Gun Control in the US

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

But tax was only one of the potential remedies. What about a register of all guns owned with stiff penalties for being in possession without a licence? Obviously such a scheme would be costly to administer, but that could be recouped by way an annual registration fee, almost like road tax or the like.

Well, that rather brings us back to the earlier-mentioned point that no post-facto registration scheme for firearms has ever been successfully implemented, and they resulted only in squandering money. You may have more luck following the New Zealand-style philosophy where guns are not registered, but the people are, since it's much easier to keep track of people, and people tend to have an in-built expiration date. There is precedent, for example, Illinois requires that someone have a Firearms Owner ID card in order to possess firearms and ammunition. There are, however, three problems. Firstly, and most tellingly, the crime rate of Chicago, which indicates that it doesn't seem to have made any difference, and secondly, the fact that if one is normally resident in another State, you don't need an FOID to have a gun in Illinois. Thirdly, and more critically, not all citizens are as welcoming to such things. Even in San Francisco, as liberal as we come, privacy advocates will not permit something as innocuous as red-light cameras, so Constitutional Carry states like Vermont are unlikely to go for it.

Personal insurance must be taken out with each gun owned based on the level of risk of having a high powered weapon on oneself. Again, it is accepted that car insurance is important so why not gun injury insurance. This could be negated by membership of a recognised and regulated gun club.

As mentioned, the insurance matter does beg the question of if it's an excessive cost burden. There is no Constitutional right to drive, so insurance costs for cars are not a direct equivalence. It also begs the question of what the purpose is. The vast majority of folks doing the shooting don't seem to care about the personal financial liability that they are exposing themselves to when they are committing murder.

As AbusesToilets has pointed out there needs to be investment in Mental health, gun education. This could easily be provided if it was paid for by the gun owners. Why should the rest of society have to pay for the problems created by the past-time that you enjoy?

Mental health isn't a firearms community problem, it's a national one. The problem with gun education is that it's not wanted. The NRA has a series of programs, available for free, and tailored for different age groups. A school just calls them up, they send someone out. At the lowest age, they teach "Don't touch, run away, tell an adult." At higher levels, it's more practical firearms safety. However, such programs are as popular in many modern academic circles (because guns) as sex ed classes are in conservative circles (because morals). I would be very pleased if my daughter's school taught firearms safety at the same level as sex ed or driver's ed. However, the policy seems to be "don't teach folks about guns, maybe the problem will go away."

When a mass shooting like Las Vegas or Texas happens, the costs of the police services etc and the civil payouts should be borne by the manufacturers. You wouldn't have to tax anything then, the price would have to go up to cover the costs to the manufacturers.

Two problems. Firstly, there is already legislative protection for the firearms manufacturers, after all the various (failed) attempts to sue them for such things (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act). Same end result, just less money spent on lawyers. Secondly, finding the manufacturer liable for mis-use of their product is going to be like finding Ford liable for DUI accidents, or Chevy responsible for costs involved in bank raids when the getaway car is an Impala. (Which is why all the attempts to sue firearms manufacturers before PLCAA have failed).

There could also be a ownership test, again like the car licence. You have to undertake a certain number of hours at a shooting range, undertake a certain number of hours of safety training before you can legally own a gun. Anybody found to be letting others use their gun without them having a licence should be charged.

To a point, already in place in some areas. Here in California most folks have to take a Basic Safety Certificate exam (I'm exempt as I'm in the military, they figure I probably already know how to tell one end of a gun from another). Unfortunately, the test seems to have been written by politicians, with stupid political questions like "True/false: Many children are needlessly killed by firearms". Only one on the test I looked at was a practical question ("What is the surface danger zone of a .38 revolver round?"). If properly implemented, to meet the government interest whilst not being so onerous as to be a significant obstacle to firearms ownership, I'm sure such a thing would be acceptable. I have little faith, however, in the 'properly implemented' bit. After all, we won't teach folks practical firearms safety, how can we expect them to pass a practical test?

There are loads of ways that the current death toll can be lowered. But people first need to admit that there is a problem. Which most gun owners simply won't admit. They are too selfish on their own enjoyment to worry about the death and destruction that is being wrought to their fellow citizens.

Mmm. I don't know that's accurate. From our perspective, most of the trouble is carried out by folks who aren't supposed to have the firearms in the first place, usually criminals. We admit there is a problem, that of the criminals. Why not deal with them first?

A simply question for anyone who defends gun ownership. Do you think society is well served by the current gun ownership situation?

If you answer no, then the next thing is to try to find a solution.

It is not an either/or situation. I think the general ownership concepts are fine in theory. There is room for practical improvement, be it from background checks to training.

If you answer yes, then the next question is how far does it go? Are nukes allowed?

No. The limit, as observed in the courts, is "weapons which can be reasonably borne by the individual". It's not really easy to bear a nuclear weapon, tank or Cal. .50 machine gun. Thus far, automatic guns are on the 'far' side of the line, though I'm unsure if that will stay in the long term. Tanks, machine-guns etc are legal for own, but on a discretionary basis, not a Constitutional one.

Manic Moran

Pretty reasonable piece on CNN today about how the locals feel about firearms.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/texas-gun-culture-sutherland-springs-church-shooting/index.html

Wanderer78

Another thing that will never change in that country, gun control is not the only problem in relation to this problem anyway

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Pretty reasonable piece on CNN today about how the locals feel about firearms.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/texas-gun-culture-sutherland-springs-church-shooting/index.html

What's reasonable about people living in abject fear, with a constant unending siege mentality.

Its ridiculous tbh.

Walk those guns into the nearest town there and see how you make others feel.

Protected? No. Afraid yes.

Selfish people with a lust for firearms spreading their own internal irrational fears on others through their actions.


Sorry state of affairs

DunnoKidz

There will never be gun control in the states anymore than wars will cease to exist during the reign of a right-wing house.
It's the new normal, and it's tragic.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

What's reasonable about people living in abject fear, with a constant unending siege mentality.

Its ridiculous tbh.

Walk those guns into the nearest town there and see how you make others feel.

Protected? No. Afraid yes.

Selfish people with a lust for firearms spreading their own internal irrational fears on others through their actions.


Sorry state of affairs

What makes you say it's abject fear? As the article observes, firearms are tools. It's viewed as pretty much a part as any safety equipment around the house as a fire extinguisher. You hope you don't need it, but it's quite handy to have if you do.

Note how the chap who was flagged down reacted. It wasn't "Oh my God, there's a man with a rifle", it was "Can I help you? You appear distressed." You may react 'afraid'. Doesn't mean the folks in the nearest town do.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

What makes you say it's abject fear? As the article observes, firearms are tools. It's viewed as pretty much a part as any safety equipment around the house as a fire extinguisher. You hope you don't need it, but it's quite handy to have if you do.

Note how the chap who was flagged down reacted. It wasn't "Oh my God, there's a man with a rifle", it was "Can I help you? You appear distressed." You may react 'afraid'. Doesn't mean the folks in the nearest town do.

Because people living on farms in the middle of nowhere have very little to fear. It's fear fear itself.

Propagated by the nra and a supportive media.

Everyday fear fear fear.


I watched a former NRA member I believe on the BBC the other day whom was denouncing his nra membership because they had backed down on bump stocks.

This man lived 100 miles from the nearest town. But took it upon himself to travel there every week open carry cycling around on his bike to... In his words show people his AR on his back was nothing to fear.

Walking past cafes etc people literally told him to his face he was an asshole.

Why?

Because he is.


Ridiculous situation in that country. And no firearms are not tools like a fire extinguisher. It's the likes of that mantra that plagues the country and is invasive.

Made up facts

Tony EH

Firearms are weapons, not fucking tools.

:rolleyes:

Leroy42

Tony EH wrote: »

Firearms are weapons, not fucking tools.

:rolleyes:

Gun owners see them as tools.

Tools for protection, tools for hunting.

Now I don't agree. But even their opinion falls down once you go above personal handguns or a hunting rifle.

I have not yet heard or read a reasonable argument for the availability of semi auto weapons. The only argument seems to be "2nd amendment". Basically we got it and not letting it go. Screw the consequences.

In everyone of the shootings if only handguns had been used the death toll would likely to be much less. Same for single shot rifles.

What possible reason would you need more than a small handgun for personel protection? It is simply a fear of the commando style terrorist that is just around every corner. The land of the free where millions live in abject fear.

Since Las Vegas 900 people have been killed by guns in America.

US are scared sh1tless of foreign terrorists when the real truth is that you are far more likely to be killed by someone in your community by a retail available gun.

Tony EH

I don't care what hoops or mental gymnastics gun owners use to qualify their weapons.

Trying to pretend an AR15 is as innocuous as a screwdriver or a saw is ridiculous.

And before anyone bothers, I've heard all the excuses/bullshit before.

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

What makes you say it's abject fear? As the article observes, firearms are tools. It's viewed as pretty much a part as any safety equipment around the house as a fire extinguisher. You hope you don't need it, but it's quite handy to have if you do.

Note how the chap who was flagged down reacted. It wasn't "Oh my God, there's a man with a rifle", it was "Can I help you? You appear distressed." You may react 'afraid'. Doesn't mean the folks in the nearest town do.

The inherent irony in refering to a gun as "safety equipment" is not obvious to you? Do you think the mass proliferation of weapons among American society makes people more safe or less safe? The bottom line is more guns = more people getting shot. The fact that so many Aericans view a gun as a tool, like a fire extinguisher as you said, is a massive part of the problem. It's not a tool, it's a lethal weapon designed specifically for killing things. But I understand that the situation in America can't exactly be reversed.

Almost all crime studies indicate that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer in the event of a home invasion. The data also doesn't support the idea that having a gun in your house is a detterent to criminals, because all the criminals have guns too and a lot of criminals will target houses where they know there are multiple firearms because they are easily sold on the black market.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

This man lived 100 miles from the nearest town. But took it upon himself to travel there every week open carry cycling around on his bike to... In his words show people his AR on his back was nothing to fear.

Walking past cafes etc people literally told him to his face he was an asshole.

Why?

Because he is.

Out of curiosity, how did the AR react to the owner being told he was an asshole? How did the owner react?
If you were in South Central LA, ran into a couple of lads wearing the same color clothes, and no visible AR, would you call them assholes to their face? Which of the two is the higher risk, would you think?

Maybe he is an asshole. He's also not wrong in the fundamental premise of familiarity, however. People do not go running in fear in rural parts of the country when they see a rifle. They don't go running in fear if one is seen in a city in Switzerland or Israel. I would wager that if, somehow, a whole bunch of folks in that town walked around with an AR every day for a month, people would start ignoring it. He's deliberately causing antagonism and angst, yes, but fundamentally, the question is "is this something which is considered normal?". If one redefines normal, there's no problem.

I have not yet heard or read a reasonable argument for the availability of semi auto weapons. The only argument seems to be "2nd amendment". Basically we got it and not letting it go. Screw the consequences.

With respect, I have put forward practical arguments for their suitability in situations from home defense through farming. The only time I mention 2A is in the legal context, and waving a piece of paper around has little practical benefit in the real world. Perhaps you have read them and consider them unreasonable, but outside of "Nobody should have them" or "they are dangerous", I have not heard anyone come up with a particularly objective counter. For example, I have cited the subject of penetration ballistics of the chances of different types of ammunition overpenetrating a typical wall of a house and why a rifle calibre is safer. It is the reason you see SWAT teams (and the Garda ERU) using ARs now after previously using pistol-calibre submachineguns. In response, I get ad hominems about fear and paranoia. Objectivity vs emotion.

In everyone of the shootings if only handguns had been used the death toll would likely to be much less. Same for single shot rifles.

A little while back I posted the ten worst mass shootings in the US, by firearm. Handguns were more prevalent than rifles. Of the ten-thousand plus firearms murders a year, 2% are conducted with rifles. The weapon of choice is the handgun. Twice as many people are murdered by bare hands than rifles. Rifles are, outside of a portion of high-profile mass shootings, not a significant public safety issue.

What possible reason would you need more than a small handgun for personel protection?

A rifle is, without caveat, the best weapon for the job, assuming you have the use of both hands. The only advantages to the small handgun are convenience and concealability (I refer you back to the weapon of choice for criminal enterprise).

Since Las Vegas 900 people have been killed by guns in America.

US are scared sh1tless of foreign terrorists when the real truth is that you are far more likely to be killed by someone in your community by a retail available gun.

[/quote]

Which guns, used by whom and how?

At the national/political level, I rather agree with you. At the individual level, however, I don't know anyone whose primary concern is Achmed the Syrian Jihadist. Of the various people interviewed on that CNN article, how many referenced wildlife as a threat vs terrorists?

Trying to pretend an AR15 is as innocuous as a screwdriver or a saw is ridiculous

Tool: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

"A particular function." I wouldn't try to kill a hog with a screwdriver, and I wouldn't attempt to join two pieces of wood together with a rifle.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-03/local/me-41993_1_slotted-screwdriver
The officer was dismayed to discover that it was actually a screwdriver but was not surprised or remorseful, a police spokesman said. Ordinary screwdrivers have long been used as deadly weapons, they said. Three cases involving their use occurred in the San Fernando Valley in the past two weeks alone.
[..]
Their use puts police in a quandary.

"A screwdriver can certainly be as deadly as a knife," said Chuck Morton, director of the Institute of Forensic Sciences, a private crime lab based in San Francisco. "I've seen deep puncture wounds from a Phillips head as well as a slotted screwdriver."

But unlike carrying a concealed knife or gun without a permit, possession of a screwdriver is not a crime, prosecutors and detectives said. Some wily crooks and transients have taken advantage of that fact, they said.

"If they carry a knife, it's a concealed weapon, but a screwdriver is just a tool unless you use it against somebody," said homicide detective Dan Dejarnette of the Los Angeles Police Department's Van Nuys Division.

Now, I'm not trying to draw a silly sort of false equivalence by saying screwdrivers can be as devastating as a firearm, but anything inanimate is innocuous until it is mis-used. Detective Dejarnette's comment is absolutely correct, and applies to firearms as much as screwdrivers. The question is "to what purpose is it being used." And, yes, killing can be a legitimate purpose. In every jurisdiction on the planet. Including the Vatican.

The inherent irony in refering to a gun as "safety equipment" is not obvious to you

What is the purpose of safety equipment if not to enhance the survivability of the person using it? Airbags to defibrilators. Firearms are really bloody dangerous to the person on the receiving end, yes. But on the using end..?

Almost all crime studies indicate that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer in the event of a home invasion. The data also doesn't support the idea that having a gun in your house is a detterent to criminals, because all the criminals have guns too and a lot of criminals will target houses where they know there are multiple firearms because they are easily sold on the black market.

What it does support, however, is a reduced likelihood of burglar and homeowner ever meeting each other, as burglars may want the guns, but they don't want the bullets: The US "homeowner present" rate is less than that of most other countries, so ironically, it's safer for everyone. And gun safes can be pretty burglarproof. Whilst there are certainly various statistics which can argue against having a firearm at home (such as it makes you more likely to be shot), the latest position of CDC is that when it actually does come time to undertake self defence, those who use a firearm are less likely to suffer injury than those who attempt anything else (including hiding).

listermint

Redefining normal so you get to walk around with your toys.


Perfect summation Manic.


Just perfect.




F everyone else the minority is right yeeehaawww

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

What makes you say it's abject fear? As the article observes, firearms are tools. It's viewed as pretty much a part as any safety equipment around the house as a fire extinguisher. You hope you don't need it, but it's quite handy to have if you do.

Note how the chap who was flagged down reacted. It wasn't "Oh my God, there's a man with a rifle", it was "Can I help you? You appear distressed." You may react 'afraid'. Doesn't mean the folks in the nearest town do.

Come on. Fire arms are not like fire extinguishers. I can’t believe this even needs to be argued.

Tony EH

Manic Moran wrote: »

Tool: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

"A particular function." I wouldn't try to kill a hog with a screwdriver, and I wouldn't attempt to join two pieces of wood together with a rifle.

No, I wouldn't use a tool to try and kill a hog. I'd use a weapon...that's WEAPON to kill the hog.

And before you start into other meandering smoke screens, yes a screwdriver could be used to kill, but that would be a gross abuse of its function.

OTOH, I could shoot you in the face with grandad's Walther P38 and simply be using the weapon in the function it was designed for.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow, but do us all a favor and drop the snake oil salesman act and using dishonest twists to try an justify your position on this.

Manic Moran

Well, apparently it does.

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

You are so focused on the evil which can be done with firearms that you apparently refuse to contemplate their beneficial utility. Folks like Listermint disparage them as “toys”, when most of us don’t consider them as such. With attitudes like that is it any wonder us firearms owners, who will acknowledge both sides of the argument (even without finding balance in favour of ‘your’ side) feel under siege by demagogues detached from anything which may challenge their conceptions?

Look at Lister’s response above. He mocks the concept. But he does not attempt to address it. Lister, the basic question: Is he wrong? What is your alternate opinion for the fact that in some places, where firearms are not unusually displayed, there is no particular concern, while in other places where they are unusual they cause discomfort? The firearms don’t change. But we do fear what we don’t understand or are not familiar with.

Every State in the union now permits private citizens to carry firearms in public. But people only get upset when they -see- one. What does that tell you of the difference between perception and reality?

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

You are so focused on the evil which can be done with firearms that you apparently refuse to contemplate their beneficial utility. Folks like Listermint disparage them as “toys”, when most of us don’t consider them as such. With attitudes like that is it any wonder us firearms owners, who will acknowledge both sides of the argument (even without finding balance in favour of ‘your’ side) feel under siege by demagogues detached from anything which may challenge their conceptions?

Look at Lister’s response above. He mocks the concept. But he does not attempt to address it. Lister, the basic question: Is he wrong? What is your alternate opinion for the fact that in some places, where firearms are not unusually displayed, there is no particular concern, while in other places where they are unusual they cause discomfort? The firearms don’t change. But we do fear what we don’t understand or are not familiar with.

Every State in the union now permits private citizens to carry firearms in public. But people only get upset when they -see- one. What does that tell you of the difference between perception and reality?

It tells me that you think it's normal but the majority of people don't.

That is born out by the fact that most people don't have a gun and the minority do.

Its also clear that you want to keep your toys and you don't care a jot of anyone else.

And the spread of fear helps you legitimize you keeping your toys. Its a useful tool to you fear fear and more fear.

Can't argue with facts Manic.

Most people don't own guns.
30,000 die every year from guns.
Something is wrong in the American psychic that allows this to continue. It's not normal anywhere else on earth you'll have to grow up some day.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

You are so focused on the evil which can be done with firearms that you apparently refuse to contemplate their beneficial utility. Folks like Listermint disparage them as “toys”, when most of us don’t consider them as such. With attitudes like that is it any wonder us firearms owners, who will acknowledge both sides of the argument (even without finding balance in favour of ‘your’ side) feel under siege by demagogues detached from anything which may challenge their conceptions?

Look at Lister’s response above. He mocks the concept. But he does not attempt to address it. Lister, the basic question: Is he wrong? What is your alternate opinion for the fact that in some places, where firearms are not unusually displayed, there is no particular concern, while in other places where they are unusual they cause discomfort? The firearms don’t change. But we do fear what we don’t understand or are not familiar with.

Every State in the union now permits private citizens to carry firearms in public. But people only get upset when they -see- one. What does that tell you of the difference between perception and reality?

So what do you think should be done about the mass shootings? Nothing or something?

Wanderer78

Brian? wrote: »

So what do you think should be done about the mass shootings? Nothing or something?

good guys with guns solves that one:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

The "very specific purpose" that a firearm has is to kill someone or something, or to threaten to kill someone. That on its own sets it apart from any "household tool".

I've used fire extinguishers, fire blankets and the like in houses. I also know several people who have been broken into, but they didn't shoot anyone.

I have a fire extinguisher because I know that if a fire starts in my kitchen, I'll be prepared to put that fire out. The idea that I would be just as blithely prepared to kill someone who wanted to steal some jewelry is, frankly, a bizarre one.

But I guess you have a point: at least with all those guns around, it's safe to assume that burglary is non-existent in the US?

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The "very specific purpose" that a firearm has is to kill someone or something, or to threaten to kill someone. That on its own sets it apart from any "household tool".

I've used fire extinguishers, fire blankets and the like in houses. I also know several people who have been broken into, but they didn't shoot anyone.

I have a fire extinguisher because I know that if a fire starts in my kitchen, I'll be prepared to put that fire out. The idea that I would be just as blithely prepared to kill someone who wanted to steal some jewelry is, frankly, a bizarre one.

But I guess you have a point: at least with all those guns around, it's safe to assume that burglary is non-existent in the US?

There’s a very good point here. In buying a gun for “home security” you’re committing to kill someone to protect your property. I don’t think I could do that.

If home security is your primary reason for owning a gun, why not switch to something non lethal? Like a taser or some such.

AbusesToilets

Wanderer78 wrote: »

good guys with guns solves that one:rolleyes:

Well, a "good guy" with a gun did intercede in Texas and helped to stop the shooting.

There’s a very good point here. In buying a gun for “home security” you’re committing to kill someone to protect your property. I don’t think I could do that.

If home security is your primary reason for owning a gun, why not switch to something non lethal? Like a taser or some such.

If someone has made the decision to break into my home, they have already committed to one serious crime. One would have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be prepared to inflict violence to boot. I'm going to be concerned with protecting my family and property. Any would-be crook has already made the choice to risk a violent confrontation.

AbusesToilets

listermint wrote: »

It tells me that you think it's normal but the majority of people don't.

That is born out by the fact that most people don't have a gun and the minority do.

Its also clear that you want to keep your toys and you don't care a jot of anyone else.

And the spread of fear helps you legitimize you keeping your toys. Its a useful tool to you fear fear and more fear.

Can't argue with facts Manic.

Most people don't own guns.
30,000 die every year from guns.
Something is wrong in the American psychic that allows this to continue. It's not normal anywhere else on earth you'll have to grow up some day.

Do you have any figures to back up your assertion that the majority of Americans don't support the 2nd Amendment? Google would tell me that 42% of households possess a firearm.

You keep referring to guns as toys. Do you feel that private ownership of motor vehicles ought to be restricted, or that said vehicles should be limited to a maximum rate of speed? Given that so many tens of thousands more people a year die in vehicular incidents over firearm related ones, I can't see how you wouldn't go for it. Surely no one has a legitimate reason to own a car when bus and trains are available. Reeks of selfishness.

To use your figure of 30000 deaths a year to firearms, 20000 would die in suicides, 5000 to accidents and the rest to murder, of which the majority are committed in the course of some other crime.

Do guns cause suicides? Are they responsible for crime rates nationally? Are they agents of chaos? Or perhaps they are mechanical devices designed to utilise a chemical reaction to propel a projectile out of a metallic tube, whose usage is determined by the wielder. You know, like a tool.

B00MSTICK

I think its already a hopeless case unfortunately...

So let's say all the good guys have guns, we can assume all the bad guys have guns too seeing as there are so many loopholes to get them.

Is that the end game? Everyone is armed, all the time and is therefore safe?
Sounds like the NRAs dream come true, kind of like a modern day wild west.

If guns were made legal in Ireland and shops/gun shows sprang up overnight would Ireland see more or less crime, murders, burglaries, accidental deaths/injuries, suicides?
Don't even bother answering that as its clearly past the point of no return as there's no hope of a gun amnesty or anything like it.

At this stage even getting proper background checks/vetting, education or training seems like a exercise in futility.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, a "good guy" with a gun did intercede in Texas and helped to stop the shooting.

Really? My understanding is that he was leaving the scene after pretty much doing the shooting.

One or two lives saved at most (which is to welcomed but since so many people are killed due to mass shootings every year I really doubt the NRA care too much about 1 or 2 lives), but you are stretching it to claim it stopped the shooting.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If someone has made the decision to break into my home, they have already committed to one serious crime. One would have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be prepared to inflict violence to boot. I'm going to be concerned with protecting my family and property. Any would-be crook has already made the choice to risk a violent confrontation.

So you want to kill them? Why no taser them and let justice take over?

What kind of a lawless society is the US when citizens live in fear of armed killers randomly attacking their homes.

Is there any research done to show the varying burglary rates between gun with and without homes and what level of murder in those burglaries?

listermint

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do you have any figures to back up your assertion that the majority of Americans don't support the 2nd Amendment? Google would tell me that 42% of households possess a firearm.

Maths doesn't appear to be a strong point.

NRA membership is around 2 million.

Minority rules is the order of the day.

Or rule by gun if you will.

Democracy

B00MSTICK

AbusesToilets wrote:

Do guns cause suicides?

They were (and probably still are) the leading cause of death by suicide though.

I have done absolutely no research into it but I think its easy to see why.
Guns are readily available, pretty much always lethal (when pressed against your temple) and are a quick pull of the trigger.

Is it possible that someone might have been down one evening and just decided to do it in a split second ? The gun is just lying in the drawer, no need for anything more elaborate.

Of course if someone really wants to do themselves in there's plenty of ways to do it - few are as as quick, easy and "successful" as gun it seems...

You do hear of people attempting to kill themselves (or at least seriously contemplating it) - I can imagine (but cannot backup with evidence) that having such an easy way of doing it might have pushed some over the edge that otherwise may not have.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really? My understanding is that he was leaving the scene after pretty much doing the shooting.

One or two lives saved at most (which is to welcomed but since so many people are killed due to mass shootings every year I really doubt the NRA care too much about 1 or 2 lives), but you are stretching it to claim it stopped the shooting.

The shooter got shot, dropped his gun and fled. Sounds fairly clear cut to me, but don't let reality get in the way of a good narrative.

So you want to kill them? Why no taser them and let justice take over?

What kind of a lawless society is the US when citizens live in fear of armed killers randomly attacking their homes.

Is there any research done to show the varying burglary rates between gun with and without homes and what level of murder in those burglaries?

Well, burglary is fairly common occurrence in every country. Many criminals in the US are armed. So why would a homeowner not take steps to ensure he could protect himself from a violent entry into his domicile? You clearly favor given all possible advantages to people who have no compunction breaking the law. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away

AbusesToilets

listermint wrote: »

Maths doesn't appear to be a strong point.

NRA membership is around 2 million.

Minority rules is the order of the day.

Or rule by gun if you will.

Democracy

NRA membership isn't a prerequisite for gun ownership. It might shock you, but they only represent a subset of the gun owning populace and their views are not universally accepted.

listermint

AbusesToilets wrote: »

NRA membership isn't a prerequisite for gun ownership. It might shock you, but they only represent a subset of the gun owning populace and their views are not universally accepted.

You said 42% I'm not expert but thats not a majority...