General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLets not hurt ourselves - Gun Control
I am the most liberal person I know. That being said I have had a lifelong interest in firearms. I have more than fifty guns in my house. I keep on hand a large amount of ammunition because I like to shoot. I own handguns, shotguns, sporting rifles, military type rifles and many high capacity magazines. I too am deeply concerned with the level of gun violence in our country, but I think we hurt the conversation when we call for banning certain weapons or confiscating all guns and other such crazy ideas. I think that we need sensible legislation to do all we can to protect people from violence, yes violence, not "gun violence" but violence. I think the press in this last situation as well as others would do well to be honest and say that this person was a conservative republican who showed great hate in his writings and go after the hate mongers, Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck etc. that pump their vile non stop hoping to trigger these types of incidents and then have the gall to pretend its liberal thinking that causes it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm a socialist, and a bit militant about it...so suffice it to say my politics are very far left. I'm also a competitive shooter who also chooses to keep firearms for her personal security. I strongly support multiple reasonable expansions of gun control in the US (such as universal background checks, more-aggressive action against traffickers, and so forth). On the other hand, talk of confiscation or a complete ban of civilian ownership makes me just shake my head. Do the people who advocate such measures completely fail to understand that those actions would result in widespread violence that makes our current problem with gun violence look like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood? I just shake my head...
I also agree that the vile atmosphere of hatemongering in the more extremist corners of the popular media and in online culture is a major contributor to these incidents. The Roseburg shooter looks to have dropped hints about what was coming on 4chan, ferchrissakes.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)there at the polls in 2016 and we will get our asses kicked. That is the exact argument the NRA is making against us.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Despite the majority of Americans supporting some additional, reasonable gun controls, running on a gun control platform is politically risky...politically suicidal if one's gun control platform is aggressive.
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)"Do the people who advocate such measures completely fail to understand that those actions would result in widespread violence that makes our current problem with gun violence look like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood? I just shake my head... "
Can you cite ANY evidence for that? Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, the US should be the safest country on earth.
You are not seriously attempting to tell us that the only thing keeping "them" from "us" is your guns? REALLY???
I can point to a number of countries, just like ours, who have strict gun control. They have LESS violence, not more. It's insane to say that but for firearms we would be living in anarchy. That makes about as much sense as those who claim that without a belief in god, people have no moral compass.
Having grown up in a crime ridden neighborhood in the most dangerous area in NJ, I can tell you the best deterrent is a dog. Not a gun, which studies have demonstrated more often gets turned around & used against the owner.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm not claiming that a successful ban (that is, one that disarmed US civilians) would cause massive bloodshed because it left "us" at the mercy of "them." That's an entirely different matter. I was pointing out that a proactive, aggressive attempt to enforce such a ban would result in violent resistance, and that such resistance would be sufficiently widespread as to (greatly) exceed our current level of violence.
Apologies if I wasn't clear about what I was asserting.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Comparing a relatively harmless alcoholic beverage with firearms is stupid.
Many firearms are already strictly regulated in the US and that program has been very successful. So, you're wrong.
Calista241
(5,632 posts)1. Alcohol abuse directly causes nearly 88,000 deaths per year in the US. That's roughly 2.5 times the total number of people killed by firearms (even including suicides). If alcoholic beverages are "relatively harmless," what does that make firearms?
2. Yes, the US does strictly regulate automatic firearms, and this regulation has been widely successful. However, high quality and widely available semi-automatic weapons are not similarly regulated. It's comparable to regulating Ferrari's, but Porsche's, Lamborghini's and McLaren's are easily accessible options.
I suspect if semi-automatic firearms were regulated similarly to automatic firearms, a vibrant black market would emerge.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Are they all locked in a safe? Must be a big safe for 50+ guns.
Is your house burglar proof with an alarm system?
If your house should catch fire, would the fire fighters be in danger with the large amounts of stored ammo?
Do you have small children in your house?
Are there any residents with mental illness in your house?
Are you insured for personal liability?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Mine are (although there are far fewer of them...eight, to be exact). If I'm not in actual possession or in direct observation of any of my firearms, they'r eunloaded and locked in my safe.
Is your house burglar proof with an alarm system?
Burglar proof? No such thing. But burglar resistant, yep. I live in a condo in a building with secure access, and it's not on the ground floor. The building is alarmed.
If your house should catch fire, would the fire fighters be in danger with the large amounts of stored ammo?
Nope. As I said, I don't load any firearm I'm not actually using/carrying at the time, and it's loaded weapons which represent fire risk. Unloaded ammunition can indeed "cook off," but unless the round is loaded into the chamber of a firearm, it's not at all likely to harm anyone. Outside of the firing chamber, ammunition can't produce the pressure to drive the bullet at a dangerous velocity in a fire. It just ruptures the brass case and the projectile goes a few feet at low velocity. According to an article at myfirefighternation.com, firefighters' protective clothing is plenty to protect them.
A possible exception might be ammunition stored in those heavy steel GI ammo cans (which can allow enough pressure to build inside as to constitute at least some danger), but I don't store ammo in those.
Do you have small children in your house?
Nope...I live by myself, and my friends who have little kids know better than to bring them to my house.
Are there any residents with mental illness in your house?
Well, my cat's a bit of a nutcase...but she doesn't know the combination to the gun safe.
Are you insured for personal liability?
Yep.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They are in 5 fireproof safes that are bolted to both a concrete floor(4-1/2" bolts" ans a concrete block wall (2-1/2"bolts). Mygun room is not accessible from the outside. The walls are concrete filled concrete block ( not cinder block) and the door is a 4 hour rated door and frame from a hospital. There is a sprinkler system throughout the house
My home is built of cut and fitted rock and the walls are 12" thick. Double pane windows with armored glass and argon filled. There is an alarm system.
We live on 40 acres of fenced land with a locked gate.
When our grand kids are on property the gun room remains locked.
Good enough?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Isn't it nice to see that phrase used w/o sarcasm on DU? =)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I am currently teaching my oldest granddaughter (9) the basics of safety and handling of firearms, she has graduated from her Dads BB gun( 20yr old Red Ryder) to her grandfathers original 22. A 50+ year old Remington Nylon bolt action. The same weapons her Father learned on.
Time, and life, marches on.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I learned to shoot rifles on a nylon-stocked Remington, but it was a Nylon 66 semi-auto. Dad's still got that rifle. My own little .22 plinker is a Winchester Model 190 that I was given as a present not long after those sessions with the Nylon 66. It has "seniority" in my modest little collection.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)It stayed in the wall rack.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And yeah...mine stayed in the gun cabinet (not a safe...more innocent times, those).
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Ammo is not dangerous to firefighters. Ammo does cook off in a fire, but the force is going to send the shell casing flying, not the bullet.(because the shell casing is lighter.) Even so, there really is no force behind this. Standard firefighter gear is more than enough to prevent any injury.
There have been test where a semi truck trailer full of ammo was set on fire (rear doors open), and a firefighter stood 10'-15' away and was uninjured, no damage to his turnout gear also.
Here is the video. 250,000 rounds were in the semi truck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1243&v=3SlOXowwC4c
A police or first responded standard clothing could get some very light welts. Possibly equivalent to being outside in a hail storm. Not plesent, but its not going to seriously hurt anybody.
uppityperson
(115,992 posts)What sort of "mental illness" do you mean as there is a wide range? Thank you in advance for answering.
OneGrassRoot
(23,925 posts)the nature of your lifelong interest? Are you a collector of sorts, would you say?
Not being interested in firearms, it's hard for me to wrap my brain around the "why" of having so many guns, of varying types, but I can understand it more if it's a collector type of thing.
My BIL has a collection similar to what you describe. Unfortunately, he has it because he's a "the government is gonna take over and I'm not going down without a fight" person.
What bothers me most (and this is likely to agitate you and others), is the glorification of guns. I used to see many women post pictures of their Hello Kitty (no shit) AR-15s, as if it's a new fashion accessory. Men do it, too, similar to their love affair with cars.
If people take Christmas pics or graduation pics with guns because they are avid hunters (with training) or shoot as a competitive sport, I get that. It reflects their interests and isn't a message of, "Don't fuckin' mess with me or I'll shoot your ass."
However, there are a LOT of people posing with guns and walking around with guns precisely with a message of "Don't fuckin' mess with me or I'll shoot your ass."
THAT is what I find troublesome. But the gun manufacturers and the NRA are sure loving it.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It will always be a mystery to me. I am just glad I live in an area of the country w/ strict gun control laws and a culture that doesn't worship guns.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)I will withhold any further comment as I have already had a hide this week but you have to admit you really like guns. I find it impossible to understand that type of person in any way whatsoever. You enjoy shooting something that has been used to kill thousands and thousands of human beings. OK. Good for you. Yeah.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Why don't you just try to understand the position. That's the only way to find common ground, not by name calling. Have you ever used a knife to cut bread? Well blades have killed millions throughout the history of humankind.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)What's your point ? ... Rocks have been used perhaps billions of times to maim and kill, but we cant do anything about rocks ...
Nuclear weapons can kill millions in one moment ... We seem to agree well enough that such weapons should not be available to private citizens, so we can agree that nuclear weapons are FULLY controlled ...
BTW ... He said he was a gun fetishist ... it defines a state or condition of being enamored by guns and related hardware ... It's a statement about that condition - not 'name calling' ...
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"He said he was a gun fetishist ... it defines a state or condition of being enamored by guns and related hardware"
That's not what fetishism (with any focus, not just guns) is. To wit:
It's ignorant, to say the least, to conflate pursuit of a hobby with fetishism.
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)You left out the first definition, which is as follows:
Fetish: A course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment.
I'm confounded by the tendency of gun enthusiasts to skew and sway the truth. Or split hairs. I just don't understand it. Why not refute the facts head-on? (With actual evidence, not emotion or propaganda). The latter tactics weaken your position, by saying: We have no science or facts on our side - so we'll manipulate your emotion.
Perhaps that's not the case, but...give us science/facts/studies if you want to persuade.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"excessive and irrational" being the key... There are certainly some gun owners whose behavior might be considered "excessive and irrational," but there are no even vaguely reasonable grounds to apply those terms to the large majority of the more than 80 million gun owners in this country.
Moreover, there was nothing obfuscatory or emotional about my response. It was simply a refutation of a misuse of a word (in other words, not a matter of either "propaganda" or science, but one of linguistics). If you'd like to raise a point to which scientific evidence is applicable and available, trust me, I have no problem addressing it appropriately - it's kinda what I do for a living, actually (specifically, philosophy of science).
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)On enforcement of any kind of ban: It would create more problems than it was intending to address. I think bans are a complete waste of time since they tend to punish people who comply with laws. The people you're targeting always seem to know a work-around anyway. As I was saying to someone the other day, confiscation could lead to a tremendous violence since there are nutcases that shoot first and ask questions later.
As for "kind of what I do," I got tired of nursing, so I went back and studied law. Criminal defense was my area of specialty. Call it a fetish, but I was very interested in the psychology of murder. That meant rubbing shoulders with some of the most interesting people (to be polite). Frequently people facing capital murder. So I know gun crime and the motives behind it pretty well. Especially these mass shootings.
As for fetishes: With all due respect, no one needs 50 guns. Or 50 cars. Or 50 houses. Or 50 dogs. Having that many of anything is the definition of excessive. I think plenty of regular, normal people would agree.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And yeah, 50 is an awful lot of guns. I'm not a collector (of anything), so I don't really understand the motivation - and moreover, empathy's not my strong suit..."put yourself in their place" advice is kind of wasted on me. I don't necessarily object, if the person is responsible, especially about keeping their collection secure from thieves. I just don't get it.
As I mentioned, I have eight firearms...and the only reason it's that many is because I shoot in more than one kind of competition (although it's all long-range rifle stuff) I have four rifles for that. I also have two handguns for self defense (one mostly for home, as it's pretty big and heavy as handguns go and I'm a shrimp...and one for concealed carry). Two .22s, a pistol and a little carbine, for cheap casual plinking before .22lr ammunition prices went berserk. Seems like a lot of guns to me, but while most of my closer fiends who have guns have only a couple, a lot of the people I compete against have more than I do. The only people I know with 50 or more, though, are full-on pro collectors.
I also find criminal psychology fascinating (although my own small pursuit of that interest is way more casual than yours, I suspect). As alluded to above, I'm not the best at relating to anyone else's psychology, to say nothing of aberrant psychologies. I have to put in some work to understand them, which I think makes outliers all the more interesting.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)There is no department of needs in this country as far as I know
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)Seriously. But that's a specious position if I ever heard one. It's just a variation on the tired old: guns don't kill people, people kill people. (Which is nonsense).
Knives were designed for many purposes. They even help to SAVE lives in places like the ED and OR. It be MISUSED to injure or kill someone.
A gun was designed with ONE goal: to kill! A gun doesn't have to be misused to kill. In fact: who is going to buy a gun that isn't lethal?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)having to "think" about a position.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"I will withhold any further comment..."
Should have withheld that one, too...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"And should be treated thusly."
Others cheered.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Anyone who can tolerate folks who don't fall exactly in line with their personal beliefs would have no problem...
In short, it sounds like a personal problem...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)If so, the participate in a pastime that has killed thousands and thousands of human beings.
Good for you.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Lot's of things kill on a regular basis, I'm at a loss as to why firearms are so vilified while those other objects aren't.
Oh, wait, it's because it's.....................guns.
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)It's doesn't take a genius to understand why so many love guns. When you have a loaded gun, you have the power of life & death in your hands. Holding a loaded firearm up against an animal or a human being imparts the ability to end that life at the flick of a finger. How intoxicating that must feel, especially to those with low self esteem.
That's why actual gun fetishists behave like addicts facing prohibition whenever gun control is brought up. They think the "gubbermint" is taking away their masculinity. Sad, really.
I admit, I think 50 guns is excessive. Obsessive. However, it's not my place to decide what you can or cannot own. HOWEVER, call me crazy, but I don't believe that there is a legitimate need for civilians to own military grade firearms or ammo clips.
As someone who worked as a nurse in a busy city ED, I saw far too much death. A teen get his hands on his dad's weapons, fooling around: accidentally shoots his twin in the head. A wife pisses off her drunk of a husband one time too many, ending with her brains spattered all over the kitchen ceiling and her shell-shocked children. Oh, one of my all time favs, a drunken late-teen who played Russian Roulette at a party with dad's revolver, and lost.
I will never embrace the compulsion to possess an item designed with one purpose: to kill. Never. Or the passion to hold tight these items that have wrought such carnage. This sickness is a byproduct and consequence of the American love affair with guns. Will we never evolve?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It comes out of the frontier. Maybe then, the people there needed to hunt and did need to defend themselves against others (though having the gun didn't guarantee that in those days). We are now an urban and settled society - time to get past the 19th century.
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)Agree with you.
Considering the frontier gun slaughtered something on the order of 80M Native Americans, you'd think we would have learned something by now.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)others.
Some seem to think it's okay to put your family, your house, and your belongings at the mercy of EVERYONE stronger than themselves.
My city is served by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. It's a city of less than 8,000 permanent residents. The average response time for the Sheriff's Dept. is 18 minutes. That's a lifetime to someone who intends to do harm.
Having a gun isn't a guarantee of ANYTHING except the possibility that someone interested in entering my home without permission will think twice before doing so. That's a good thing.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Despite your failure filled attempt at amateur psychology, many shooters and hunters are in it for the sport.
I shot competitively in college- were we a bunch of gun fetsihists who were just fueling out low self esteem by handling objects made to kill as we practiced 5-10 hours a week getting so precise that we shot at a bullseye the size of a period in small font at 50 feet?
Competitive shooting is a highly disciplined and skilled sport- you are literally controlling every aspect of your body down to shooting between heartbeats because even your pulse moves the rifle or pistol enough to change the shot and your score.
And there are matches shot with military style rifles out to 600-1000 yards that require the same discipline and even more skill because I was shooting indoors and didn't have to worry about wind, the shooters in those matches have that to deal with as well.
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)To earn such a snarky comment I must have hit a nerve. Once again, the gun fancier uses emotion rather than employing evidence. Emotions don't cut it when the topic is mass murder.
Just a reminder - this was about GUN CONTROL in light of yet another mass shooting. Not about the Olympics or competitive shooting.
If my analysis is a "failure filled attempt at amateur psychology" why does the FBI say the same thing?
Please do the research and show me the studies that say I'm wrong. Don't just hurl insults. That's conservative tactic.
Google guns + power to pull up many pieces by experts who have said just what I did.
Here are just a few links for you to peruse:
FBI: The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter
White Men Have Much to Discuss About Mass Shootings
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/white-men-have-much-to-discuss-about-mass-shootings/2013/03/29/7b001d02-97f3-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html?hpid=z2
Lack of Power and Guns Go Together
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24147-how-a-lack-of-power-and-guns-go-together
How the Gun Industry Preys on Paranoid, Insecure Men Like Elliot Rodger
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-gun-industry-preys-paranoid-insecure-men-elliot-rodger
Unfortunately, I don't have my forensic texts at my fingertips to spoon feed you citations. But I've given you plenty to get you started. Show me REAL FACTS. EVIDENCE. And, by the way, when you make assumptions about people, they almost always turn out to be wrong.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)... adult gun owners who do not shoot anybody.
uppityperson
(115,992 posts)I admit, I think 50 guns is excessive. Obsessive."
And when told why people have guns beyond "to kill", you reply with this...
"Don't just hurl insults. That's conservative tactic."
Your links are about school shootings, not about people owning guns.
Pot, kettle. If you try to ride the high horse, make sure you are not doing what you accuse others of.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Guns should not be given out like candy.
scrabblequeen40
(335 posts)I agree with you Xena, and I'm glad to see a post that stands up to people who think the ability to own 50 guns, including military grade weapons, is totally fine and dandy.
What has this world come to.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)It can be difficult to squeeze the trigger since I must kill the animal, something we all do in some manner or through some agency in order to eat.
"Hard to understand:" What were your experiences when you "flicked" your trigger? It shouldn't be hard to explain.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)articulate voices I've read recently on this vexed topic.
And, welcome to DU!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its terribly easy to jump to that conclusion, and ignore that having a loaded gun also imparts the ability to say "No" and mean it in a significant way.
Etraker
(59 posts)I keep most of my guns in a safe. If my house caught on fire I would warn the fire fighters though the ammo is not much of a threat. I have a special rider for my guns on my insurance policy. I am also an avid football fan, I have multiple tv's, and an avid metal detector, I have multiple metal detectors, and multiple motorcycles, and video game consoles. None of my guns bother anyone. I am not a nut anymore than a stamp collector, coin collector, or antique collector. People who find something wrong with people just because they like to shoot or collect guns give liberals a bad name.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it is not so important weighing in the dangers of accidents.
scrabblequeen40
(335 posts)For god sake. Please.
uppityperson
(115,992 posts)
scrabblequeen40
(335 posts)"I am not a nut anymore than a stamp collector, coin collector, or antique collector."
This sentence equates stamp collecting to gun collecting. Having 50 stamps is NOT the same as having 50 guns, including military grade guns. We can agree the odds of both being a "nut" may be the same in both cases. But the risk to society resulting from their respective collections is NOT the same.
uppityperson
(115,992 posts)It is about being a collector, about collecting. Not equating guns to stamps but about collecting them.
" the risk to society resulting from their respective collections" can be exactly the same, depending on how they are secured.
No one said guns are the same as stamps
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)No where in that post did he/she equate stamps with firearms.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)People need to stop being afraid to sit down and have a discussion, a real discussion, about how to get some sensible legislation. Every gun owner I know says "I know we need to fix the regulations, but i'm afraid it will go too far"
What I said to him "our representatives have to stop being afraid and be willing to sit down and work this out, because doing nothing is not working."
We have to get past the fear that the NRA and Fox news have pumped into many gun owners.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And while I don't think President Obama wants to take anyone's gun, the fear-mongering is made easier by those that do call for a ban, like the person who posted immediately above you. Despite the posts saying nobody is calling for a ban/confiscation, there are certainly people on this board that support exactly that.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)To some it seems the battle to control and ban is more important than reasonable solutions. And they poison the well for ANY discussion. It's almost like a macho trip to see who is most committed to the culture war.
Maybe the I-net does that to people: A constant cock-strut in a pro wrestling rink.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)A pro wrestling rink is called hockey. (Sorry Eleanors, I couldn't resist.)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)ribcages can take to shield our loved ones and students
we're sick of our political class quaking in fear and regurgitating every corporatist talking point until we're in the same boat as the Pakistanis
we're sick of being told that our party can't take on the InfoWars shitweasels who're so in love with guns they call Sandy Hook parents and say their kid never existed
we're sick of 10% of the country's love for things overcoming 90%'s love for people, every time
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)...and politics and focusing on tens of millions of gun owners. We are not your enemies, individually or en masse.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)I am also 68 years old and have a life time of learning to convince me that we would be better off without weapons. I would give mine up if, there were also other things offered such as a permanent law increasing the number of law enforcement officers that would be capable of answering a call in less than 5 minutes. We must be assured that that funding would always be there.
Money to increase the wildlife service to include top notch employees and equipment to eradicate animal pest such as feral hogs. there should be limits on wolves and coyotes unless the Jackrabbit population explodes. Australia has a lot of sheep ranchers, how do they control the pest? Apparently they are making it work.
I have been through experiences that a gun would not have protected me. I tried it one time and realized I had to spend every waking day looking over my shoulder and getting very little sleep and even at that they could have snippered me with my grandchildren when my guard was down. It is a false sense of security.
I really don't buy the argument that some use when trying to distinguish themselves from the trophy hunter by saying, "I eat what I shoot". My opinion is if you can buy it in the grocery store, you don't need to shoot it. Besides, it would be cheaper.
I trust this report from the "Council on Foreign Relations"
U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons
olddots
(10,237 posts)and hopefully live far from you .
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Wouldn't want to do anything "crazy" like ban certain weapons. Funny how certain weapons are already banned, isn't it? Funny how other civilized countries have banned certain weapons, like handguns, and they don't think it's crazy at all. Funny. But not haha funny.
I think you've lost your way.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Wouldn't be unconstitutional.
(At least given sane supreme court justices. The people relying on Heller for cover are essentially ceding sanity to Scalia, Alito, Thomas, et al.
NutmegYankee
(16,454 posts)Is you end up in violent agreement with people like Kim Davis. If we don't like the decision, then lets move to amend the laws or Constitution to suit. I for one would like to see a money out of politics amendment to reverse Citizens United. Pass it with Conventions like the 21st Amendment.
WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)see the light of day. There are two America's, when it comes to guns. Rural and urban. Any gun control law intended to control violence in Chicago, will never be accepted in Wyoming or Montana. Their senators will vote against it, guaranteed.
I think the best we can hope for is improved background checks that includes making mental health records available as part of the background check.
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)Statistically, your arsenal is likely to take life.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Show your work...
NutmegYankee
(16,454 posts)Astounding ignorance on both sides. Take insurance - no company will issue insurance to cover an intentional act of violence. The only insurance that would be issued is for accidents/personal liability. Many people already have this inexpensive insurance as the personal liability part of a homeowners policy.
And statistically, the odds are extremely low that any particular gun collection will take a life. Mathematics proves this point - with 30,000 deaths/year and assuming one gun each death vs 310 million in private hands, 99.99% of guns are not used to kill someone. If one keeps this rate for an entire century while keeping gun total fixed, 99% of guns will never cause a death.
Connecticut investigated insurance back in 2012 and the idea was scrapped.
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)Statistically, the OP is very much more likely to experience the loss of life in his home than if he possessed zero firearms, and he should have to insure against that.
NutmegYankee
(16,454 posts)There are many statistics out there such as 22 times more likely to be used for suicide or 72% more increase in risk for gun death, but what is often missed is that this increase is on already very small odds. Even if I multiply a very small number by 22, it's still a very small number.
My extended family has owned firearms for over 300 years. Number of gun shot wounds outside of war - zero. Now that doesn't mean reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken - all guns in family are locked up or disabled if stored openly (an example is to remove the bolt on a rifle). The only exceptions are some old black powder flintlock firearms that are mounted as wall decorations. One could conceivably load and fire them if the powder and balls were available.