About guns,

[MadHound]

For those of you who are wanting to restrict gun purchases and ownership, what are you going to say to the literally thousands of people who have protected themselves with a gun over the past decades? How do you convince them that owning a gun is a bad thing?

For instance, after intervening with my drunk neighbor thirty years ago over the fact that he was beating his wife, after getting his wife to safety, the guy got pissed and kicked my front door off of its hinges. Having no phone, I was on my own, with no possibility for law enforcement help coming by anytime soon. The only thing that kept this guy from coming after me was the fact that I had a pump 12 gauge shotgun loaded and ready to go. The fellow backed down, went away, and the situation resolved itself peaceably.

If I didn't have a gun, I could have been beaten to a pulp. And this scenario is played out again and again, with different variations, every single day. The fact is, having a gun does prevent people from tragedy, especially when help is far away. How do you convince people that restricting their right to own a gun is a good thing.

Frankly, I'm still glad I have that old 12 gauge pump. I now live out in meth country, dealing with people who are desperate, who will steal and commit violence to get what they want. Yes, I want a gun in my house for self defense, it has worked for me before, and I want to have that option in the future.

Also, I think of this Gil Scott Heron work everytime one of these tragedies happen and the talk invariably turns to greater gun control. As true now as it was then.

"Well the philosophy seems to be
At least as near as I can see
When other folks give up theirs
I'll give up mine."

[99Forever]

1. In my 59 years on this Earth...

.. I have never once been in a situation that would have been made better by me having a weapon or using one. Ever.

Take a self defense class.

[MadHound]

2. Oh, I'm quite handy with my fists,

But nothing makes a large drunk asshole bent on doing you bodily harm back down faster than the sound of a shell being racked into the chamber. No fuss, no muss, no getting hurt while defending yourself.

And is that what you're going to tell the ninety year old lady who lives alone and keeps a .38 in her nightstand? Sorry, I don't see that working very well.

[99Forever]

12. Nothing makes a..

... a crowd panic faster than watching those around them drop to the floor in a hail of automatic weapons fire.

See, two can play that game.

[4th law of robotics]

24. "Automatic weapons"

you do realize that 99.99999% of the time the media refers to a weapon as "automatic" they are either lying or just plain wrong right?

Automatic weapons are exceedingly rare in the US (among civilians), are intensely regulated, and rarely are used in a crime.

[99Forever]

27. Tell that to ...

.. the dead and wounded, and their families in Aurora. I'm sure your nitpicking at word definitions is a HUGE fucking comfort to them.


Thanks for your inciteful contribution to a civil society.


FUCK the NRA.

[4th law of robotics]

31. The guy in CO did not have an automatic weapon

this is exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure if it's willful ignorance or intentional dishonesty.

Repeat after me: James Homles had a *SEMI*-automatic weapon, not and *AUTOMATIC* weapon.

[99Forever]

37. So fucking what?

Like that dumbass, insignificant point makes a significant difference.

[4th law of robotics]

39. You made a reference to automatic weapons

then persisted in claiming Holmes used one.

I pointed out that this was dishonest and corrected you.

Do you understand now that your original point was wrong?

[99Forever]

43. Again..

What significant difference does it make to the victims in Aurora?

When you have answered that question, I'll worry about what you think of my "honesty."

Deal?

FUCK the NRA.

[4th law of robotics]

45. To the dead? I don't suppose anything makes a difference

but we're talking about what to do next.

If you seek to confuse the issue by falsely claiming an automatic weapon was used others may take up the mantra and demand we ban automatic weapons.

This makes it hard to have an adult conversation.

So please refrain from posting falsehoods.

[99Forever]

56. That's no fucking answer at all.

Why am I not surprised or impressed?

[4th law of robotics]

62. No, it was a fine answer

you're just spoiling for a fight for some reason.

[Marengo]

40. If you wish to be regarding seriously, yes, it does.

If not, carry on!

[Trunk Monkey]

65. It makes quite a significant difference

and actual, fully automatic M16A1 has a cyclic rate of fire of 750 to 900 rounds a minute. It will dump a 30 round magazine in a little less than 3 seconds

A semi automatic AR15 will shoot maybe 200 rounds a minute if you're damn good at changing magazines.

[movonne]

53. The point is having a shot gun should not be illegal but

having a machine gun should be...most people that have farms have shot guns for various reasons...regulating guns is a good thing..

[DonP]

61. What does a machine gun have to do with the tragedy in Colorado?

The psycho didn't use a machine gun. Big difference between a semi auto rifle or handgun and full auto capability.

I'd be interested in knowing what kind of regulation you think would have stopped this guy?

Cho killed more people with two handguns with 10 round magazines at Virginia Tech.

Both passed the Brady required background checks, because no one, including families, friends and teachers, ever reported their aberrant behavior to authorities.

[4th law of robotics]

63. Who in this scenario had a machine gun?

[Marengo]

4. Is everyone else's life experience identical to yours?

[99Forever]

10. Nice strawman beatdown.

[Marengo]

36. So, the answer is no I take it?

Yes, your strawman is easily disassembled.

The implication is clear:

"In my 59 years on this Earth...

.. I have never once been in a situation that would have been made better by me having a weapon or using one. Ever.

Take a self defense class."

Care to own it?

[4th law of robotics]

22. Here is a 66 year old woman

who needs a walker to get around.

She was assaulted by a male teenager that was apparently quite large.

How many years of ninja training do you think she'd require to even the score?

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2012/06/66-year-old_woman_who_shot_int.html

And then of course you'd also need to be prepared to defend yourself against multiple attackers armed with a variety of weapons.

[shadowrider]

33. It boggles the mind that people who are able to take "self-defense" courses think

everyone should. I'm 58 with heart and other assorted health problems. I'm in deep sh*t if I tried to defend myself with my fists.

[4th law of robotics]

38. It would make more sense if victims and criminals were roughly on par

physically.

But for some reason people seeking to use violence either for fun or profit seem to seek out those that are less able to fight back.

Crazy I know.

Hence why all these people who are "pretty big and tough" never found themselves in a situation where a gun was necessary for self-defense.

Funny how that works.

I think this would be a case of "I've got mine, screw you".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. And I live where they are mandatory if you are going to survive

All the ninja moves in the world will do jack in my neighborhood.

[99Forever]

58. Move.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Where?

Its the SoCal desert. The neighborhood cats are cougars and the vermin rattlesnakes. You live here, you carry openly when on your homestead. Its how you survive.

Used to get city/suburb types illegally camping. Their dogs fed the cats.

[99Forever]

68. Somewhere where...

...the neighborhood cats aren't cougars and the vermin aren't rattlesnakes. But then, you don't seem too interested in solutions that don't involve you hanging on to your weapons.

I wish gun lovers gave as much concern to other peoples rights as they do to their sacred gawd-gibbon 2nd amend. fetish enabler. But they don't. It's like the rest of the Bill of Rights doesn't exist without their "precious."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. I view weapons as tools...and teach others to do the same

I teach firearms classes on the weekends...they are the most effective form of selfdefense, especially for women, GLTBQs. Find a way to insure their safety and then most people who carry would not longer feel the need.

I live remotely, and openly acknowledge that it is a special case. Its also why I carry open when out on my property and concealed when leaving/going there. In my case its really not about shooting humans.

When the need is no longer there the vast majority of those who carry will stop. Invent a Phaser or do something useful towards that. In the mean time I will help those who need it get the protection they require to enjoy their freedoms.

[Trunk Monkey]

66. Why should he?

I live in Colorado I have to make sure there are no bears in my backyard ( I live in the middle of town BTW) before I let my dogs out. what self defense technique do you recommend I use on a bear?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

3. I usually just mind my own business and avoid confrontation.

No need for a gun. That's why I pay taxes to fund law enforcement.

[MadHound]

5. I think most people avoid confrontation

I avoid confrontation most of the time, but are you suggesting that I should have allowed that woman to continue to be beaten by her husband?

And what do you do when confrontation finds you, and you live out in the country or some other remote place.

I pay taxes for law enforcement as well, but I'm also realistic enough to realize that law enforcement can be a long time in coming at times, and you need some sort of back up.

Telling people who live out here in meth country to rely on law enforcement will get you laughed into the next corn field. Out in the country law enforcement is a good fifteen to fifty minutes away at any given time.

[grattsl]

6. Can your 12 guage shout 60 rounds a minute?

There is a difference between no more guns and reasonable restrictions. I'm personally in favor of reasonable restrictions, but the harder NRA fight against them the more I support NO GUNS!

[MadHound]

7. So again, how do you convince those thousands and thousands

Who have protected themselves with guns that they should give up the very weapon that saved their life?

[grattsl]

11. I haven't asked them to yet.

But how do you explain to all the families of the victims that they will NEVER see their loved ones again because lets just say 15 rounds (or something REASONABLE) in a minute is to slow? The only reason for assault rifles is to murder, not sport. Be reasonable. These weapons do not improve society. The notion that a round per second is NECESSARY is utterly ridiculous!

[MadHound]

18. Actually I can get pretty close to a round a second with my pump shotgun

And how do you say that isn't necessary to people, when criminals have easy access to those very guns.

[grattsl]

21. So wouldn't be smarter to not give that access to those crimanals?

And if you can do 60 round in 60 seconds you earned it. To just hold down a trigger for instant MURDER! really! There is a old saying that I have the right to swing my fist around as much as I want, but that right ends when I make contact with someone else face. The NRA has made too much contact with too many faces.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. Criminals break into houses when the owners are not home and steal them

that is the easiest way for them to get a gun.


At least you phrased it correctly "criminals have easy access to those very guns".

[grattsl]

30. Criminals would have no access if these guns were not on the market in the first place.

Guns don't sprout out of the ground. They are manufactured (I would guess without research they are manufactured overseas - a guess) so there is a way to control the supply. Yes the guns that are already out there will still be available, but why add more? Why continue to make the problem worse?

[shadowrider]

46. Let's assume for one second you get your way. Gun manufacturers are put out

of business.

They start coming in via smuggling from Eastern Europe, South America etc. They will cost more but the bad guys will get them. You cannot control supply. Look at the drugs coming in. They aren't and cannot be controlled. Alcohol during prohibition wasn't controlled.

How would you control supply (if you were in charge)?

[grattsl]

64. Gun manufacturers out of business is NOT my way, NRA yes that's a start.

First things first, I have repeated in this thread that I would prefer reasonable restrictions to no guns. So screw your gun makers out of business straw man BS. Less profits and out of business are not the same.

Secondly, if I'm reading the "you cannot control supply" correctly, you think that controlling the supply of weapons is impossible and therefore should not be attempted. That seems an odd position to take. You say look at drugs, and then bring up alcohol. We DO HAVE reasonable restrictions on alcohol, and they are far more effective than the prohibition of weed (or insert illegal of choice here.) Why is that? Because we have (mostly) law abiding people, who want to keep their jobs, stay out of jail, and not pay the fines, working as bartenders, wait staff, check out cashiers, etc. They are the gate keepers, and they are compelled to comply. They do a much better job of enforcing these restrictions than law enforcement does keeping drugs off the street by trying to catch weed dealers who know they are breaking the law and choose that risk. It is easier today for a high school student to get pot than whiskey. This isn't because we outlawed whiskey, it is because we put reasonable laws in place and enforce them.

Now to the issue at hand. Unless you think it is OK to have napalm available to the general public, I would guess public safety would be a part of this discussion. How about something as obvious as no assault rifles (other than in locked bags or cases) in public places. That doesn't seem like a shocking expectation. If you want to go fire a semi automatic 60 round a minute death machine, get a permit and do it in a controlled environment (like a firing range), but having it out in public is a felony. How about something simple like restricting makers and importers to a limited round magazine, and if they don't comply, then treat them like the bartender. Arrest them, fine them, take away the license to sell weapons. No one gets mad at firing a bartender who serve to the underage. It is in the public's best interest. No one should get upset about arresting someone selling a death machine to a potential murderer, that arrest is also in the public's best interest.

How about closing the loopholes so that all purchases of new guns require a background check, and waiting period. I would not object to requiring a safety course before purchase. Unintentional death is part of the equation. I know this doesn't cover current guns that have already be sold to citizens, but it is a good start. How about making the buyer name which well regulated militia that they are a member. That way it truly be constitutional. I know that last one will piss you off, BUT I DON'T CARE. It is in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) whether you like it or not. The founding fathers wrote the first gun control regulation. Get over this gun control is unpatriotic BS. It's simply FALSE.

Regulation is both constitutional and intelligent, the NRA will deny both. They prefer to have weapons that were made for no reason than to kill in the hands of murders. The do EVERYTHING THEY CAN, to make sure the murders can have guns. That's not all. They do everything they can to make sure the murders have THE MOST DANGEROUS GUNS POSSIBLE! If ever an organization was anti public safety, this is the one. When Holmes stands trial the NRA should stand as an accomplice. His death toll, his night of terror, his killing spree was all made possible by the NRA. THEY don't protect rights, they protect profits.

[shadowrider]

67. Can you show me where I said the following?:

you think that controlling the supply of weapons is impossible and therefore should not be attempted.

I didn't say that. I said guns will be smuggled in regardless the amount of control that's enacted. Look at pot. It's illegal yet flows in like the River Nile. Guns would be the same way.

Based on that strawman and your entire post, you wouldn't be willing to listen to any type of dissent I could offer. You aren't willing to discuss or debate. Your mind is quite made up.

Good day.

[grattsl]

70. "you cannot control supply" If I assumed that meant control is impossible tell my what you meant

You are arguing against regulation by saying "You cannot control supply". If that means something other than how I interpret it, please tell me what you mean. It took what you said to its logical place. If I was wrong that must mean you think the supply can have some control put on it? Would it be permissible to you for the guy next door to you to own, lets say anthrax? Can't you at least agree that there should be a line in the sand somewhere? At least we could have the reasonable discussion of where and not should we even draw the line. I welcome that debate. The NRA doesn't even want the line drawn.

I already answered pot. Alcohol control is done better, let's use a reasonable control as a model.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. I believe the odds of defending yourself v a death in the family from the gun is 46-1

I would need to go look that up. I am trying to remember a segment Rachel Maddow did on this and it was quite some time ago.

If that number is correct then the way to explain it is...



This is like playing Russian Roulette except here you have a box with 47 rounds of ammo. 46 are live and one is a dud (no gunpowder). Pick a round, put it in the chamber and try to shot yourself in the head.


The only problem with this is that 47 people are playing and every single one of them must play. For every one that lives 46 must die.



While looking for a way to verify that 46 - 1 ratio I found this:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-american-gun-massacres-are-too-common-to-call-unimaginable/



You should watch the video embedded near the bottom.

[Motown_Johnny]

44. Here is a video from Rachel Maddow's show

Well, here is a link to a page where a video from Rachel's show is embedded, the best stuff starts at about four minutes in.


http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-more-guns-does-not-equal-les

[shadowrider]

35. You don't see the irony in your statement? The NRA defends gun rights

because of people who support no guns. It's circular.

[grattsl]

48. If teabaggers can call Obama a Nazi, I have no problem calling the NRA a terrorist organization!

And every person who gives them money belongs on the terrorist watch list! I still support reasonable restrictions more than I support no guns. I just don't support the NRA. The NRA sees profits for manufacturers as more important than human life. The NRA doesn't support ANY restrictions whatsoever. I not only find that unreasonable, but just plain, old fashioned STUPID!

[shadowrider]

54. You are aware the NRA supported legislation bringing about NICS, right? n/t

[shadowrider]

55. I respect your opinion. Tell me, if you want NRA members on the terror watch list

do you fully support the rest of the Patriot Act? Or do you just like the terror watch list because NRA members will be on it?

Just curious.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. The real argument here is long term solutions v short term fixes

Those of us who want stricter gun control laws are thinking about the long term. This is a multi-generational problem which we are allowing to get worse.

Those of us opposed to stricter gun control laws are focused on short term fixes. The poor old lady who needs a gun to defend herself (because so many old ladies use handguns).


In my opinion we need to focus on the long term. Nothing we did last week would have saved any lives in Aurora. If we were going to save those lives we needed to do it years ago. The same is true as we move forward. To save lives years from now we need to act now and to save lives years after that we need to act soon.

What will this country be like in 2050 if we continue down this path? Right now we have these mass shooting every year or so. By 2050 will it be every month? Or can we change paths and reverse the trend toward more frequent shootings? Might it be possible to reduce these incidents to that they happen every 5 years instead of roughly every one?


Only one way to find out (although I am to old to live to see the results).

[MadHound]

14. I think that long term solutions are indeed the best bet.

Thanks for the calm, cognizant reply.

[hack89]

15. Judging from the last 30 years, 2050 should be very safe.

we have cut our murder rate in half. We have cut the number of death due to murder and manslaughter in half. Every indication is that those trend will continue.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. but the frequency of these mass murders are increasing

every indication is that this trend will also continue

[hack89]

42. Tens of millions of lawful gun owners

are not going to accept having their guns taken away to stop a tiny handful of killers. Especially since those killers will always have the means to commit mass murder regardless of what laws are passed. Our "war" on drugs should have taught you a few lessons that apply to this situation.

[ananda]

9. Why don't we change the terms of the conversation so that ..

.. we say that UNREGULATED gun ownership is problematic?

Which it is.

[MadHound]

13. What do you consider unregulated?

As far as I can see, Holmes bought everything legally

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Exactly the problem. It should not have been legal for him to buy these.

If he had a 10 round clip instead of a 100 round magazine it is very likely that the death toll would be lower.

There is no perfect solution, the best we can hope to do is reduce the body count.

[hack89]

16. So those 20,000 gun laws in America are not regulations? Didn't know that. nt

[aikoaiko]

17. Because that would be factually untrue. There are many, many regulations and laws involving guns.

and gun ownership.


I recognize that in relative sense we have fewer regulations than some other countries, but I don't think you can say gun ownership is unregulated in the US.

It used to be unregulated at the Federal level.

[ananda]

19. So, do you think I should have said..

.. under-regulated in many states, spottily enforced,
and differently regulated from state to state?

Let's put it this way. The problem is with the law
and the interpretation of the Second Amendment;
and both the law and the interpretation seem to be
coming from the NRA/corporate angle which doesn't
want ANY restrictions on ownership of arms. That is
ridiculous!

[aikoaiko]

32. I think that is a more defensible statement of the current state of affairs.

I don't agree with all of it, but it is defensible.

[shadowrider]

41. Sheesh

Let's put it this way. The problem is with the law
and the interpretation of the Second Amendment;
and both the law and the interpretation seem to be
coming from the NRA/corporate angle which doesn't
want ANY restrictions on ownership of arms. That is
ridiculous!

Your statement (in bold) is ridiculous. I have a standing $1000 bet payable to anyone who can prove that with a statement on the NRA website, with a link to the statement. Care to take me up on it?

You are aware the NRA helped write legislation instituting the NICS checks people have to go through to buy a firearm, right?

[permatex]

28. If you mean unregulated as in

background checks not required for private sale of firearms, then yes, I agree, the problem is that currently it is illegal for a private seller to access the NICS system to find out if a buyer is not a prohibited person.
I do support opening the NICS system to private sellers with a sale/no sale system for a small fee. You'll find the the huge majority of responsible gun owners support this proposal.

[Brickbat]

20. I never thought about owning a gun until an incident at my house last year.

It was disturbing and scary and gave me a totally different perspective on things. It also made me realize how my vulnerability has changed -- I'm no longer a 25-year-old badass, I'm an older-than-40 mom who has kids to protect. And all the mama-bear self-defense in the world is going to defend only one person -- me.

ETA: I live out in the woods, and response time from the sheriff varies.

[permatex]

34. While I support your decision

please keep your home defense weapon secured around your children, and you need to be very sure that your willing to shoot someone who comes into your home with ill intent, any hesitation on your part could have tragic consequences for you and your children. Also, practice, practice, practice.
Your first line of defense is good locks, sturdy doors, alarm system, maybe a big dog and a handy cell phone, also a room you and your kids can retreat to with a good defensive position, shooting should be a last resort.
A 12g shotgun is an execellent home defense weapon, just the sound of racking the slide is usually enough to scare off any intruder which is the best possible outcome.
Just some of my advice.

[Brickbat]

49. One of my good friends here was a small-arms weapons instructor in the Marines.

He knows his shit, and he's a great teacher.

[permatex]

50. Just what the doctor ordered

Have fun learning to shoot and stay safe.

[Brickbat]

51. No point in doing it half-assed or wrong.

There's no way to say "thanks for your concern" or "thanks for your advice" in a way that doesn't look snarky online, but I mean that -- it's important to make sure if someone's going to get into it, they do it right. So thanks for checking.

[permatex]

52. I wouldn't have taken it the wrong way

but thank you.

[Fumesucker]

47. Tell ya' what, you go and argue your point with the families of the victims..

I'm sure they'll see things your way eventually..

You could start with Ashley Moser, she doesn't know her six year old daughter is dead yet because she's in ICU herself, maybe you could let her know and tell her that she can rest easy because she has the right to defend herself with a gun.

Most of the time I agree with you more than disagree, I'm really starting to get swung on the gun thing though, I have grandkids right around that age and I can just imagine how I'd feel going to a funeral for one or all of them after something like this..

[AndyA]

60. What are you going to say to the literally thousands of people who have been killed with a gun?

Or their friends and families?

Those people had rights as well. Is the right to bear arms superior to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Without life, there is nothing.