Jerry and I have been arguing about gun control over here. I have proposed what I think are some sensible control actions that would focus on:
Well in the midst of this I came across a couple of links that had the very interesting charts shown below.
NYT How to Reduce Mass Shootings
WP Shooting Incidents are getting More Deadly
Now I own multiple guns and I can even understand arguments for conceal / carry. And I have no problem with semi-automatic handguns with ~15 round magazines. However the idea that citizens be able to buy and keep semi-automatic rifles with few checks, records and/or responsibilities astounds me. Thankfully my gun collector friends have big heavy gun safes that no one is going to breach or walk away with. This should be the expectation for anyone who owns these incredibly dangerous weapons.
I am not sure why folks fight these simple requirements. We have to register and insure our cars, and maintain a valid driver's license. And yet apparently they think anyone is capable to keep and use guns responsibly.
- semi automatic rifles
- large clips
- bump fire stocks
- holding owners accountable for keeping their weapons secure
- registering these very dangerous weapons
Well in the midst of this I came across a couple of links that had the very interesting charts shown below.
NYT How to Reduce Mass Shootings
WP Shooting Incidents are getting More Deadly
Now I own multiple guns and I can even understand arguments for conceal / carry. And I have no problem with semi-automatic handguns with ~15 round magazines. However the idea that citizens be able to buy and keep semi-automatic rifles with few checks, records and/or responsibilities astounds me. Thankfully my gun collector friends have big heavy gun safes that no one is going to breach or walk away with. This should be the expectation for anyone who owns these incredibly dangerous weapons.
I am not sure why folks fight these simple requirements. We have to register and insure our cars, and maintain a valid driver's license. And yet apparently they think anyone is capable to keep and use guns responsibly.
31 comments:
Every time I hear you talk about semi-automatic rifles, I simply cringe. A semi-automatic rifle is a typical hunting rifle, no more dangerous than a semi-automatic handgun except for range. It is not a fully automatic weapon, which are illegal.
Found in my inbox:
====================================================================
Today I Placed my Smith & Wesson .357 Mag revolver outside on a table right next to my front door. I left 6 cartridges beside it, then left it alone and went about my business.
While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor's son across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the "stop" sign near the front of my house. After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was quietly sitting there, right where I had left it. It had not moved itself outside. It had not killed anyone. Certainly, even with the numerous opportunities it had presented to do that. In fact, it had not even loaded itself.
Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the media about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people, either the media is wrong or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.
The United States is 3rd in Murders throughout the World. But if you take out just 5 'left-wing' cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis and New Orleans -- the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the ENTIRE World, for Murders.
These 5 Cities are controlled by Democrats. They also have The Toughest Gun Control Laws in the USA. Do you think maybe the Democrats just might have something to do with all the gun violence? It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data, right?
Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat.
Being a hunter myself. What real hunter needs more than a 5 round clip?
In a week I will be out hunting deer with shotgun slugs... If I don't get that deer in the first 2 shots it is likely that deer is GONE.
If you think a hand gun is as dangerous as a rifle, I think you should go hunt a grizzly bear with a hand gun...
The idea is SO STUPID... Do you really think a guy on the 32nd floor with some 9 mm semiautomatic hand guns could have done this?
"On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving 58 people dead and 546 injured. Between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, fired hundreds of rifle rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel." Wiki Link
Handguns are meant to shoot people, not grizzly bears. Rifles are meant to shoot grizzly bears, and sometimes equally dangerous people. You are still engaging in wishful thinking to believe you can prevent such VERY RARE incidents, committed by a determined madman, from occurring, simply by penalizing millions of law-abiding citizens who hunt, sport-shoot, or want to defend themselves. We HAVE laws against murder; have murders ceased?
Just do the math yourself. Assume the shooter got off 600 rounds in that ten minutes. That's one round per second, EASILY accomplished without a bump stock and with numerous 15-round clips. And reportedly he used only 3 of the many rifles he had. Where would you set those limits you want? For that matter, suppose you wanted to shoot up a school and kill 10-20 kids. How many rifles and how many 10-round clips would you need?
You are so funny...
"penalizing millions of law-abiding citizens"
What a terrible burden...
"Oh No !!! I can not buy a 50 round clip!!! How will I survive or stop that home invasion by a small army as I see them coming up the hill towards my house!!!"
"Oh NO !!! I only can shoot 15 bullets at that deer before I need to change clips!!!"
Keep the laughs coming... :-)
Laugh all you want, but it is still /YOU/ deciding what /I/ need for hunting or for self-defense, and getting government to FORCE that requirement on me. Regardless of how small that "burden" may be, it is not you that gets to decide how big a burden it is.
Now, if you are willing to absolutely guarantee that your clip-size limitation will prevent all future mass killings, we can discuss it. But I'm going to wonder how you will ban trucks.
No, I do not get to decide.
However if a hunting gun owning moderate rural boy like me is now anti-big clips, pro licensing and pro back ground checks... Hopefully the tide is turning so fewer innocent children, women and men will die in these senseless acts.
Just so people can people can collect very dangerous mass killing devices with no warning to the general public.
The key word there is "hope." Statistically these things are irrelevant to the problem. As I said, there are laws against murder and murders have not ceased. There are laws against taking guns into certain places, and those are the places where these "senseless acts" seem to be concentrated. And if they truly ARE senseless acts, then it is irrational, is it not, to assume "sensible" laws will change anything?
You are still confusing "very dangerous mass killing devices" with run-of-the-mill and exceedingly common semi-automatic firearms. Next thing you'll be telling me we shouldn't allow automatic transmissions in trucks.
The reality is that as more mass shooters continue to use semi automatic rifles with large clips to kill innocent civilians from a far...
They will go the way of machine guns, grenades, bazookas, dynamite and all the other weapons that really are not needed for hunting or personal protection.
The question is how many innocent children are we willing to sacrifice before this happens?
Or are you saying that machine guns, grenades, bazookas, dynamite and all those other weapons should not be heavily regulated because they are just like "an automatic transmission"?
I think you need to look up how many MILLIONS of times every year a semi-automatic gun is used for self-defense, to stop or prevent a crime, or is enjoyed for sport. You would eliminate these millions of law-abiding (even law-ASSISTING) uses to prevent ONE such completely unlawful incident. Again, if you can pass a law against murder and have murders cease...[oh, wait!]...
I'm not willing to sacrifice millions of innocent men, women and children because one lone gun nut goes off on a rampage and kills a dozen or so.
I don't have a source-- look it up-- but I read that, if you exclude the five largest cities with strict gun control laws-- like Detroit and Chicago-- the US is 4th from the BOTTOM, among all nations, in the murder rate. Seems like gun control is more the problem than the solution.
Jerry,
I really am not sure what color the sky is in your world...
How about you give us one of the cases where someone needed a semi automatic rifle with a 20+ round clip for self defense?
Or how making sure the guns are registered and the holder is held accountable for keeping them secure in anyway impacts this?
Or maybe you live in Syria now days, where people need these guns to secure their home from millions of potential killers from 100's of yards away.
I will give you one, from the testimony against the assault weapons ban of a young man in a wheelchair, who wanted the "meanest looking gun" he could get and operate with one hand, in the hopes of not having to use it. And you completely miss the point. YOU do not get to decide what someone "needs." It is what someone WANTS and believes they need, within the law, which should prevail.
Impact? Let's go to the FACTS: gun facts
Nothing makes much of a difference, but the things you favor are contraindicated, according to this chart: the law
Now if the kid in wheel chair wants a scary gun... He does not need a large clip... Just put peripherals on it... (scope, lasers, etc) That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If someone is close enough to see your gun that clearly, it is too late.
Using that logic, maybe we should make miniguns legal for everyone...
As for your "facts", I have not the energy to go down that rabbit hole to figure out what is real and what is fluff.
The simple reality is that our society does have the right, responsibility and authority to decide what citizens can own. Currently the lines is between 6 & 7.
And I predict that within 10 years it will move up to between 4 & 5 and I am fine with that. If those Level 5 & 6 weapons are not in the general population, they simply can not be used to kill innocent people by the tens or hundreds. Hopefully it happens sooner than later for the children who want to go to concerts, school, etc.
1 Revolvers
2 Semi automatic handguns (<16 round clip typically)
3 Rifles and shotguns (pump, bolt action, etc) (5 - 15 round clips)
4 Semi automatic rifles (<16 round clip)
5 Semi automatic rifles (unlimited round clips)
6 Bump Fire Semi automatic rifles (unlimited round clips)
7 Fully automatic weapons
8 Rocket Launchers, Explosives, etc
By the way, you never answered my question...
Are you truly advocating moving the line so the kid in the wheel chair could have fully automatic weapons or maybe a rocket launcher?
I mean they would really scary !!!
Come to think of it I have never heard of innocent children being killed in the USA by a fully automatic weapon or a rocket launcher...
Maybe there is a reason for that?
Sure, the reason is because those things are illegal, based on their being indiscriminate, anti-personnel and with no sporting or reasonable self-defense purpose. It is the same reason your #3 shotgun, if sawed off, is illegal.
An "ugly gun" is most certainly one with a large clip. Even unloaded, it is a healthy deterrent for somebody coming in your back door uninvited. And I see you did not look up how many times per year a firearm was used in self-defense.
If those level 5 and 6 weapons are illegal, only criminals will have them (and history shows about 50% noncompliance). Without the ban, how many "innocent children" will criminals kill, compared to the number of children killed by law-abiding gun owners, or actually SAVED by law-abiding gun owners?
Again, I'm willing to lump bump-fire stocks in with automatic weapons and prohibit them. There is only one case in which they have been used in a mass killing, so most of us don't want them-- their purpose is illegal. But when you step from an "automatic rifle" (i.e. bump stock) to a semi-automatic, you've just lumped in another 28 million people with this ONE criminal, deranged shooter. That's not only unfair, it's just plain ridiculous. Do you know ANY law that is 99.999996% effective? You're swatting at a gnat with an H-bomb, and lobbing it 500 miles from the target.
It even gets more foolish... How can something they can not see from outside deter them from coming inside?
"An "ugly gun" is most certainly one with a large clip. Even unloaded, it is a healthy deterrent for somebody coming in your back door uninvited."
How again would criminals and psychotics "get them" if they were not readily available in our society? As I said... No miniguns on the street... No innocent kids killed with miniguns...
Sorry... I don't think there are 28 million hunters with 20+ round clips for their semi-automatic rifles... Most are better shots than that and it is really expensive to shoot off that many rounds for fun..
The reality is that the vast majority of home and self defense is done with handguns. Unfortunately that is why so many kids die each year from accidental discharge when the gun owner does not keep the gun secure.
And I am absolutely appalled at how poorly owners protect their guns from being stolen. (ie 300,000 +) Maybe we should throw some of them in jail for being stupid and irresponsible with their weapons.
Here is an interesting related link.
Have you ever heard of a door with a window? Or that a criminal might actually get IN the door and THEN see the gun? It is still a deterrent. Look at the statistics.
How would criminals and psychotics get them? Well, if your magic wand works really well and you could make all of them disappear overnight, it might take those criminals some time to re-arm, but they WOULD because they are the necessary tools of their trade. They aren't allowed to have fully automatic weapons either, by law, but they do.
Most hunters don't have 20-round clips because they don't want them. So what difference does that make? Latest report from Texas says the shooter got off maybe 40 rounds and "reloaded several times." Your proposals, once again, would have done NOTHING to prevent this latest tragedy.
Yes, households with kids must be very careful-- gun safes or trigger locks. In some locations I believe it's mandatory, or it is "highly suggested" through publicity and giveaways. But I am confused about something. If a criminal breaks in and steals a gun, who is criminally liable for that action? The criminal for stealing the gun, or you, for having the gun in the first place, locked in your house? Suppose a criminal got hold of the list of registered firearms that you want. Which houses do you believe would be targeted?
What is cripple boy rolling around his house holding his gun on top of his head? Maybe he would be better off with a scary sign on the side of his house... Where do you get this stuff...
Now I see criminals with machine guns in movies... Is that where you saw them? Maybe Scarface...
Personally I am all for holding gun owners accountable for not keeping their weapons secure. I think both the criminal and the owner contributed to the loss.
Hoo boy, you are determined to hold on to your opinions. When you hear a prowler, you grab your gun out of the safe and you go to where the prowler is trying to enter, and you brandish the weapon. If you only have one hand you need a pistol grip, and if the gun is "scary" enough the intruder flees. This was the simple and obvious testimony before Congress. I didn't imagine it; I SAW it.
Really? So, if I keep a gun inside my locked house, I have not kept it "secure" and should go to jail?
Yes. Gun in safe unless you are home holding it or sleeping next to it.
No, gun in house, house locked. It is "safe" unless someone commits a criminal act and breaks the lock. Having it in a gun safe is just one more lock and shouldn't be legally required, though common sense would suggest you need SOME place to keep it, and if you have kids in the house, you need one.
BTW, news is that the shooter broke several gun laws obtaining his weapons, several others in using them. Obviously what we need are more laws. :-/
Well you know my view...
Owning a gun is a serious responsibility...
Where as you seem to see it similar to owning a toaster oven...
I am not certain I DO, in fact, know your view. I am certain you do not know mine.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would think it is your view that guns kill people, whereas I believe people kill people. You seem to think that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will not have guns. You seem to think it is perfectly acceptable that, "when every second counts, the police are only minutes away." And most of all, that a law preventing the carry of guns in a church will stop the use of guns to murder innocent church-goers when the laws against murder do not.
Hmmm, on second thought I do NOT know your views, because the above makes no good sense and you are more rational than that.
I think I have been pretty clear here..
I have proposed what I think are some sensible control actions that would focus on:
•semi automatic rifles
•large clips
•bump fire stocks
•holding owners accountable for keeping their weapons secure
•registering these very dangerous weapons
It's not like people use these for personal or household defense. That is unless you are out on a ranch trying to hold off a small army.
Whereas you seem to support:
- flooding the public space with very dangerous weapons that are not very useful for hunting or home defense (ie rifles with big clips)
- not registering who has the weapons
- not holding people accountable for keeping their weapons secure.
And you seem to be against the government limiting access to large clip rapid fire rifles... Yet you seem to support them limiting access to machine guns... Which in essence do something very similar.
As Moose said somewhere, you have been brain washed to parrot the Conservative talking points with almost no rational thought.
"Which in essence do something very similar." Ah, I see the problem. You have been brainwashed into thinking that a semi-automatic deer rifle is a "machine gun" and only suited for mass shootings of people. So why do you own one? Is your gun registered? How many people has your rifle killed, all by itself?
I "parrot the [Conservative] talking points" precisely because they ARE rational, as opposed to the fanciful musings that pass for reason with the gun control crowd.
And HOW do you "hold people accountable" to NOT be the victims of a crime?
Post a Comment