🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[MaceB]

Someone was arguing defensive gun use was rare, I pointed out it wasnt. All of those stories are from a two week period give or take. You can post whatever you want and I'll gladly do it again.

Just saying, your anecdotal facts don't say much of anything about the need for gun regulations. We can do both. We can protect the 2nd amendment and have common sense gun regulations.

And sure, if you like. This is an article from August. 72 gun incidents in one weekend, 13 fatalities total.
At least 72 shot, 13 killed in Chicago over violent summer weekend, police department says

 

[Handsome Rob]

Here's an article poking holes in that kind of analysis.
How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

In addition, it doesn't matter. Just because there are good uses for guns, that doesn't mean we can't have common sense gun regulation. Once again, gun rights activists want to make this debate about no gun regulations vs. a complete reversal of the 2nd amendment. Problem is... there's no realistic plan on the table to do that.
Meanwhile, the gun lobby has bribed officials to make it impossible to scientifically study gun deaths... so these kinds of numbers are hazy.

Well, it does matter--it just doesn't matter to you, because you've already made your mind up that offensive uses outnumber defensive ones, so you only accept evidence that reinforces your belief.

And that article you cited? The lowest estimate in there "about 100,000 uses." Heck, even the Washington Post called it "a more reasonable estimate." Remarkably close to the 108,000 cited in federal government numbers. Maybe you should have read it . . . you know, before you backed up my argument with it.

 

[MaceB]

Well, it does matter--it just doesn't matter to you, because you've already made your mind up that offensive uses outnumber defensive ones, so you only accept evidence that reinforces your belief.

And that article you cited? The lowest estimate in there "about 100,000 uses." Heck, even the Washington Post called it "a more reasonable estimate." Remarkably close to the 108,000 cited in federal government numbers. Maybe you should have read it . . . you know, before you backed up my argument with it.

You're not understanding me. I'm saying that the defensive vs. offensive gun use debate doesn't matter, because it is not, in itself, a reason to reject common sense gun regulations. Sure, I'll give you that there are more defensive uses of guns than offensive uses. That doesn't change the fact that we have a gun problem in this country, that could be helped by common sense gun laws.

That's like saying we shouldn't have cigarette regulations, because not everyone gets cancer.

 

[Schlosser85]

Jamie Lee Curtis swings back at Fox News on guns: 'I fully support the Second Amendment'

Them trying to manufacture a "thing" out of her brandishing a gun in a movie was pathetic even by their standards. Advocating for gun control, as she does, isn't the same as wanting guns banned period, or not using a gun.

 

[Holiday]

Just saying, your anecdotal facts don't say much of anything about the need for gun regulations. We can do both. We can protect the 2nd amendment and have common sense gun regulations.

I'm personally not opposed to gun laws that make sense and dont punish responsible people. I also dont think everybody should run out and arm themselves because carrying a gun isnt right for everyone. But I also think defensive gun use happens a lot more often then people care to admit.

Literally at the top of the last page.

As for your link to what went on in Chicago over the weekend, what law or laws do you suggest to curb that violence? We know they are using illegal guns already. What do you think of stop and frisk?

 

[MaceB]

Literally at the top of the last page.

As for your link to what went on in Chicago over the weekend, what law or laws do you suggest to curb that violence? We know they are using illegal guns already. What do you think of stop and frisk?

Well..there's a lot we could do:

- Close the gun show loophole
- Make it illegal to own an semi-automatic assault rifle
- Make it illegal to give away your gun for any reason
- Make gun owners culpable for not securing their gun in a safe or leaving it in the space of children
- Endorse and incentivize smart gun technology
- register and track ammunition
- Make it impossible to buy a gun if you have any violence in your record or a history of mental illness
- Create a gun buy back program like Australia
- limit the amount of guns one person can own

Etc. etc. etc. If you're looking for solution, then there are lots of them. I'm sorry that I didn't read your earlier post. I guess I just don't understand the purpose of your evidence then. Is anyone trying to say that we should take away all guns or not allow innocent responsible civilians from owning guns? Because more often than not, that's a straw man argument that gun advocates use to to scare people from common sense regulations.

And again, your statistics are hard to take into account, since the gun lobby has bribed officials to not be able to accurately record gun deaths. Also, a lot of illegal gun deaths or accidents don't get reported, for obvious reasons.

And they aren't using illegal guns solely. A lot of them are bought in the neighboring state that doesn't have strong gun regulations. This is the problem with not having a national model on the issue.

 

[Holiday]

Well..there's a lot we could do:

- Close the gun show loophole
- Make it illegal to own an semi-automatic assault rifle
- Make it illegal to give away your gun for any reason
- Make gun owners culpable for not securing their gun in a safe or leaving it in the space of children
- Endorse and incentivize smart gun technology
- register and track ammunition
- Make it impossible to buy a gun if you have any violence in your record or a history of mental illness
- Create a gun buy back program like Australia
- limit the amount of guns one person can own

Etc. etc. etc. If you're looking for solution, then there are lots of them. I'm sorry that I didn't read your earlier post. I guess I just don't understand the purpose of your evidence then. Is anyone trying to say that we should take away all guns or not allow innocent responsible civilians from owning guns? Because more often than not, that's a straw man argument that gun advocates use to to scare people from common sense regulations.

And again, your statistics are hard to take into account, since the gun lobby has bribed officials to not be able to accurately record gun deaths. Also, a lot of illegal gun deaths or accidents don't get reported, for obvious reasons.

And they aren't using illegal guns solely. A lot of them are bought in the neighboring state that doesn't have strong gun regulations. This is the problem with not having a national model on the issue.

Some of those proposals I agree, some I don't. Looking at them all together, if someone passes a background check, can't buy an assault rifle, has no history of violence or mental illness, why would then limit how many guns they can have? Seems unnecessary. On the buyback program, we already have those.

I'll ask again, do think stop and frisk would help in Chicago?

As for my earlier posts, like I already said, some think defensive gun use is rare and I intended to show that it isn't. I have seen someone suggest banning handguns in another thread, but not here.

I think you're referring to Rob's statistics but one could say that same thing about defensive gun uses, likely not all are reported.

 

[MaceB]

Some of those proposals I agree, some I don't. Looking at them all together, if someone passes a background check, can't buy an assault rifle, has no history of violence or mental illness, why would then limit how many guns they can have? Seems unnecessary.

So is owning 19 firearms for "self defense." At that point, it's a hobby... and I see no reason why that needs to be protected under the constitution.

On the buyback program, we already have those.

Do we? A national level gun buy back program? Haven't heard about that. Could you provide evidence? Even if true, we could do more, and on a wider scale like Australia.

I'll ask again, do think stop and frisk would help in Chicago?

It's not a question of whether I think it'd work. Do I want to give police the right to stop anyone they see and frisk them without probable cause? No I don't. I'd consider that a violation of our rights.
However, it's not really what I think on this issue that matters. I'm not an expert. People have done studies on this, and it seems like there isn't a huge correlation between stop and frisk and reduced crime.
The facts about stop-and-frisk in New York City

As for my earlier posts, like I already said, some think defensive gun use is rare and I intended to show that it isn't. I have seen someone suggest banning handguns in another thread, but not here.

I think you're referring to Rob's statistics but one could say that same thing about defensive gun uses, likely not all are reported.

It applies to your evidence as well. Yeah, it's true that defensive gun uses outnumber offensive gun uses; however, that in itself, is not a reason to resist gun regulations in any way, and the numbers of actual offensive gun attacks are much harder to report, as such people tend to not want to be caught. Whereas defensive gun uses usually get reported. Cause why wouldn't they be? If you defended yourself on the street from an attacker with your gun, of course you'd call the police right after. You haven't done anything wrong. On top of that, the numbers are also not very dependable, because the gun lobby bribes politicians to make it difficult to study gun statistics.

Those proposals were just off the top of my head. There are certainly more and better regulations that experts know about. The point is that if we actually wanted to minimize gun violence, we could. It's just that we don't because... let's be honest... Americans like their guns due to cultural reasons. Anyone who says they need 2 shotguns and 4 handguns inside their home for self defense is not being honest with you, and not being honest with themselves. There in the home because their owners like them... the guns represent something to them... and that's the real reason why they hate gun regulations. The guns aren't just tools for defense, to many Americans, they're proxies for their own individual freedoms... or something.

 

[Aximili86]

Gun crime hasn't gone down in Australia, to address your point there. ^ They just haven't had another massacre, of which they only had one with the decades the old laws were on the books anyway. One-off type of stuff is exactly what it was pre-96.

 

[MaceB]

Gun crime hasn't gone down in Australia, to address your point there. ^ They just haven't had another massacre, of which they only had one with the decades the old laws were on the books anyway. One-off type of stuff is exactly what it was pre-96.

Homicides have not only decreased year over year in Australia, but they're getting lower per capita.
Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org

 

[Aximili86]

Actually, yeah, you're right. I got it mixed up with homicides generally, which are static.

Conceded. A lot of the gun death drops seem to be suicides, but that's certainly not nothing.

 

[Teelie]

Either you're for no gun regulation or you are for outright banning guns. That is the position of Fox News and it's viewers. There is no middle ground where common sense and reasonable regulation exists.

 

[Aximili86]

I think what a lot of people take issue with is who determines the "common sense" part. That's going to change from person to person, outlook to outlook, part of the country to other part of the country.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I think what a lot of people take issue with is who determines the "common sense" part. That's going to change from person to person, outlook to outlook, part of the country to other part of the country.

It is. For instance, consider the stigma of "mental illness." Making a blanket ban prohibiting anyone with a history of "mental illness" from owning a gun is lunacy, because it feeds into the myth that people with mental illnesses are inherently violent either toward themselves or others. I think it's a valid argument if we're talking about someone with a mental illness who actually has a history of violence. But, outside of that, you're just engaging in harmful stereotyping.

First, let's take Gary over here who's on medication for generalized anxiety disorder. He works a steady job, helps out at the local soup kitchen, and has never been arrested for or even been seen being violent towards anyone. His psychiatrist, who he has been seeing for 10 years, has never seen any indication that he is a threat to himself, much less others. Is Gary the kind of person who should automatically be prohibited from choosing to own a gun and keep it at his house for his own personal protection, just because he has a diagnosed mental illness?

Second, if we blanket ban anyone with a "mental illness" from owning a gun, how many gun owners might not seek help for mental health issues for fear of being diagnosed and then automatically having to surrender their guns? Is our society really better off for that?

 

[MaceB]

The trick is being committed to finding solutions... not reasons to give up. I've provided multiple ways in which we could reduce gun crime and gun homicides. Would there have to be exceptions and nuances to the rules? Sure. It'd go to committee, and that's how laws are made.

The truth though is that many of us don't want to commit to gun safety or common sense gun regulations.. our hobby is more important.

Mental illness... I'm sure we could distinguish between generalized anxiety and schizophrenia if we wanted to, for example. But we don't get that far. We're still in the 'deciding if we even want to try' stage. And that's where we'll stay for the foreseeable future, cause the reality is that 30-40% of this country doesn't even want to try. There's no amount of deaths that'll convince them. Their gun isn't just a weapon for self defense... it's a metaphor for their personal freedoms, and they aren't willing to budge on that.

 

[Aximili86]

As for the mental illness thing, Handsome, I'm actually for that. In face of the facts that yeah, statistically/provably they don't commit any more violent crime than anyone else does. Personally, hysterical/irrational data-wise as it may be, I still don't want a schizophrenic or manic depressive dude owning an AR-10. That's a different situation to someone with no criminal nor psych record whatsoever.

Mace, you keep singing the "common sense regulations" tune. Half the country isn't going to agree with your "common sense" parameters, that's the entire issue here. If it were easy, it'd have been solved by now. Let's not do the "other side of the equation just don't want to lift a finger because they're totally cool with kids dying" schtick. That's not good-faith debate, of course in the face of that they're just going to dig in, raise a middle finger, and tell you to go **** yourself. It's half the issue here, the whole "I don't just disagree with the other side, they're literally malicious" thing, it happens in both camps and it's why nobody can even get in a room and talk it out.

 

[Herofan]

Either you're for no gun regulation or you are for outright banning guns. That is the position of Fox News and it's viewers. There is no middle ground where common sense and reasonable regulation exists.

Local governments were banning handguns until (due to the Supreme Court) 2010, not just a regulation and hardly mild or reasonable.

Especially given that, and liberal desires to reverse that decision, mandatory buyback programs also seem a lot more like banning most guns rather than just imposing regulations.

 

[Holiday]

So is owning 19 firearms for "self defense." At that point, it's a hobby... and I see no reason why that needs to be protected under the constitution.


Do we? A national level gun buy back program? Haven't heard about that. Could you provide evidence? Even if true, we could do more, and on a wider scale like Australia.



It's not a question of whether I think it'd work. Do I want to give police the right to stop anyone they see and frisk them without probable cause? No I don't. I'd consider that a violation of our rights.
However, it's not really what I think on this issue that matters. I'm not an expert. People have done studies on this, and it seems like there isn't a huge correlation between stop and frisk and reduced crime.
The facts about stop-and-frisk in New York City



It applies to your evidence as well. Yeah, it's true that defensive gun uses outnumber offensive gun uses; however, that in itself, is not a reason to resist gun regulations in any way, and the numbers of actual offensive gun attacks are much harder to report, as such people tend to not want to be caught. Whereas defensive gun uses usually get reported. Cause why wouldn't they be? If you defended yourself on the street from an attacker with your gun, of course you'd call the police right after. You haven't done anything wrong. On top of that, the numbers are also not very dependable, because the gun lobby bribes politicians to make it difficult to study gun statistics.

Those proposals were just off the top of my head. There are certainly more and better regulations that experts know about. The point is that if we actually wanted to minimize gun violence, we could. It's just that we don't because... let's be honest... Americans like their guns due to cultural reasons. Anyone who says they need 2 shotguns and 4 handguns inside their home for self defense is not being honest with you, and not being honest with themselves. There in the home because their owners like them... the guns represent something to them... and that's the real reason why they hate gun regulations. The guns aren't just tools for defense, to many Americans, they're proxies for their own individual freedoms... or something.

I apologize for the late response to this. I don't really care to start dissecting quotes here mostly because doing so on mobile is such a pain so if that is where this continues I will probably bow out.

You cited the weekend in the worst parts of Chicago as evidence of the need for gun regulations which I agree with but then you seem to target legal gun owners. I think trying to tell people how many and what type of guns are right for defense of them and their family is foolish and isn't going to win anyone over. The focus should be on areas like Chicago, where gun traffickers are selling cheap guns to criminals who are using them to commit murder. Laws focusing on stopping those type of straw purchases makes more sense to me that limiting what law abiding citizens can have because you or I know what is right for them.

 

[MaceB]

I apologize for the late response to this. I don't really care to start dissecting quotes here mostly because doing so on mobile is such a pain so if that is where this continues I will probably bow out.

You cited the weekend in the worst parts of Chicago as evidence of the need for gun regulations which I agree with but then you seem to target legal gun owners. I think trying to tell people how many and what type of guns are right for defense of them and their family is foolish and isn't going to win anyone over. The focus should be on areas like Chicago, where gun traffickers are selling cheap guns to criminals who are using them to commit murder. Laws focusing on stopping those type of straw purchases makes more sense to me that limiting what law abiding citizens can have because you or I know what is right for them.

No problem, thanks for responding. They aren't mutually exclusive. We can do both. I'm just saying.. if you need 19 guns for self defense, then you might want to think about leaving town or something. Its totally unnecessary and speaks to the real problem I've been talking about: for a lot of folks, the gun isn't a tool for self defense... it's culturally significant... it's a hobby, it's a trophy, it's a proxy for one's sense of toughness or masculinity or...something. Part of the reason why guns are so easily trafficked is because we have too many of them. A lot of those guns in Chicago are coming from neighboring states where it's easier to get guns.

Now, if you want to get a firearm distribution license, that's another story. Maybe we could make it so if you want more than 5 guns, you need to get a special waiver which describes exactly why you need that many.

 

[Holiday]

No problem, thanks for responding. They aren't mutually exclusive. We can do both. I'm just saying.. if you need 19 guns for self defense, then you might want to think about leaving town or something. Its totally unnecessary and speaks to the real problem I've been talking about: for a lot of folks, the gun isn't a tool for self defense... it's culturally significant... it's a hobby, it's a trophy, it's a proxy for one's sense of toughness or masculinity or...something. Part of the reason why guns are so easily trafficked is because we have too many of them. A lot of those guns in Chicago are coming from neighboring states where it's easier to get guns.

Now, if you want to get a get a firearm distribution license, that's another story. Maybe we could make it so if you want more than 5 guns, you need to get a special waiver which describes exactly why you need that many.

I don't see this hypothetical gun hobbyist as a problem. They are exercising their legal right to purchase guns and using them for fun or defense if needed. They aren't using them in street crimes. A person buying that many guns is going to buy the safe to go with them, to protect what they've invested as well.

We should look at the person who buys 19 guns, and 17 are "stolen" then used in a crime in another state. Also the shops that are selling to these people without question.

 

[MaceB]

I don't see this hypothetical gun hobbyist as a problem. They are exercising their legal right to purchase guns and using them for fun or defense if needed. They aren't using them in street crimes. A person buying that many guns is going to buy the safe to go with them, to protect what they've invested as well.

We should look at the person who buys 19 guns, and 17 are "stolen" then used in a crime in another state. Also the shops that are selling to these people without question.

They aren't meant for fun or defense. They're meant for defense. period. That's the problem. It's not a toy. It's a dangerous weapon. It's not a trophy or something to be proud of. It shouldn't make you feel strong or powerful. It's a tool, like a hammer or a drill.

Agreed that we should look at the criminals and the negligent gun shops as well.

 

[Holiday]

They aren't meant for fun or defense. They're meant for defense. period. That's the problem. It's not a toy. It's a dangerous weapon. It's not a trophy or something to be proud of. It shouldn't make you feel strong or powerful. It's a tool, like a hammer or a drill.

Agreed that we should look at the criminals and the negligent gun shops as well.

When I say fun, to defend yourself with a gun for example you need to practice marksmanship. That is fun. Getting better at it is fun. There isn't anything wrong with enjoying that.

 

[MaceB]

When I say fun, to defend yourself with a gun for example you need to practice marksmanship. That is fun. Getting better at it is fun. There isn't anything wrong with enjoying that.

It's okay to be happy while shooting your gun. But if you're like, "oh man, I can't wait to get out there and blow that broken down car away with my semi-automatic rifle," then that's a problem. I can do donuts in my car and say it's about training myself to drive, but it's irresponsible. That's not what a car is for. That's something kids do when they don't realize or respect the tool at their disposal.

And let's be honest... that's really the only thing that semi-automatic rifles are good for. Having fun shooting recklessly and killing people... two uses.

The fact that the line between defense and fun is so murky in this country when it comes to guns, is definitely my point. And if most gun owners were being honest, they'd say that's a big part of the allure. Not defending yourself but having a good time shooting stuff with the boys. Guns are 60 % cultural in this country, 40% for self defense. The ratio is probably worse, but I want to be generous.

 

[Holiday]

It's okay to be happy while shooting your gun. But if you're like, "oh man, I can't wait to get out there and blow that broken down car away with my semi-automatic rifle," then that's a problem. I can do donuts in my car and say it's about training myself to drive, but it's irresponsible. That's not what a car is for. That's something kids do when they don't realize or respect the tool at their disposal.

And let's be honest... that's really the only thing that semi-automatic rifles are good for. Having fun shooting recklessly and killing people... two uses.

The fact that the line between defense and fun is so murky in this country when it comes to guns, is definitely my point. And if most gun owners were being honest, they'd say that's a big part of the allure. Not defending yourself but having a good time shooting stuff with the boys. Guns are 60 % cultural in this country, 40% for self defense. The ratio is probably worse, but I want to be generous.

That analogy doesn't work because doing donuts isnt a driving exercise applicable to something that would occur on the road. You'd be doing that for the hell of it, not to be a better driver.

 

[MaceB]

People shooting off AR-15s are doing it for the hell of it too.... unless you're practicing for warfare.

And honestly, the point remains. Today in America, owning a gun is not just about self defense; it's a symbol.