What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[ArdmoreRyno]

6 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

There are extremely stringent requirements regarding who has access to weapons produced for the US military.

No such limitations are effective in our civilian gun culture.

 

Huh? What US military weapon can you buy without a Form 4 ATF stamp and a long ass expensive wait? I guess you can buy sidearms... but besides that, huh?

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I haven't been able to vote for any gun law. I do own quite a few firearms (again, I compete long distance) and not one has ever hurt anyone. Well, I did get a copper jacket frag in my arm shooting once. 

 

Yup it's our fault for not voting for sensible gun laws.  Wait a minute.  When was that on the ballot?   

 

We know who to blame on this.  It's the worthless pieces of ***** that have populated DC for the last 50 years.  

[BillStime]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

🎯

 

 

[LeviF]

Someone upthread posted a graph which compared gun violence rates. Some people point out that Switzerland has a decent amount of guns but little gun violence and no mass shootings. Nobody talks about the hellhole Central and South American countries with plenty of gun violence but also don't have these mass shootings carried out by lone wolves. Even among the countries with *more* gun violence than the US, America is different in this regard.

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

Of course, it is everyone else's fault but which party, governors, and politicians are making it easy to get guns?

 

YOUR PARTY.

 

 

 The problem everybody avoids admitting exists is American's have been conditioned to love war and violence and have been desensitized from it due to constant exposure.  Add in a failing education system and broken families due to a terrible economy for working people that results in lots of dysfunction and kids turning out mentally FUBARed.  We had access to guns when I went to high school and lots of gripes and grievances with lots of other students and cliques but nobody on either side of these disputes went out and shot up the town because of it all.  Today, there's simply was too many people running loose out there that are a couple cans short of a 6-pack.  But embrace diversity.  Even if they are criminally insane.       

 

Also, there's lots of guns in Switzerland too.  Mass shootings not so much.  Because of the culture and not because of gun control.  The geniuses in our government left billions in military grade weapons in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and outside of their governments killing lots of people there aren't a lot of mass shootings perpetrated by disgruntled civilians.  For the major source of violence look no further than the consensus blood lust for war in Washington's uni-party establishment.  The same dick-wads that want to arm every person on Earth in every other country want to take all the guns out of hands of civilians here.  How's that reconcile?  

 

[ChiGoose]

For people looking for possible solutions to reducing gun deaths (elimination is not possible but we should strive to save lives where we can), I find this article from 2017 to have a helpful breakdown of potential solutions that are backed by data:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html

 

Some highlights of potential solutions:

 

Quote

Gun enthusiasts often protest: Cars kill about as many people as guns, and we don’t ban them! No, but automobiles are actually a model for the public health approach I’m suggesting.

 

We don’t ban cars, but we work hard to regulate them — and limit access to them — so as to reduce the death toll they cause. This has been spectacularly successful, reducing the death rate per 100 million miles driven to less than one-seventh of what it was in 1946.

 

Frankly, liberal opposition to guns has often been ineffective, and sometimes counterproductive. The 10-year ban on assault weapons accomplished little, partly because definitions were about cosmetic features like bayonet mounts (and partly because even before the ban, such guns were used in only 2 percent of crimes).

 

The left sometimes focuses on “gun control,” which scares off gun owners and leads to more gun sales. A better framing is “gun safety” or “reducing gun violence,” and using auto safety as a model—constant efforts to make the products safer and to limit access by people who are most likely to misuse them.

 

What would a public health approach look like for guns if it were modeled after cars? It would include:

 

Background checks

22 percent of guns are obtained without one.

 

Protection orders

Keep men who are subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns.

 

Ban under-21s

A ban on people under 21 purchasing firearms (this is already the case in many states).

 

Safe storage

These include trigger locks as well as guns and ammunition stored separately, especially when children are in the house.

 

Straw purchases

Tighter enforcement of laws on straw purchases of weapons, and some limits on how many guns can be purchased in a month.

 

Ammunition checks

Experimentation with a one-time background check for anybody buying ammunition.

 

End immunity

End immunity for firearm companies. That’s a subsidy to a particular industry.

 

Ban bump stocks

A ban on bump stocks of the kind used in Las Vegas to mimic automatic weapon fire.

 

Research ‘smart guns’

“Smart guns” fire only after a fingerprint or PIN is entered, or if used near a particular bracelet.

 

I think most of these are fairly reasonable starting points. And we already banned bump stocks in 2019, so that's one box already checked. I would also suggest de-gendering the domestic abuse one. Women can be abusers as well and should be subject to the same restrictions as men.

Edited May 25, 2022 by ChiGoose
Really bad typo

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

For people looking for possible solutions to reducing gun deaths (elimination is possible but we should strive to save lives where we can), I find this article from 2017 to have a helpful breakdown of potential solutions that are backed by data:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html

 

Some highlights of potential solutions:

 

 

I think most of these are fairly reasonable starting points. And we already banned bump stocks in 2019, so that's one box already checked. I would also suggest de-gendering the domestic abuse one. Women can be abusers as well and should be subject to the same restrictions as men.

 

This is the issue. Banning bump stocks, which are completely worthless (I had one, sold it like after the first time I used it), makes zero difference in violent crime. It will likely be legal to own again, just FYI. One court (US Military court in fact) already said it's NOT a machine gun. 

Can't read the rest... not subscribed to the Times. 

 

 

[1stgm1993]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Research ‘smart guns’

“Smart guns” fire only after a fingerprint or PIN is entered, or if used near a particular bracelet.

judge dred

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

This is the issue. Banning bump stocks, which are completely worthless (I had one, sold it like after the first time I used it), makes zero difference in violent crime. It will likely be legal to own again, just FYI. One court (US Military court in fact) already said it's NOT a machine gun. 

Can't read the rest... not subscribed to the Times. 

 

 

I stopped reading when the poster said this:

 

For people looking for possible solutions to reducing gun deaths (elimination is possible but we should strive to save lives where we can)  
 

Unless of course that was a typo and they meant to say elimination in NOT possible. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

I stopped reading when the poster said this:

 

For people looking for possible solutions to reducing gun deaths (elimination is possible but we should strive to save lives where we can)  
 

Unless of course that was a typo and they meant to say elimination in NOT possible. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Whoops! Good catch. I meant not possible. I will edit.

[BillStime]

26 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 The problem everybody avoids admitting exists is American's have been conditioned to love war and violence and have been desensitized from it due to constant exposure.  Add in a failing education system and broken families due to a terrible economy for working people that results in lots of dysfunction and kids turning out mentally FUBARed.  We had access to guns when I went to high school and lots of gripes and grievances with lots of other students and cliques but nobody on either side of these disputes went out and shot up the town because of it all.  Today, there's simply was too many people running loose out there that are a couple cans short of a 6-pack.  But embrace diversity.  Even if they are criminally insane.       

 

Also, there's lots of guns in Switzerland too.  Mass shootings not so much.  Because of the culture and not because of gun control.  The geniuses in our government left billions in military grade weapons in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and outside of their governments killing lots of people there aren't a lot of mass shootings perpetrated by disgruntled civilians.  For the major source of violence look no further than the consensus blood lust for war in Washington's uni-party establishment.  The same dick-wads that want to arm every person on Earth in every other country want to take all the guns out of hands of civilians here.  How's that reconcile?  

 

 

Most Americans want to be safe and support some form of gun control and safety. 

 

In the end, THIS IS NOT NORMAL and the blame needs to go to the voters who vote these NRA loving SOBs in year after year.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Whoops! Good catch. I meant not possible. I will edit.

Whew. Had me worried there for a second. 
 

This will be one of the very few times I will use this term in a non derogatory manner…

 

Carry on.  

[ArdmoreRyno]

19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Most Americans want to be safe and support some form of gun control and safety. 

 

In the end, THIS IS NOT NORMAL and the blame needs to go to the voters who vote these NRA loving SOBs in year after year.

 

 

 

We have laws in place for gun control right now. And many-many Americans are uneducated regarding firearms and get their info from CNN and Fox (both have been way off about firearms). 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

We have laws in place for gun control right now. And many-many Americans are uneducated regarding firearms and get their info from CNN and Fox (both have been way off about firearms). 

 

Yes, we do... And states have their own laws... just look at Texas.  

 

You can buy a gun faster than it takes to get a car wash at Delta Sonic.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

As I’ve stated….I’m really not a gun guy, but in this instance what difference would the ‘assault ban’ have made to the  unarmed little kids in that classroom? Could the shooter not have been able to do the same, or similar, damage with a couple of hand guns? 

[ArdmoreRyno]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Yes, we do... And states have their own laws... just look at Texas.  

 

You can buy a gun faster than it takes to get a car wash at Delta Sonic.

 

 

 

You go through the SAME background check in Texas as you do in California. 

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

As I’ve stated….I’m really not a gun guy, but in this instance what difference would the ‘assault ban’ have made to the  unarmed little kids in that classroom? Could the shooter not have been able to do the same, or similar, damage with a couple of hand guns? 

 

Studies have shown, it made zero difference in school shootings. None. And yes, a 9mm could kill as many as the AR in CQ (close quarters). The worst school shooting in American history was carried about my a little P22 (.22 pistol) and a 9mm handgun. 

 

AR's and Glocks have the same rate of fire. 

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Yes, we do... And states have their own laws... just look at Texas.  

 

You can buy a gun faster than it takes to get a car wash at Delta Sonic.

 

 

What are the requirements for fire arm purchases in TX?

 

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

You go through the SAME background check in Texas as you do in California. 

There is no waiting period in TX. CA is 10 days. 

[ArdmoreRyno]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

What are the requirements for fire arm purchases in TX?

 

There is no waiting period in TX. CA is 10 days. 

 

You fill out the SAME EXACT form and do a NICS check. I've done dozens of them. 

 

The difference is wait time. Most states don't have a "wait time" because it's moronic. California has the highest number of "mass shootings" (real ones, not gang BS) and I know I don't want my daughter(s) having to wait TEN DAYS to protect herself from someone threating her. Of course, I wouldn't let it get to that point. 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

You go through the SAME background check in Texas as you do in California. 

 

What is the waiting period for purchasing a firearm in the state of Texas?