.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@thisismyusername so it’s the act of a sane rational person?
I did agree I don’t like stigmatizing ALL people with a mental illness problem.
BUT non firearm enthusiasts have no problem stigmatizing firearm enthusiasts as Rambo crazed shoot em up cowboys.

thisismyusername's avatar

@SQUEEKY2: ”@thisismyusername so it’s the act of a sane rational person?”

Could you define “sane rational person”? Is there a diagnosis in the DSM-5 that I should be aware of for the purpose of this discussion that would differentiate a “sane rational person” from others?

Where are you going with this – the same place that @gorillapaws is (state-run boards of officials that force mental health evaluations, etc)?

@SQUEEKY2: “BUT non firearm enthusiasts have no problem stigmatizing firearm enthusiasts as Rambo crazed shoot em up cowboys.”

Not all of us.

Darth_Algar's avatar

1. Reimplement the Assault Weapons Ban. Make it permanent this time.

2. Make all gun laws federal rather the uneven, often contradictory patchwork of local and state laws we currently have.

3. Require a license for any and all firearms ownership. This license should be dependant upon extensive background checks and proven understanding of firearm safety, proper handling, storage and proficiency.

3. Eliminate gun show and private sales loopholes.

4. Crack down on straw purchases.

5. Create a federal firearms registry.

6. Require firearms owners to report any loss or theft of their firearms to law enforcement authorities within 24 hours of the loss or theft.

rojo's avatar

If an assault rifle were not available, someone with serious anger issues would just find another weapon to use. IMO this is true BUT does this justify not removing assault rifles from their list of possible choices?

That seems to be the argument being made by many on the right.

Let’s just face up to the fact that the right is wrong on this issue.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth Registering people like the opioid databases that mean nothing to criminals?

Darth_Algar's avatar

You’re right. Laws mean nothing to criminals, so let’s have no laws, no regulations at all.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Opioid databases?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay The opioid databases register LEGAL opiod users, so basically if they get a script from their primary or pain mgmt doctor, they can’t go to ER’s and get another script. The only thing is seems to have done statistically is penalize the people with legal scripts, like grandma’s with arthritis or cancer into having to pick up a script once a week from the doctor instead of once a month or once every six months.

The illegal users get them on the street, so not a real hardship on them.

@Darth_Algar We have plenty of laws for people who obey them. The Feds are the ones who let the Parkland shooter go kill a bunch of kids, since they had knowledge they didn’t follow up. So sure, let’s turn an entire database of LEGAL gun owners in and see what happens, I’m sure it will work just great (sarcasm.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-got-tip-parkland-shooter-nikolas-cruz-january-didn-t-n848681

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/dissent.html

You can quote magicians, I’ll refer you to Justice Stevens.

Aethelwine's avatar

@knowitall You have the whole transgender bathroom thing wrong, but that’s for another question. They use the bathroom that matches their gender. Trying to compare it as a choice is insulting.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Aethelwine It was an analogy, nothing more. If you’re trans, feel free to PM and we’ll discuss.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

But what’s the point in having any law? I mean criminals are just going to disregard them, so why have any?

Aethelwine's avatar

@KNOWITALL A terrible analogy that is filled with misinformation. My son is trans. I don’t need to pm you. I’m just informing you that your analogy is wrong.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar To protect citizens who do obey them. It’s a guideline to what is acceptable in society.

@Aethelwine (redacted) Actually I’m one of the few people here who have friends that make those CHOICES, and love and accept them for who they are with no judgement. As a matter of fact, my friend is getting feminizing surgery to the tune of $15k soon, legally changed names, it’s pretty cool to see her transform. Never seen anyone happier.

thisismyusername's avatar

@KNOWITALL: ”@Aethelwine (redacted) Actually I’m one of the few people here who have friends that make those CHOICES, and love and accept them for who they are with no judgement.”

You’ve now followed up an incoherent analogy with this “CHOICES” comment. You have to admit you’re trolling here. Keep to the topic or open a a new thread so we can teach you about gender.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

You haven’t really addressed the question.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Darth_Algar Cookie and I have discussed here and PM respectfully. The rest, I give up, there’s no point, it’s all namecalling and deflecting.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Wow. Lots of activity on this thread.

After reading all that, I forgot who addressed my social media mentioning. I didn’t mean that all their media be hacked. I was thinking about stuff like Facebook. That’s already public (I think.)

As far as what would pay for all the screening, I suggested a tax that be placed on the weapons. Not a burden on anyone except the buyer.

As far as the idea of making gun owners buy insurance. I don’t like it. If my father passes away, I’ll inherit a couple dozen. Then I’d have to go broke paying for insurance on a bunch of guns that will remain in a 800 pound safe.

I don’t mind the idea of making people accountable, that’s ridiculous. There’s no worse feeling than having a gun stolen. All gun owners, that I know, aren’t leaving them lying around.

I wouldn’t mind the registry, if it isn’t public. Making it public information, would just make it easier for those who would attempt to steal certain guns. Bad idea…
But if you wanted to investigate how a weapon got from person to person, that would be helpful to law enforcement.

I would add, that a way to maybe track ammunition might be helpful. Something like a number on each casing perhaps. For those who make their own bullets, they’d have to upgrade their equipment to stamp their brass.

gorillapaws's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I wasn’t saying that insurance is required, only that it’s probably a good idea. If someone broke into that safe and used those guns to rob a bank, you could be personally liable for a lot of money—thus why insurance is a good idea. You could sell or destroy them too, or only keep a small number. Either way, you’d be taking responsibility for their existence.

funkdaddy's avatar

@gorillapaws – can you think of a parallel for that sort of liability in the US?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So there really is no answer that wouldn’t punish the legal law abiding firearm owner, and we can’t focus on mental illness because that would be stigmatizing everyone suffering from a mental illness.

I like the idea of everyone who wants a firearm for whatever reason MUST have a possession license.

funkdaddy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – how would limiting capacity or making magazines take more time to load hurt most firearm owners? Honestly curious.

Aethelwine's avatar

A ban on AR-15-type rifles will reduce the number of fatalities.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/?utm_source=fbb

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I am not against limiting mag sizes we have had that for years up here in Canada, I doubt you would be able to get the slower (harder to reload) through though.

I am very glad @MrGrimm888 pointed out why legal owners would want such a rifle(AR-15) for hog and varmint hunting I can live with that, at the very least that weapon and all like should be highly restricted(they are in Canada) and people that want one have to jump through the hoops to get one, I have shot an AR-15 at our range it is a fun gun to shoot, but up here they are illegal to use anywhere except a licensed firearm range.
But it seems every time there is a horrific mass shooting using one of these type rifles there is then a panic buying run on these rifles.
Simply restrict these type of guns,(NOT BAN) make people get them registered and have a license to use them would slow all this down.

One thing I must point out I have seen firearms appreciate in value over the years like nothing else I have a firearm I bought brand new in 1992 for $600 and today it’s value is around $4000 .
I for one think some are a good investment.

If you even breath (Ban)people will just horde and hide their guns, and push sales in the blackmarket through the roof.

As I pointed out firearms are worth quite a bit of money, so instead focus on the person make them as I stated out a few posts up get a personal firearms license,they then must have this license to purchase,posses, and transport a firearm, and must pass a safety course on firearm handling and storage to get said license.

funkdaddy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – Things like a bullet button have been adopted and required some places already.

The problem seems to be codifying common sense into law without loopholes.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

^^ I don’t have a problem with that, and I don’t think it would make any difference for people that want that type of rifle for varmint hunting.

So what are we arguing about then??

Darth_Algar's avatar

Who the fuck needs an AR-15 to hunt squirrels and gophers?

thisismyusername's avatar

@Darth_Algar: “Who the fuck needs an AR-15 to hunt squirrels and gophers?”

This might explain.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Who says they need an AR-15 to hunt wild pigs and other varmints, but it is a legal way of owning one.

Why does one need a super car that will go 3 to 4 times the legal speed limit?
There are far more people killed in North America every year by drunk, careless, and distracted drivers ,than firearms,but nobody is blaming vehicles why not??
Oh because vehicles are not classified as weapons, tell that to the people that were run down in France and Germany by stolen big trucks.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Point is if that’s your rationale for owning one then that’s not really why you want one. There is no good reason for anyone to own such a rifle.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I can’t argue for myself @Darth_Algar I do not want such a firearm.
But I can see why some ranchers and farmers just might, if you find fault for their wanting such a rifle to hunt wild hogs and Varmints,then take it up with them.

Darth_Algar's avatar

But they aren’t on this thread arguing the point. You are.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And I am just telling you why SOME may want and have a need for such a firearm, and you seem to have a problem with that.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

For the most part @Darth_Algar other than Varmint hunting I see very little need why anyone needs such a firearm as the AR-15 or any other assault style combat rifle for that matter.
SOME have a legal need and want for such a rifle, and I for one am ok with that.
Still these types of firearms should be restricted and need a permit to use and transport them.

funkdaddy's avatar

It’s worth pointing out that the death rate from guns and from cars in the US are almost identical.

But one requires training, testing, yearly inspection, registration, and has continued to get safer, less damaging to the environment, and more efficient over the years thanks to government requirements on manufacturers.

Treating guns like cars sounds almost like a blueprint to reducing gun deaths.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

According to this link traffic deaths rose for second year….https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/business/highway-traffic-safety.html

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I am not against mandatory safety training in firearms.
nor against registering and licensing gun owners.
Nor against mandatory safe storage of firearms.
What I am against is focusing on the gun itself instead of the idiot pulling the trigger,lets focus on who,what, why these nut jobs are doing this, instead no we say guns Baaad, no guns good.
If we say no guns good, then no nut jobs even better.

Aethelwine's avatar

@Squeeky It’s possible to focus on multiple things. A ban on AR-15 type guns will give us a quicker outcome than solely focusing on mental health. This doesn’t mean we need to ignore mental health.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

According to this link traffic deaths rose for second year

Texting and web browsing while driving

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’m sorry. But for those wishing to simply ban AR-15s, that won’t work.

It’s a similar reason that gun advocates don’t want such bans. Their argument, is that it’s a slippery slope. And really, it is. Because if you can replicate some of the damage by an AR, with other weapons, then those should be illegal also.

But then, where does the ban stop?

The lady time we had a ban on “certain” weapons, it was a joke. The people deciding on what was banned, were amazingly ignorant. Most weapons that “looked” intimidating, were banned. While weapons with similar capabilities weren’t.
Pistol grip models, were especially banned.

Some knowledge, and common sense needs to go into the next era of gun control. Otherwise, it won’t help anything.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Great answer there @mrgrimm888

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Yeah I want sensible gun laws, NOT emotional gun laws.
Sorry if that sounded cold, and very sorry for the victims but sensible firearms have a chance.
When someone is the victim of a drunk driver we don’t get all bent out of shape and say we have to ban vehicles,(and for those that say vehicles are not weapons,BITE ME) they sure can be when used unsafely.
Your country needs sensible firearm laws.
So everyone can get behind it,radical ones have little chance and will be fought all the way.

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 What if my friends and I at the local Islamic delusions and hallucinations support group got funding from a Saudi Billionaire to form a “well regulated militia” with our buddies and collect shoulder-fired anti aircraft missiles as a hobby (and as an expression of our right to keep and bear arms…FUCK YEAH!). We like to hang out near the ends of runways at your local airport.

Would you see any problems with that?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Again we have to go way extreme??
If I didn’t have a problem with that the authorities sure as hell would.
Those weapons in your extreme example are already very illegal so try again.
I have stated time and time again I am not against sensible firearm laws, but non gunners get all emotional and want extreme such as the example you just pointed out.
Am I against licensing gun owners..NO! all for it.
Am I against restricting combat style assault rifles…NO! all for it
Am I against mandatory safe storage of firearms….NO! all for it
Am I against banning any kind of firearm YES…it will just move it’s sales to the black market and make the ones already in public hands be hidden .
Am I against caliber sizing YES!
Am I against emotional gun laws YES! they just punish legal law abiding people NOT the one doing the crimes.

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 But the problem isn’t the shoulder-fired anti-air misslies, it’s the people who use them. Sure they COULD be used as weapons, but I like to use them to prop up my feet, and hold my beer. It’s really no different than a vehicle… just a tool.

When you use extreme examples, it illustrates how ridiculous your arguments are.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I haven’t used ridiculous examples in the least you did though.
and just to show as long as those RPG’s are totally disabled go ahead and use them as a foot stool or beer table.
I have pointed out some people such as farmers and some ranchers and hunters do like the AR-15 to hunt wild pigs and other varmints, and it is a legal reason for wanting one, do I want one NO, but just because I don’t want or need one should those people not be able to have one??
Is that ridiculous?

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Sorry for not being clear. When one substitutes extreme examples into your arguments, it shows how ridiculous those arguments are.
Reductio ad absurdum

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So who was being ridiculous, your example of wanting a rocket launcher?
Or mine saying vehicles can be weapons as well?

Aethelwine's avatar

A few ranchers are more important than the hundreds of innocent lives lost to AR-15s. Got it.~

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 If someone makes an argument and someone else demonstrates that the same logic/reasoning can be applied to justify something ridiculous/bad/obviously false, then the original argument becomes invalidated.

Aethelwine's avatar

Banning AR-15s in other countries has worked. This is not an emotional response. It’s a sensible response. An emotional response is “Don’t take my guns!”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Ya know we can leave the firearms and the mentally ill out it, by simply making all firearm owners be licensed,pass safety courses and insure safe storage of firearms.

But no we just focus on the rifle some nut job used in his/her crime and say that’s the problem, if we make it illegal all will be well,hows that going to work?
I thought murder was very illegal, but that didn’t stop the nut job, how is making the gun illegal going to make it any better?

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Good point, We probably shouldn’t make murder illegal then.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I give up, get on your ban em all wagon, and see how well that turns out.
sensible and ya just might get a lot of people to see that, but no ban em all and the world will be all at peace.
see how many people willingly surrender a firearm they paid over a $1000 for.
Good luck, your going to very much need it.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 “I have stated time and time again I am not against sensible firearm laws”

And yet you continually trot out the same nonsensical, knee-jerk arguments the the NRA and its cult (who have fought and and all gun regulation tooth and nail) spews. A good case in point is your above defense of the AR-15 – that some people might need them to kill squirrels.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Not squirrels. Wild boar, coyotes etc. Instead of carrying several weapons, you can use the same one for multiple purposes. Just saying.

I find it relevant that there are millions of weapons that could be used in mass shootings, in circulation. Statistically, an extremely small amount ever harm anyone…

The shooter at the naval base a couple years ago used a shotgun, and pistols.

The Fort Hood shooter used a single, unmodified pistol.

Back in the 90’s, a disgruntled man used a small amount of gas to start a fire that trapped and killed over 80 people in a nightclub.

For those bringing up effective bans in other countries, that’s a false analogy. Those countries don’t have the sheer volume of weapons already in circulation. A ban is simply not a realistic solution in the US…

And no. A responsible gun owner, is not the same as a group of extremists hanging out at a runway with antiaircraft weaponry. Seriously?...

Clearly there are “nuts” on both sides of this debate…

Soubresaut's avatar

Direct Measures:

- Firearms categorized in levels, and as the levels increase there are increasing requirements before someone can obtain that category of firearm. Seems pretty reasonable. (And there is a class of guns that are restricted). I don’t know firearms well enough to make those categories, but there are people who do. The link is just an example of one such system—happens to be Australia’s.

- Gun buy-back program to decrease the number of firearms in US. (Where the compensation offered is meaningful to the people looking to sell their guns in this program).

- Universal background checks.

Indirect/Broader Measures (to be used in addition to the direct measures above):

- Improved mental health care, and improved access to mental health care, so that people who are having a difficult time can more readily get help—for this issue, in particular people with feelings of alienation and few skills or resources for anger management/emotional management.

- Schools implementing programs in their schools that foster school community and help students develop better, more productive strategies for dealing with conflict, anger, or what have you. One such type of program is known as Restorative Justice. When it’s implemented, it’s in schools with high rates of suspensions and expulsions (as a result of high incidents of fighting between students). It has great success in reducing those incidents and in (re)connecting students with the school as a community.

My own elementary school had similar practices as a matter of school culture. Among other things, conflicts between students were addressed in “conflict mediations” led by the students (progressively more so the older the students got), with a trained adult mediating to make sure it stayed productive; and we had student-led class meetings (the teacher mediating when needed, again progressively less the older the students got) where we would discuss class-wide issues and learn how to solve them as a group.

I would note, though, once again, I don’t think this is a sure thing for stopping mass shootings. Yes I think it’s beneficial for school community, yes I think it can help many students develop social and emotional skills they wouldn’t get at a school simply using metal detectors, for example… But an alienated, angry student can still far too easily get their hands on a weapon that allows them to shoot dozens in short order.

The discussion about metal detectors (in one of these threads… was it here or elsewhere? I’ve lost track) was actually what reminded me of the Restorative Justice program—I’m skeptical as to how much metal detectors would work to stop a mass shooting incident. They are usually implemented in schools that have many fights between individual students who try to sneak in small weapons without being caught—not to stop someone who’s already going into the school planning to make a spectacle of killing as many people as possible. They are expensive to staff, often force schools to stagger start times just to manage the bottleneck of students, set up a climate that many students describe as “stressful” and “prison-like,” and won’t work in some schools just because of the school’s layout. I don’t think they’re a solution to mass shootings. And in the event they’re used at schools with high incidents of individual fights, I certainly don’t think they should be used in place of of the school working to improve its culture, and perhaps get to a point of not needing them.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@MrGrim888

Shit, makes me wonder how my uncle and my grandmother’s boyfriend ever managed to keep coyotes away from their livestock without an AR-15.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So what are you snarkingly trying to get at @Darth_Algar ?
Nobody but nobody has a legal reason to own such a rifle such as the AR-15? and those that do should surrender them right away with any compensation?
Is that what you are snarking at?
Forgive me because I don’t want to be accused of any nonsensical knee jerk arguments.
If you had cared to read any of my posts I have stated that such a rifle should be restricted,and need a permit to transport and use, I also stated I don’t own one and have no desire to own one.
You guys are getting all bent because I have defended a few that do have a legal reason for owning and using one.
Should they surrender theirs right now,because you feel there is no real reason to own one?

rojo's avatar

Was told by a deputy sheriff that I could legally get a silencer if I said I needed it to kill hogs (here in Texas hogs are a problem). Just claim that it helped because I could shoot several at a time without spooking them if I could suppress the rifle noise. ‘Course, I either needed to live in or have property in the country to justify it. City dwellers: find your own excuse. Pigeon hunting? Maybe?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@SQUEEKY2

Yes, I’ve stated that assault rifles (such as the AR-15) should be banned and that there is no reason why anybody needs to own one. Just because someone might think they need an AR-15 to kill pigs or coyotes or mice doesn’t really justify ownership of such a weapon.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And I am the one accused of knee -jerk arguments,WOW!
well better hurry and jump on the ban em all band wagon,the rest are forming,good luck with your quest ,your going to need it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So much for sensible firearm laws.

Soubresaut's avatar

Isn’t “sensible” is a subjective word?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Soubresaut I did like your answer.
and did give you a great answer vote.
Very much so for some it’s ban them all now and all will be peaceful yeah right.
I get attacked because I defend some that do have a legal reason to own an assault style rifle,even though I myself don’t own or want one, but I don’t say take them all away either.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@SQUEEKY2

Exactly the kind of response I’d expect from an NRA cultist. Banning certain types of firearms =/= ban them all.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Darth_Algar I am NOT an NRA member, but your screaming the AR-15 has to go,and the next mass shooting is with a riot style pump shot gun then that’s the next.
After that the next idiot uses a couple of revolvers with speed loaders that is the next.
You anti-gunners focus whatever is in the media at this moment.
You really think the USA banning the AR15 with the amount that already is in private hands has any chance of being successful?
GOOD LUCK!
Far better chance of heavily restricting them, then calling for a ban,and that goes for all firearms.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@SQUEEKY2

I did not say you were an NRA member, I said you use the say arguments as that cult. And I am not “anti-gun”, I’m rather pro-2nd Amendment, including the “well regulated” part.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Darth_Algar Then we agree with restricting certain firearms?
Why for fucks sake are we arguing then?

Soubresaut's avatar

Thanks for the GA, it’s appreciated. I feel like I should clarify here, though, since I didn’t mention it explicitly in my above post, that I do support banning—or at least severely restricting—access to AR-15s, and firearms with like capabilities (that was what the parenthetical in my first bullet point was supposed to imply). I consider it sensible. I get that you don’t. I also don’t think it’s the same thing as trying to ban all guns, not by a longshot. But I get that people get can get scared by that kind of idea, imagining that bans of such-and-such weapon will eventually mean a ban on lesser weapons as well. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case, but rather is a false use of slippery slope to stir up fear in gun owners. Wanting a ban on specific guns for their specific effects isn’t the same as wanting to ban all guns.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I totally agree rifles such as the AR15 and other assault style weapons should be heavily restricted,and those that do want to own such a weapon follow all the guide lines and permits to own and use said firearms.

@Soubresaut since YOU seem to be listening firearms are worth a lot of money and people that do enjoy them responsibly get stressed when the public goes on a ban em kick especially after one of these horrific mass shootings.

NONE of my firearms are of the assault style, but don’t want to be part of the group to say NO to those that do enjoy that style of firearm legally and responsibly .

Soubresaut's avatar

^^ That sounds reasonable when stated that way, but it omits the reason people are part of that “group” you don’t want to be associated with. Namely, they don’t feel that some individuals preferring to use a weapon of war over another gun that could suit their needs/wants is worth the cost we see in every mass shooting where that kind of weapon is used… Which is why I’m perfectly fine being part of the group that says “no” to that style of firearm.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Darth_Algar . I was just stating fact. There’s really no reason to be condescending. I also never mentioned “needing” the weapon. The fact is, the weapon is a useful tool for many. Most were legally obtained, and are responsibly stored, and used.

Think of vehicles. Many vehicles sold in the US are capable of speeds higher than any speed limit. A Kia sedan can achieve speeds over 100 mph. So. If something is capable of being used to break the law, should it be illegal? My girlfriend can’t drive a Lexus, because of what it’s capable of?

I’ll assume you will make a snide remark about this being NRA rhetoric. But I ask you, does that mean it isn’t factual?

Supporting our rights to own guns, doesn’t mean that I support mass shootings. Which is essentially what you’re saying. Being rude to the people on the other side of an argument isn’t productive to the ultimate goal of understanding and compromise that could reduce these shootings.

I would add that the mere mention of banning these weapons increases their sales exponentially. So. Your calling for bans simplyputs more of those guns on the streets, and further lines the pockets of your favorite association. Being rational, and realistic, would serve your purpose much better…

I’m of the opinion that, sadly, mass shootings will never stop. One could argue that the media is more responsible for such atrocities, than any weapons used to commit them. Banning the media from making these killers famous, would probably be wise.

flutherother's avatar

@MrGrimm888 You expect 17 children to be shot dead at school and the media not to discuss it? And that the media is irresponsible in reporting it??

ragingloli's avatar

Right. Who really needs freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@flutherother he didn’t mean it that way, some of these nut jobs do these horrible acts for their 15minutes of fame,even bad fame is still their name all across the country.
Maybe the media should just leave out these nut jobs name,and then they will have no fame.
Just a thought.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Correct. Some of these shooters have an agenda, or are starved for attention, or feel ignored. I started another thread, so we won’t pollute this one by the way… I will discuss it further there…

Darth_Algar's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 _“Then we agree with restricting certain firearms?
Why for fucks sake are we arguing then?“_

Because for some reason whenever someone suggests it you argue and jump right to the “you want to take away all our guns!” hysterics.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Well you were on a kick that no one should own that rifle and they should be banned, see where I get it from?
Your smart enough to know a ban on that rifle would never work with the already thousands in private hands, but restricting it would making people get a permit to use, and transport it just might.
YOU were the one making snarky remarks about why would people need it to shoot squirrels, if you don’t remember just scan a few of your posts you will find it.

If you forget here is your post..Yes, I’ve stated that assault rifles (such as the AR-15) should be banned and that there is no reason why anybody needs to own one. Just because someone might think they need an AR-15 to kill pigs or coyotes or mice doesn’t really justify ownership of such a weapon.
Now someone has to justify why they want a rifle such as that?
As long as they obtain it legally, use and store it safely, and observe all laws as to pertaining it I am happy.
Can you see why I jumped into the hysterics?

Darth_Algar's avatar

As I stated above – banning certain types of firearms =/= ban them all.

Goddamn…

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You really think a ban,on that rifle has even a little chance at being successful?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Simple answer, but really you think people that legally purchased that rifle for over $1000 will surrender them without question?
I will be interested in seeing it play out if it comes down.
You think the Government will buy them back? Good luck with that.
I can’t see your Government spending millions$ getting that rifle out of private hands.
But maybe I am wrong.

ragingloli's avatar

@SQUEEKY2
If they are truly “law abiding” citizens, yes.

funkdaddy's avatar

It doesn’t matter if they can’t remove them all immediately. How many cars do you see using leaded gasoline?

They weren’t outlawed, or removed immediately, there was no buyback, they went away over time because they became hard to justify and maintain.

I personally don’t care if specific guns or types of guns are outlawed or not, I’d rather focus on the characteristics, but saying it can’t be done because there’s already so many is a way to forever forego any solution.

A ban on the manufacture and sale of certain types of weapons would start the process. It’s not meant to change things overnight.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So because a few, use this rifle for illegal horrific ends, no one should own this rifle?
Because it could fall into the wrong hands and do harm, am I getting this right?
Wow! Since we are at it why not include alcohol, few use it wrong in turn drunk drive causing harm to others. so no one should have it,just in case some one decides to drink and drive.
Hell lets include performance cars too, a few can’t operate them safely, get into accidents and harm others, so no one should have them either, and there is no real need for such a vehicle anyways.
WE are on the way to making the world a safer warmer place, what can we include next?
Roll your eyes if you must but this is all for a safer world for all of us to live in.

funkdaddy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – Maybe look at it slightly differently… how much explosives should I be able to buy today?

I’m uhhhhhh… removing tree stumps.

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I think it’s based on the degree of horror, right? Sure I could go on a stabbing spree with a sharpened toothbrush, but that doesn’t mean we should ban toothbrushes, likewise I think we both agree that shoulder-fired anti-air missiles are too dangerous to allow private citizens to have (...and that maybe there are limits to the 2nd amendment?).

It’s about how much firepower we want ordinary Americans to have access to. You can do a lot of fucking damage with an AR-15 (even more with a bump-stock). I personally think that limiting firearms to weapons that require manual interaction between shots (bolt-action, pump-action, cocking, etc.), and a cap on the muzzle energy of the ammunition (smarter people than I can figure out what’s reasonable for that) is a good place to start, and still allows for people to have weapons for hunting and home protection.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@gorillapaws firearms have other purposes other than home defence or hunting, lots of shooting sports, lets start off with biathlathon <sorry don’t know how to spell it, but in involves skiing and shooting.
Next lets go to the shotgun sports, trap,skeet,and sporting clays.
Next rifle, short and long rang target shooting,with all different calibers.
next pistol target, metal silhouette ,cowboy action,ipsic,and pin.
I have never thought of or needed a firearm for home protection,and mine are so locked up it would take at least ten minutes to get them out and load one.
They are not on any kind of display on our house,you wouldn’t even know we had them if you didn’t know us.
And you say it’s based on the horror effect,guess you have never seen an horrific auto accident caused by a drunk or careless driver I have and it fucks up a great many lives,but no body screams take alcohol or vehicles away because some can’t use them safely.
Does that mean everyone should just run wild,of course not, restrict the assault style rifle make people that do want to use them get permits,and have background checks, you want to get the firearm community behind you and they will swing the NRA, stop with no one should have them and start with people that want them must be licensed and trained on how to safely use, transport ,and store these types of rifles,ok,or keep up with the other and make the divide wider that will work at least you can hope it works.

Darth_Algar's avatar

So because a couple of people misused chemical fertilizer and racing fuel why shouldn’t I be able to stockpile them?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Ridiculous analogies, from otherwise smart jellies…

Darth_Algar's avatar

Ridiculous analogies yes. Ridiculous because these things have been well regulated.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Regulation, is what I’m hoping will increase.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

ME TOO!!!!!!!
But some just have to be snarky,guess it’s in their nature.

MrGrimm888's avatar

People are understandably passionate about this subject. Misdirected anger is not taken as insult, by me.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Have a large shock every time you fire the gun. So the shot would have to be worth it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Ah that’s just it @MrGrimm888 your country very much needs tougher (BUT) sensible firearm regulations NOT emotional ones, regulations that will have the support of the firearms community, not ones that simply punish them for being firearm enthusiasts .

ragingloli's avatar

“regulations that will have the support of the firearms community”
You know that will never happen. Any type of regulation is too much.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I don’t think so^^ no one wants to see a youth take a gun to school and shoot classmates .

But even you think just because I own firearms I one day will snap and go on a shooting spree simply because I own firearms.

That’s just trying to spread a scare tactic and has no truth, but non-gunners believe that, you have also stated on other threads all truck drivers are axe murders, nice how well you think of us.

You should see the regulations I have to through here in Canada just to have my firearms, the states needs something more, and the firearm community knows it,but they want sensible NOT passionate.

Aethelwine's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Gun owners are in the minority in our country. You keep saying we are making suggestions based on emotions. Most people would agree that banning AR-15s is a sensible solution. The person who made the AR-15 did not intend for the gun to be used by the general public. He made it for the military. The emotional response appears to be coming from those who are afraid to lose their guns.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I have to disagree @Aethelwine the AR-15 is a civilian model of the M-16 and was made for the private market, colt never made it for military use,they already have the M-16.

Banning the AR15 is a passionate solution, Restricting the rifle, making people get a permit to own,store,transport,and use it is a sensible solution.
also mag sizes are a very sensible solution, even hunting you don’t need 30plus round mags.

funkdaddy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – maybe in Canada there’s widespread support by organized gun owners for sensible regulation, I don’t know. But I don’t see a ton of evidence here in the US that a majority of gun owners want any regulation at all. The tone is that we already have too much.

Maybe the speech last week from the NRA will paint a clearer picture?

Here’s a summary of the tone and content and here’s one of the full speeches if you want to watch.

I’m not sure what middle ground you see or who’s in favor of sensible regulation, but we’ve been searching for a long time.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@funkdaddy because non gunners want extremes and that scares your firearm community not to give an inch, there really is a need for sensible regulations and both sides better stop digging in and find one.
Or more horrific stuff is going to happen, and I am not extreme like the NRA, but not extreme like the non gunners either.
No I haven’t watched your link I have to get going but will later.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I mentioned in another thread, that the AR is the hot topic, but handguns are in fact responsible for the vast majority of firearms injuries and deaths. Most gun related crimes are also carried out with pistols.

If ARs are banned, it won’t have an affect on the overall crime/homicide rates in America. Trying to make sure that it’s harder for the wrong person to acquire any gun, would be much more effective than banning one style…

I once had a man try to mug me with a small kitchen knife. Just the same little kitchen knife that all of us probably have in our drawers. I’ve seen many guns confiscated off of criminals that were practically 50 year old no name revolvers with duck tape for grip.
Aside from the cartels, the vast majority of criminals aren’t going to have a $1,500 AR.

For those calling for bans of ARs, I ask you ; What is your goal? If it is to reduce violent crime involving firearms, you need to look past ARs…

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I have noticed not a single person has answered you ^^ @MrGrimm888

Mariah's avatar

Somebody with an AR can kill a whole lot more people before getting stopped than someone with a knife or shitty gun can. There’s a reason they’ve been the gun of choice for mass shootings. Yes, reducing the number of violent crimes would be great, but reducing the casualty count for each crime is also a worthy goal.

MrGrimm888's avatar

There are many “worthy” goals. I prefer realistic ones, that would make real change.

ragingloli's avatar

Well, good. Time for a government subsidy for child coffins.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@MrGrimm888

We’ve had handguns and forever. What we haven’t had is a market saturated with assault rifles and the almost daily mass shooting committed with those assault rifles. It’s not difficult to put 2 and 2 together there.

Aethelwine's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Hmm, read this…“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events. Eugene Stoner, an ex-marine and the rifle’s inventor, never used his AR-15 for sport, kept it for personal defense, or even owned one. His family said he made millions by using his design, but only for military sales.”

“After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle,” Stoner’s family explained, saying that their father wanted to make the “most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military.”

http://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/

Great news today- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/dicks-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html

@MrGrimm banning AR type weapons will drastically lower the body count in attempted mass killings.

Aethelwine's avatar

I’d also like to add that if someone needs an AR-15 type weapon to shoot squirrels or hogs you are a shit shot and you probably shouldn’t even own guns.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Here is a brief history of the AR 15…
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

The M16 was designed for military use, the AR15 was targeted for private and law enforcement
You know after every one of these horrific crimes there in turn is a huge spike in sales of these type rifles.
Should civilians own these types of rifles?
Some really shouldn’t, should no one have them I have a huge problem with that.
Should these weapons be heavily restricted ABSOLUTELY!!!
BUT both sides of this debate have to find a middle ground, but I have a feeling that is a long way off and that is sad.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@SQUEEKY2

Give me one good reason why any civilian should be in possession of such a weapon.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

For FUCKS SAKE @Darth_Algar I have said a few times and all you do is snark at it.
I have said more than just a few times that these types of firearms should be heavily restricted,but that isn’t good enough.
There isn’t just thousands of these types of firearms in private hands there turns out to be closer to millions, banning these rifles will just make people hide them and push their value through the roof.
AGAIN I WILL SAY! but you will ignore it, these type of rifles should be RESTRICTED!
Should large capacity mags be banned I think so.
BUT KEEP UP THE NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THEM, and see how far that gets ya.

funkdaddy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 @MrGrimm888

For those calling for bans of ARs, I ask you ; What is your goal? If it is to reduce violent crime involving firearms, you need to look past ARs…

I have noticed not a single person has answered you ^^ @MrGrimm888

I didn’t answer because I feel I’ve posted way too much here

I asked about explosives earlier, not rhetorically, but because you used to be able to just walk into a hardware store and get some dynamite. Obviously we learned that wasn’t the best idea and changed the law. Now it’s harder to get dynamite. Somehow I’ve lived this long without it, and you probably haven’t felt the loss of easily buying simple explosives.

A ban on ARs isn’t mean to curb violent crime, it’s meant to reduce the number of people one angry man can kill easily. That’s really it. The easiest way to kill a lot of people right now is to buy an AR, some oversized magazines, and enough bullets. Then walk into any enclosed area and just start firing. A 19-year-old who couldn’t pass high school just pulled off a mass killing with what appears to be no planning, no help, and no checks involved other than to make sure he was 18 and not a felon.

That’s not effective control of weapons. Something should be fixed there.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

AND AGAIN @funkdaddy I totally agree with you like dynomite that is heavily restricted and you have to have the license and show why you need it.
ALL of these type assault style rifles should be heavily restricted @MrGrimm888 and I really want a heavy restriction on these types of weapons.
NO frustrated person of any age or sex should just be able to walk into a gun store and purchase one,I TOTALLY AGREE!
SHOULD NO ONE BE ALLOWED TO AQUIRE ONE OF THESE WEAPONS, if they pass they background checks, and get the proper permits I still have no problem with these people getting them.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@SQUEEKY2

You’re ducking the question. I’m not asking if you think they should be restricted. I’m asking what good reason is there to possess one in the first place.

funkdaddy's avatar

If you’re asking me personally, honestly, I don’t care a whole lot about the difference between a ban and a thorough permitting process. Either option stops millions of people from buying the guns and that stops them from being the “every true collector needs at least one” type item they are now. Manufacturers will make something else, hopefully something not devised to kill as many people as possible.

But by adding a complicated approval process, you’re adding layers of regulation and registration to something when the goal is really to reduce the numbers. That’s not the simplest solution.

I’ve said above I feel concentrating on one model or writing laws to ban specific guns seems like a pointless endeavor. Write simple laws and it’s easier to keep loopholes to a minimum. I’d start with capacity, but that’s just my take.

SHOULD NO ONE BE ALLOWED TO AQUIRE ONE OF THESE WEAPONS

I don’t care. For the next 40 years or so if someone really wants one, they’ll get one. That ship has sailed. A ban is probably easier to implement and enforce but I understand it’s also harder to swallow. Just stop selling hundreds of thousands or millions of new ones every year when no one can claim they need one with a straight face. Start fixing the problem now that it’s obvious.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And you didn’t either to read the last few times I stated why some people have a legal reason for wanting one, so why bother saying it again??

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Ya know @funkdaddy A ban on manufacturing and the sale of new assault weapons isn’t a bad idea.
And really restrict the ones that are already in private hands,I can see that.
But push for a ban on high capacity mags,new and in private hands I can see that and going through.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Darth_Agar . “We’ve had handguns forever.” And?....

So. We should ignore the weapons that do the vast majority of damage?

“Almost daily shootings” with assault rifles?

You wouldn’t let any jelly get away with a statement that vague, and factually incorrect. Why should you?

To my knowledge, the US has been saturated by assault type rifles since at least the 1990’s. The first domino to fall was Columbine, I think. Those weapons were bought in pieces, or entirely online. The shootings following, are essentially copycat.

I don’t have statistics in front of me. Simple logic dictates that given the large numbers of students, and large amount of assault rifles in circulation, that such shootings are extremely rare. What I do hear about daily is handguns being found on students, or being involved in violent crime.

When I’m in bad neighborhoods, and see people carrying in the open. They’re carrying pistols. Almost ALL forms of armed robbery, or violent crimes involving firearms are carried out using a handgun.

In rare cases where I’ve seen gang members, or “bad guys” possessing an assault style rifle, it’s a variation of the SKS. A Chinese knockoff, of the AK-47.

For those who cannot get off of the false pretence of shooting squirrels, with ARs, I pity your reasoning skills. And your lack of understanding of how dangerous hog hunting can be, or how difficult it would be to hit a squirrel with an AR point out a glaring ignorance in gun knowledge.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Here’s my fear. All of this focus on the AR. It’s too narrow. Even some republicans, are finally ready to do SOMETHING, about gun control. If we aren’t focused on the bigger picture, they’re just going to ban bump stocks, and MAYBE ARs. Then say they did something, and not address gun control again.

Now is the time to call for sweeping changes to ALL ways of acquiring, and tracking ALL firearms. In my opinion, if this atrocity can’t spark that, all those victims died for basically nothing.

Being stuck on the AR is not seeing the forest for the trees. Our nation’s children are begging us for help. They aren’t educated enough to know what they need help with though. We should be making it harder to die of gun violence in this country, not just making someone choose from one less gun to commit mass murder. Assuming that future shooters won’t be able to find one of the millions already out there.

I’ve seen people in the news turning in their ARs. That’s great, and commendable. But for every one of them, there are probably 50 who are buying more, or more ammo, in case they become banned.

Mariah's avatar

@MrGrimm888, people who want to ban ARs generally don’t want to stop there. They’ve settled for this because they know that sweeping gun control WON’T happen, at least not right away. It’s a compromise that people who want to go much, much farther have come to. You’re fighting with the wrong crowd here…most of us agree that going farther would be great, but we can only really hope to make one small step at a time on this issue in this country

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So @Mariah it is a ban them all effort?
Just starting with the evil AR15 that is in the news at this moment?
And the anti-gun people think the NRA are nuts, both sides better find a middle ground, because like my question then there really is no solution that doesn’t punish law abiding firearm owners.
Let’s see in this corners you have the ant-gun people that think no one should have firearms except military and law enforcement.

And standing in this corner is the firearm community that wants to use their firearms for legal reasons, saying if they give into any regulations the anti gunners won’t stop there.
BOTH SIDES ARE BEING FUCKING STUPID, and have to find something that will work or these mass shooting will just go on and on.

Mariah's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 No, it’s not a “ban them all” effort. Where did you get that idea? You’re failing to acknowledge nuance in the side of the gun control proponents. I’d guess the number of people who believes nobody should own a gun outside the police or military is very small.

But for most people who want gun control, we want much stricter regulations (NOT a complete ban), on more guns than just assault rifles. Starting with assault rifles is just a baby step.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

From your own posts…people who want to ban ARs generally don’t want to stop there.
I for one totally agree there needs to be stricter firearm laws in the usa.
but banning anything makes me want to scream, tougher, stronger laws regulating them OF course,maybe getting industry to stop producing them sure.
BUT banning anything NO!!!!!

Mariah's avatar

People who want to ban ARs usually don’t think a ban on ARs is the ONLY gun control measure necessary. That’s what I was trying to say.

You and I fundamentally disagree about ARs, I get it. I see no reason why a civilian needs a gun like that. I’m still perfectly fine with allowing people to buy other types of guns (after jumping through a lot more hoops than is currently required), but for any legitimate, lawful use for guns (hunting, sport, self-defense, etc) something that isn’t an AR should suffice.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You and I are not really disagreeing on the AR I don’t have any firearm like that, and really wonder why the average person needs a firearm like that,but for those that do like using that style of rifle LEGALLY I defend them.
YES there are needs for stronger REGULATIONS on all firearms not just assault style weapons.
But wether they just want it to shoot mice in the field,target, or whatever as long as it’s done safely, and legally I defend them.
BUT no ban,aim bans at reducing the manufacturing of these style of guns,aim bans at large capacity magazines, even though I may defend the person that wants an AR I can’t defend the need and want for large capacity mags,10 round mags are perfectly fine,not 30 plus.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@MrGrimm888 “You wouldn’t let any jelly get away with a statement that vague, and factually incorrect. Why should you?”

Yeah, I’d say you can fairly say almost daily.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I’m sorry. What are you trying to prove? Almost all incident reports note “type of firearm unknown.” I looked at like 15…

Am I missing something?

rojo's avatar

Maybe we should just accept the fact that dead kids are going to have to be part of the cost of being free and owning firearms as allowed by the 2nd Amendment.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sure that’s it, don’t want to or can’t address the mental health issue because that costs money, just blame firearms.
Don’t want to find a way to keep these kids from getting so angry they want to shoot people just blame the tool they use to do it.
I get so angry at idiot drivers I would just love to squash a few ,BUT I don’t, why not?
Because I am mentally stable enough to know that would be very wrong?

funkdaddy's avatar

What are you thinking is going to stop people from getting angry? How are you going to find the young kids and adults that need mental help and get them engaged voluntarily?

Let’s say we suddenly reassigned the defense budget to mental health, how do you do it?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

It has to start early they have to learn the world doesn’t revolve around them.
They have to be taught failing isn’t the end of the world, learn from it and move on.
Bullying has to be stopped the second it’s spotted.
And it’s not a sign of weakness to ask for or seek help.
That is just for starters but what do I know I am just a dumb truck driver.

rojo's avatar

It isn’t a “mental health” issue. Get over that crap. It is society. It is the way we are.
Sure, you can say he was a criminal, but he wasn’t until he shot a bunch of kids. You can even say he was mentally unstable except he wasn’t until he shot up a bunch of kids. So, how are you gonna address the problem without coming to grips with the fact that we have agreed to allow this kind of thing to happen because that is who we are? We are a violence prone, one slipped cog out of sync, bunch of semi-savages who play at being civilized but the veneer of civilization is mighty thin and it doesn’t take much to wear through that coating and reveal the vicious primal violent nature that is us.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Fuck with that analogy we don’t need less guns we need more!
Why are we so on the edge of killing people?
Like I stated I get mad at idiot drivers ,but I don’t run them over,or wish them any real harm.
Why do these people do it?
What pushes them that they .don’t care about themselves or others ?
How did we allow this?There has always been laws in place against murder.
I would like to think most people are stable minded people just going on with their day,not a hair away from a mass shooting.

rojo's avatar

“I would like to think most people are stable minded people just going on with their day,not a hair away from a mass shooting.” I would too but I would be wrong.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So everyone is a mass murderer waiting to happen?
Nice thought.

rojo's avatar

Nice, like good or evil, is relative.

funkdaddy's avatar

I’m just a dumb guy on the internet too. I was just wondering if there was a method I’m missing.

Just my opinion, but school shootings are very similar in motivation to the father or mother who murders their whole family, and then themselves.

Probably also the guy who comes in and shoots up his office.

Or the people who drive by and shoot up a club they were just at.

They’re hurting who hurt them. I don’t know if you’re going to take that aspect out of society. I don’t think budget is the problem. Mental health care improving would be a great thing, but ultimately, even if you identify all potential killers somehow, then what do you do?

Right now you ask them to come talk with you. And if they say no? You wait until they present an immediate threat, or you can’t really do anything. You can’t force someone into therapy because you think they’re unstable. There’s not a viable way around that.

So that’s why I was asking to get into the nitty-gritty of how you stop murders with mental health care. Maybe I’m not thinking big enough, but I haven’t seen an actual plan.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Excellent points!

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther