More guns don't seem to be the answer....

[oldpop]

It is a never ending circle. As violence increases so do gun sales. People want to protect themselves and their loved ones. I cannot blame them. The police cannot be everywhere at once and can rarely be at a crime scene in less than ten minutes.

I live in the woods. Out here the only things I have to protect myself from are bears and snakes. Usually if I leave them alone they leave me alone. Going into town is a bit different.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

The NRA types feared that us liberal SOBs wanted to take away their guns. They were right. So, they decided that flooding the nation with guns would make it impossible to take away guns. But that strategy is backfiring. The problem with lots of people having guns is that they are going to use them. Now gun related deaths are common. While the mass shootings make for headlines, the vast majority of gun related deaths are suicides (60%), an in almost 40% of the rest, the victim is known by the shooter. Some have said that the suicidal would just use another way to kill themselves if guns were not available. But suicides dropped 20%, when stricter guns laws were adopted in New Zealand. People may want to kill themselves, but the want to do it the most painless way they can.
I don't expect true gun reform in the US in 10-20 years, but it is inevitable.

 

[feywon]

I'm probably one of the furthest Left liberals on this forum but i don't want to ban guns, i want sensible gun laws that will mandate at least as much training, demonstrating of both practical skills and safety to become licensed to carry, and consequences for violating those laws that are fully enforced. i see no reason for an instrument whose purpose is to do bodily harm or kill to be less regulated than vehicles whose main purpose is transport and most often cause injury/death only when misused or when a combo of factors including drivers' mistakes cause an accident.

That's what countries that have as many (in the case of some more) guns per capita in private hands than in the USA have and they don't have the rampant gun violence or accidental gun injury/death stats we do. To be honest those countries have very different cultures from us, but that becomes a whole other conversation and i despair of Americans achieving a tipping point of the attitude adjustments necessary for another couple of generations, if then.

Clearly school shootings haven't changed the minds of any older folks who resist sensible gun regulations. So i'm not sure even the stats on how many prepubescent American kids per year are injured, die, or in some cases kill another person because they were allowed access to a loaded gun and had little instructions about guns would make an impression.

I was raised in house with guns we would have eaten less well if my parents didn't hunt. But we were taught gun safety and had strict rules about our picking them up, tho we did under supervision to demonstrate we understood those instructions and rules.

You want an eye opener? Try to do a thorough search for the stats on gun related incidents involving prepubescent kids in the USA. I spent hours trying one morning to find a reliable national figure. Couldn't for several reasons including the fact that different jurisdictions label them differently, and some in ways that will hide the fact a child (often preschool age) was allowed access to a loaded gun. One would have to learn which jurisdictions 'mask' those stats, burying them in total gun 'accident' stats, then do searches of news archives in those places. And it is a depressing task. I'm not up to it.

You might have guessed that what info is available about the number of child related gun incidents is the thing that drives my advocacy for sensible gun laws. When i was a child and even now in farm/ranch communities they would be redundant because responsible adults teach their kids to be responsible with this deadly tool.

 

[win231]

Well if you must have military style guns the fewer shells in the magazine the better.

I don't understand that answer. So, you have no answer?

 

[oldaunt]

W

I'm probably one of the furthest Left liberals on this forum but i don't want to ban guns, i want sensible gun laws that will mandate at least as much training, demonstrating of both practical skills and safety to become licensed to carry, and consequences for violating those laws that are fully enforced. i see no reason for an instrument whose purpose is to do bodily harm or kill to be less regulated than vehicles whose main purpose is transport and most often cause injury/death only when misused or when a combo of factors including drivers' mistakes cause an accident.

That's what countries that have as many (in the case of some more) guns per capita in private hands than in the USA have and they don't have the rampant gun violence or accidental gun injury/death stats we do. To be honest those countries have very different cultures from us, but that becomes a whole other conversation and i despair of Americans achieving a tipping point of the attitude adjustments necessary for another couple of generations, if then.

Clearly school shootings haven't changed the minds of any older folks who resist sensible gun regulations. So i'm not sure even the stats on how many prepubescent American kids per year are injured, die, or in some cases kill another person because they were allowed access to a loaded gun and had little instructions about guns would make an impression.

I was raised in house with guns we would have eaten less well if my parents didn't hunt. But we were taught gun safety and had strict rules about our picking them up, tho we did under supervision to demonstrate we understood those instructions and rules.

You want an eye opener? Try to do a thorough search for the stats on gun related incidents involving prepubescent kids in the USA. I spent hours trying one morning to find a reliable national figure. Couldn't for several reasons including the fact that different jurisdictions label them differently, and some in ways that will hide the fact a child (often preschool age) was allowed access to a loaded gun. One would have to learn which jurisdictions 'mask' those stats, burying them in total gun 'accident' stats, then do searches of news archives in those places. And it is a depressing task. I'm not up to it.

You might have guessed that what info is available about the number of child related gun incidents is the thing that drives my advocacy for sensible gun laws. When i was a child and even now in farm/ranch communities they would be redundant because responsible adults teach their kids to be responsible with this deadly tool.

We HAVE sensible gun laws, and like every OTHER law in the country, problem people find ways around them. Remember, if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.

 

[oldaunt]

Y

The NRA types feared that us liberal SOBs wanted to take away their guns. They were right. So, they decided that flooding the nation with guns would make it impossible to take away guns. But that strategy is backfiring. The problem with lots of people having guns is that they are going to use them. Now gun related deaths are common. While the mass shootings make for headlines, the vast majority of gun related deaths are suicides (60%), an in almost 40% of the rest, the victim is known by the shooter. Some have said that the suicidal would just use another way to kill themselves if guns were not available. But suicides dropped 20%, when stricter guns laws were adopted in New Zealand. People may want to kill themselves, but the want to do it the most painless way they can.
I don't expect true gun reform in the US in 10-20 years, but it is inevitable.

Yep. I have had guns for 50 years. I use one almost every year when I shoot a deer for my freezer. Once in a while, I shoot a coyote. And if someone came here and threatened my life, you can be damsure I'll shoot him.

 

[Don M.]

We HAVE sensible gun laws, and like every OTHER law in the country, problem people find ways around them. Remember, if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.

Like any other laws, gun laws are only of any value if people adhere to those laws. Criminals and nut cases will always find ways to circumvent and ignore "laws". The Only people who seem to adhere to gun laws are those who are quite unlikely to ever use a gun illegally.

 

[feywon]

W

We HAVE sensible gun laws, and like every OTHER law in the country, problem people find ways around them. Remember, if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.

No! No we do not have them everywhere, especially there are few that provide for accountability, consequences for allowing small children and untrained people access to loaded guns.

I do NOT advocate banning guns. I made that clear.

Most states have made someone sitting in car, waiting for friends they thought were just buying something in a store as guilty as the gun wielder in an armed robbery but i've yet to hear of a case where there were consequences for an adult that left a loaded gun in reach of a youngster who then injured or killed themselves or others with the weapon. At the very least, i think they should be charged with reckless endangerment and Child Protective Services should become involved if there are.remaining chikdren in the home.

 

[Knight]

"More guns don't seem to be the answer..." to which I have to ask, what is the question?

Yesterday there was a fatality at the Royal Easter Show in Sydney. A fight broke out between two gangs (South Sea Islander men) and knives were produced. It appears to have been pre-planned. One man is dead with a stab wound to the heart. Another is in hospital but no bystanders were affected.

For this to happen at such a family friendly event is shocking but thankfully no firearms were involved.

I would say that violence is never the answer. Violence itself is the problem.

(Reuters) - When Travis Reinking’s semi-automatic rifle was confiscated after his attempt to enter the White House last year, he simply moved from Illinois to nearby Tennessee where signs of mental illness are no bar to gun ownership.

The U.S. federal system leaves it up to states to set most gun laws. Less than half of U.S. states require background checks before private sales, and only a small number require “universal checks” for all purchases, including at gun shows.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ls-in-patchwork-of-u-s-gun-laws-idUSKBN1HX36T

Warrigal what is your opinion on how Australia's uniform gun laws have worked.

 

[win231]

W

We HAVE sensible gun laws, and like every OTHER law in the country, problem people find ways around them. Remember, if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.

^^^ Exactly what's been happening.

 

[win231]

No! No we do not have them everywhere, especially there are few that provide for accountability, consequences for allowing small children and untrained people access to loaded guns.

I do NOT advocate banning guns. I made that clear.

Most states have made someone sitting in car, waiting for friends they thought were just buying something in a store as guilty as the gun wielder in an armed robbery but i've yet to hear of a case where there were consequences for an adult that left a loaded gun in reach of a youngster who then injured or killed themselves or others with the weapon. At the very least, i think they should be charged with reckless endangerment and Child Protective Services should become involved if there are.remaining chikdren in the home.

In CA, a gun owner can be prosecuted if a minor hurts someone with his/her gun. There are signs posted in every gun shop that state that & when purchasing a gun, a signature is required from the purchaser, acknowledging that.

 

[Betty Boop]

People are the problem. I do agree there needs to be stronger background checks on the people buying these guns and I also do not feel that regular people need assault weapons for any type of recreational gun use. Other than that if a law abiding citizen wants to own a gun to protect their family or a rifle for hunting that is fine.

I also feel these magazines that promote ways to make assault weapons and bombs should be banned.

 

[win231]

People are the problem. I do agree there needs to be stronger background checks on the people buying these guns and I also do not feel that regular people need assault weapons for any type of recreational gun use. Other than that if a law abiding citizen wants to own a gun to protect their family or a rifle for hunting that is fine.

I also feel these magazines that promote ways to make assault weapons and bombs should be banned.

Funny how no one has an answer to the question posed in post #23.
Instead of a reply, people only repeat over & over: "People don't need an assault weapon."

I recall Sarah Brady on a talk show. She embarrassed herself. She repeatedly said, "You don't need a gun to protect yourself."
An intelligent person in the audience said to her: "Mrs. Brady, you are constantly surrounded by armed Secret Service personnel. Besides handguns, they also carry mini Uzis. So, you don't need a gun for protection because you have armed security with you everywhere you go. How do you suggest the rest of us "regular" people protect ourselves?"
She had no reply, either.

 

[Betty Boop]

Funny how no one has an answer to the question posed in post #23.
Instead of a reply, people only repeat over & over: "People don't need an assault weapon."

I recall Sarah Brady on a talk show. She embarrassed herself. She repeatedly said, "You don't need a gun to protect yourself."
An intelligent person in the audience said to her: "Mrs. Brady, you are constantly surrounded by armed Secret Service personnel. Besides handguns, they also carry mini Uzis. So, you don't need a gun for protection because you have armed security with you everywhere you go. How do you suggest the rest of us "regular" people protect ourselves?"
She had no reply, either.

I did however state that law abiding citizens should have all the rights to own a gun to protect themselves and their families. I just don't see the need for that to be an assault weapon that will blow someones body completely apart.

I do think that stronger background checks are needed so the riff raff doesn't get their hands on these guns and I don't really know how that will be done, but something has to be done.

 

[Don M.]

There are over 400+ million guns in the U.S.....300+ million of which are unregistered. There is NO way that these weapons could ever be totally "registered". Even if some way were ever found to fully document gun ownership, and initiate effective controls on gun purchases, all that would do is create another "underground" pipeline for weapons smuggling....much like the illegal drug trade.

The "gun mentality" has become part of our society....beginning with the westward expansion in the 1700's and the wild west days of the 1800's. As our society descends further into poverty and crime, the numbers of those buying firearms for personal protection will continue to grow.

There is one Good "side effect" of having this many weapons in the hands of the people....we would probably never be faced with a government like the Nazi's, or the dictatorships currently in place in Russia, China, Iran, etc., etc. Such an attempt would lead to a massive civil war, and even half, or more of the military would join the "people's" side.

I'm afraid that "what we see is what we've got", and unless there is a massive crackdown on criminals, drug addicts/dealers, and a Major attempt to treat mental illness, etc., we are going to continue to have to keep looking over our shoulders when out in public.

 

[Warrigal]

(Reuters) - When Travis Reinking’s semi-automatic rifle was confiscated after his attempt to enter the White House last year, he simply moved from Illinois to nearby Tennessee where signs of mental illness are no bar to gun ownership.

The U.S. federal system leaves it up to states to set most gun laws. Less than half of U.S. states require background checks before private sales, and only a small number require “universal checks” for all purchases, including at gun shows.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ls-in-patchwork-of-u-s-gun-laws-idUSKBN1HX36T

Warrigal what is your opinion on how Australia's uniform gun laws have worked.

Not the answer to all crime but an improvement over what the US has.

We have a number of advantages that US does not have - for one we are an island nation, better able to ban certain categories of firearms and intercept them at the border. We don't manufacture much in the way of firearms ourselves. Another is that our firearms legislation is more of less uniform across all of the states and territories. If a certain category of firearm (or any other kind of lethal weapon) is banned in one state you cannot just drive into another state to buy one.

Although US and Australia are both federations of states, Australia, having federated as late as 1901 is more unified than US. I heard our last Ambassador to Washington recently comment that US is actually 50 different countries.

Legislation alone won't change the US gun violence problem. It will take a change of mind set of the population but I have no confidence that that will happen. Australians came together behind Prime Minister John Howard, regardless of political loyalties, after the horrific massacre by a lone shooter at Port Arthur in Tasmania. There was some resistance and a lot of muttering about burying guns to avoid handing them over in the gun amnesties but over all there was co-operation. I thought Americans might respond in a similar way after Sandy Hook but it did not happen. I don't think it ever will.

Americans must find their own solution to gun violence but IMO the answer is not to have more and more guns in the hands of civilians.

 

[Murrmurr]

It is a never ending circle. As violence increases so do gun sales. People want to protect themselves and their loved ones. I cannot blame them. The police cannot be everywhere at once and can rarely be at a crime scene in less than ten minutes.

I live in the woods. Out here the only things I have to protect myself from are bears and snakes. Usually if I leave them alone they leave me alone. Going into town is a bit different.

That's the problem right there; we need more cops, not fewer.

In major cities all over the US, where crime is the worst, police were defunded after the Floyd killing. Police forces shrunk. Older, more experienced cops were forced into retirement and rookies who earn a lot less filled some of the voids, special task forces either shrunk drastically or were shut down altogether, law enforcement can't afford to upgrade equipment, and some have shortened the training and/or probation period for new cops.

This happened just when there was an uptick in crime. Whether the cause of the uptick was the pandemic or the defunding is debatable.

 

[win231]

I did however state that law abiding citizens should have all the rights to own a gun to protect themselves and their families. I just don't see the need for that to be an assault weapon that will blow someones body completely apart.

I do think that stronger background checks are needed so the riff raff doesn't get their hands on these guns and I don't really know how that will be done, but something has to be done.

Ah, now I get it. You have fallen victim to nonsensical exaggeration from the media & the anti-gun crowd.
There is no small arms gun that will "blow someone's body completely apart." You may be confusing regular firearms with military explosives like hand grenades or 20mm tank guns, etc that are made to do that. Those are not accessible to civilians.
Just a FYI: The term "Assault Weapon" has been coined by the media for sensationalism. The fact that a semi-automatic firearm uses a magazine with 20-30 rounds does not make it an assault weapon. A true "Assault Weapon" is fully automatic:
The difference: Semi Automatic /Fully Automatic:

 

[Betty Boop]

I am sorry, I am not up on my guns/assault weapons or military weapons.

Are there not these magazines out there that tell people how to turn these weapons into weapons that can shoot off a huge amount of rounds or as you called it fully automatic? Are these magazines not available to the public?

Like I have stated, I am all for people to have a weapon for protection. The problem is how do we keep these guns out of the hands of the people who are going to use them to do destruction? That is the tough question that I feel has really yet to be answered. I think yes much stronger background checks, but there even has to be maybe more than just that.

 

[feywon]

In CA, a gun owner can be prosecuted if a minor hurts someone with his/her gun. There are signs posted in every gun shop that state that & when purchasing a gun, a signature is required from the purchaser, acknowledging that.

Glad for that. It is a start. Unfortunately in many states people can buy (often at gun shows) without background checks or waiting periods. Results in people with domestic violence issues being able to get gun qiivkly and easily.

It is true that there have been 2 cases where teens got ahold of parents' guns and used them where there have been some repercussions for parents: The Sandy Hook shooter, and that boy who clearly has Mental Health issues but parents refused to tske him home despite an obvious red flag. The School bears some responsibility in that one because when parents would not take him home school should have insisted on searching his locker, backpack or something. Call police or child services and say they are concerned he might be danger to self or others. He clearly was.

Teens could likely manage to break into all but most secure gun safes but prepubescent children mire often fire a loaded weapon left within their reach. And CA the first state I've heard of to outline consequences for parents . Would be happy to learn there are more and they were being enforced if anyone knows. Right now too tired to search. (Split & brought in firewood this morning).

 

[win231]

I am sorry, I am not up on my guns/assault weapons or military weapons.

Are there not these magazines out there that tell people how to turn these weapons into weapons that can shoot off a huge amount of rounds or as you called it fully automatic? Are these magazines not available to the public?

Like I have stated, I am all for people to have a weapon for protection. The problem is how do we keep these guns out of the hands of the people who are going to use them to do destruction? That is the tough question that I feel has really yet to be answered. I think yes much stronger background checks, but there even has to be maybe more than just that.

A magazine might provide some instruction on how to convert a weapon to fully automatic fire, but doing that requires lots of knowledge in the area of machining & design & lots of equipment. Such publications are mainly for entertainment & to generate sales. I suppose it could be done, but what's likely to happen is ending up with an unsafe or unreliable firearm that won't function. And, of course, it's a felony. That's where the problem is. A criminal doesn't mind committing a felony; that's what makes him a criminal in the first place. That's why gun restrictions haven't worked.

 

[win231]

Glad for that. It is a start. Unfortunately in many states people can buy (often at gun shows) without background checks or waiting periods. Results in people with domestic violence issues being able to get gun qiivkly and easily.

It is true that there have been 2 cases where teens got ahold of parents' guns and used them where there have been some repercussions for parents: The Sandy Hook shooter, and that boy who clearly has Mental Health issues but parents refused to tske him home despite an obvious red flag. The School bears some responsibility in that one because when parents would not take him home school should have insisted on searching his locker, backpack or something. Call police or child services and say they are concerned he might be danger to self or others. He clearly was.

Teens could likely manage to break into all but most secure gun safes but prepubescent children mire often fire a loaded weapon left within their reach. And CA the first state I've heard of to outline consequences for parents . Would be happy to learn there are more and they were being enforced if anyone knows. Right now too tired to search. (Split & brought in firewood this morning).

As a responsible gun owner, I am completely in favor of denying access to firearms to children & others who shouldn't have access.
Adam Lanza couldn't legally own firearms or ammunition but his idiotic mother provided them for him & also took him to shooting ranges for recreation. What law can prevent a parent's stupidity? Had she not been his first victim, she would certainly have been prosecuted for contributing to the deaths of 26 people.
I often argue with gun owners who brag about how "Special" or "Mature" or "Smart" their kids are, so they don't have to lock up their firearms.
They often say, "My 10 year old kid is more mature than yours; I leave my guns all over the house & he/she won't touch them without my permission." It's called being in denial.
Parents shouldn't leave alcohol or matches lying around the house, either.

 

[Betty Boop]

A magazine might provide some instruction on how to convert a weapon to fully automatic fire, but doing that requires lots of knowledge in the area of machining & design & lots of equipment. Such publications are mainly for entertainment & to generate sales. I suppose it could be done, but what's likely to happen is ending up with an unsafe or unreliable firearm that won't function. And, of course, it's a felony. That's where the problem is. A criminal doesn't mind committing a felony; that's what makes him a criminal in the first place. That's why gun restrictions haven't worked.

They do still end up in the hands of crazy people and you are correct about that and I suppose there are people who do have the knowledge to put together these types of things. Take for example the Boston Marathon two young people who had guns, but they sure also had the know how to make those bombs and the know how to set them off. I guess I would call looking at guns, rifles and such as entertainment for those who enjoy that sort of thing, but articles on how to make these sort of things I don't call that entertainment, especially if it leads to a felony if you do so.

I suppose it is either coming up with stronger background checks as I am not for taking away guns from everyone. I am also not for going back to the Wild West days where everyone is carrying a holster and a gun, especially with the way people fly off the handle so quick these days.

 

[garyt1957]

I was watching a Fly-on-the-wall cop show on TV just yesterday ( American).. and they operate in Kansas City.. The lead cop said the same as the OP.
He said in KC as many people have guns as they have wallets ... and the slightest irritation will have them shooting someone rather than sort the problem out verbally or a non violent manner . He said that he's never known the gun problem as bad, as it has become recently..

Is that a gun problem or a people problem? I could carry a gun 24/7 and nothing would get me angry enough to shoot anyone

 

[win231]

Is that a gun problem or a people problem? I could carry a gun 24/7 and nothing would get me angry enough to shoot anyone

Exactly. If the gun was the problem, that would mean that if you put a gun in the Pope's hand, he would automatically start shooting people.
Ridiculous? Yes, much like blaming an inanimate object that has no will of its own.
How many people did Charles Manson & his followers murder? Legally speaking, he was convicted of 8. Investigators estimate over 40.
He preferred knives. I don't hear anyone talking about a knife ban.

Our military trained Tim McVeigh in explosives. He murdered 166 people in less than one second. Way more than any gun could do.
Anyone want to ban Fertilizer & Diesel Fuel?