If I had more time I'd double check this, but I believe in CA if you leave a loaded gun out and a child shots themselves or someone with it, you're responsible for that shooting.
You do not enjoy guns, fair enough. Without getting into the public carry portion of your question, I will answer why I enjoy them. Aside from the hunting aspect (that's not really my thing) I'm sure most other gun owners on here have at least close to the same reasons. From the time I was about 13 I enjoyed playing pool, and became reasonably good at it. I played at a fairly competitive level for many years and as I got older I picked up an interest in golf. While not very good, I enjoyed it. After about 20 years of playing pool, I started getting bored and moved to playing darts. I played this for several years and became fairly competitive in local/state leagues/tournaments. I have now moved on to target shooting. You may ask what these have to do with each other. Here it is. All of these activities require concentration, precise target acquisition, and fine muscle control, while providing competition. Competition doesn't have to be against anyone else, for me, I want to be the best that I can be at what I choose to do. I have replaced the 30 hours a week at the pool hall with 3 hours on a Sunday at the range trying to get the holes in the paper a little closer together. In the summer I try to get out and shoot every weekend. It's something that I enjoy doing. There has been very few times that I was at the range or shot something that I caught a rush. (just to throw another can of gas on this, the last time was watching a guy at the range with a barrett .50 bmg) For me, I really don't see the difference between enjoying throwing a dart at a bullseye 9 feet away or a 40 grain .22 bullet at the same size target from 150 feet. The rush for me is not in the fact that I am using a GUN (omg, omg, omg) but in the fact that I am getting better in my aim and control. If I decide to want to stretch the range of what I shoot out beyond the limits of small caliber, an AR is obviously in the discussion due to its modularity and availability of parts. Everyone has something that they enjoy doing, you obviously have other interests. No harm no foul. I enjoy guns, I don't see how this makes me any different from anyone else with a hobby. But I am automatically labeled a "gun nut" by those who don't enjoy it. While there are people out there that get a rush and feel empowered from shooting, there are many more that just enjoy going out and spending some time at the range. This debate has gone on long enough. Let's start a new one: WHat if we ban internet porn so we can stop all of the rapes (/sarcasm) J
Cowbell is correct. Of course I'm not hiding in the dark hoping that someone breaks in. I currently live in an apartment, so there isn't much of anything that sets mine apart from others except for some potted herbs on the breezeway. However, you make a good point- alarms, security lights, and dogs all help prevent burglaries, particularly when you're not home. Plants with thorns don't hurt either. Fuck breaking a window if it means getting stabbed to shit. Of course, the desirability of firearms also means that your house may be more appealing to burglars when you're not home because guns have street value, so I try and minimize that image as well. Again, living in Memphis, the last thing I want to do is put up a big sign that says "guns up in hera". Statistically, burglars in countries that have lax firearms laws have fewer hot burglaries- ones that are committed when the homeowner is present. Homeowners who live in countries with strict firearms laws (like England) experience a much higher burglary rate when the homeowner is present. Getting the bad guys aside, I have no desire to confront someone who is willing to enter my home in order to steal a television. So, there is an actual benefit to an armed populous that benefits even the unarmed.
As you fucking should be. I'm not saying that it isn't something that should be done, but rather that if it becomes a law that you have to have a safe or some sort of lock box, I can see it being difficult to enforce. As Kubla pointed out, the only real way is to increase the penalties for allowing unauthorized access to your firearms (theft, kids playing with them, etc.) in hopes that it gets people to take securing their firearms more seriously if they haven't already.
Oh no, I understand. Guns are a part of people's lives; fathers and sons bond over them, they are great tools for teaching responsibility, they afford people protection and peace of mind, they help control deer population, their possession is guaranteed in the Constitution. I understand why people like guns, though I personally don't like them; I bonded with my dad over baseball, I learned responsibility on the football field, my peace of mind comes from an alarm system and a good neighborhood, and I don't hunt. Another person's life experience fostering in them a love and respect for firearms, while different from my own, is not invalid. But panic-buying assault weapons after a school shooting--how can you not see that as incredibly insensitive? If some whacko put shattered glass in a bunch of Nerds boxes on Halloween, and killed thirty kids, and a bunch of candy lovers bought out all the Nerds because "these might get banned soon and I love Nerds!!!", wouldn't you think "you're a fucking asshole?" Sure, Nerds are harmless--nevertheless, it's all fucking candy. Get a different goddamn kind, you insensitive narcissistic fuck. EDIT: I have a question. How does preventing the possession of assault weapons reasonably impinge on the right to bear arms, given the countless models of firearms that don't fall under that particular designation? How would this be any different from scheduling, say, heroin as illegal for possession and distribution, but allowing other opiates to be prescribed? What is it about assault weapons that make their possession crucial to upholding the 2nd Amendment?
This is my take, for what it's worth. Back when the 2nd amendment was written, everyone had muskets. Citizens had muskets, the army had muskets. The army also had cannons, but for the most part, in terms of normal firearms, things were on a pretty even playing field, making the whole well regulated militia capable of being able to keep the government in check somewhat possible. Now, the government has drones and microwave emitters that can burn you from a mile away and a host of other things that generally fuck things up. But they also have the M4 platform, which is pretty standard issue. From a firearms standpoint, I suppose that in order to stay true to the original language and intent of the 2nd amendment, we need to recognize that the muskets have been updated, and that the citizens should have reasonable access to similar versions of what our members of the military are given. That's my take on the argument for access to "assault rifles."
What is the legal definition of an assault weapon? Here is Connecticut state law, which already has a ban on the sale, manufacture, and possession of them (since 1993). http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm This is pretty much the same thing we have here in California, which is based off the federal assault weapons ban from the 90's. My personal gripe about all the fuss over them is that, well, they don't really do shit. Here is an example: THIS gun is NOT an "assault weapon." But THIS one is. They shoot the same ammunition. There is probably some small difference in rate of fire, but in the eyes of an assault weapon ban, the important difference is the pistol grip. Please explain to me how outlawing only the latter rifle is going to make a meaningful impact on gun violence.
You're objecting to one provision of the law. There are several others, covering telescoping sights, grenade launchers, fully-automatic capabilty, threaded barrels, etc. Are you ready to throw those babies out with the bathwater, or do other laws cover these?
Read a few pages back... we covered this. Ultimately no those things don't make a difference. Full-auto guns and grenade launchers (more the grenades themselves) are very heavily restricted and regulated today, and the other things (adjustable stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor) don't mean shit when legal guns can fire the same cartridge at the same rate. For the most part, they are cosmetic things and make the gun look like an "assault weapon" when in reality it has virtually the same effectiveness as the legal counterpart, so the laws don't accomplish anything. Iguana has a good example on page 18: <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.theidiotboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=88179&p=315402#p315402" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=88179&p=315402#p315402</a>
It's a telescoping stock, which just moves the stock forward and backwards a bit. Here is an example. Automatic weapons have been pretty much illegal since 1986. People can still get them legally through a long, expensive process of ATF paperwork. Flash suppressors are not suppressors, or "silencers" for non-gun types. This is a flash suppressor. It reduces the amount of flash and unburned powder so you don't blind yourself. Grenade launchers are pretty meh. The 37mm civilian version is expensive and only shoots stuff like flares and smoke. Edit: Katakoch beat me to it.
Came across a couple interesting articles. This one could just be a result of the shitty economy/people needing cash (#1 in GDP doesn't mean much, JPrue, if most people can't find work/your country is half-owned by China), but regardless, it looks like a step towards possible, actual change. I've been meaning to read Steven Pinker's last book. Apparently it has a chapter explaining why America's murder rate, with guns or otherwise, stays higher than all other Western/rich countries. Gwynne Dyer quotes part of it here. A couple highlights (some of which have been echoed in this thread): Spoiler Here's another interesting statistic: in the past 25 years, the proportion of Americans who own guns has fallen from about one in three to one in five. However, the US, unlike Yemen, is a rich country and the average American gun-owner has four or five firearms. Moreover, he or she is utterly determined to keep them no matter what happens ... Half the firearms in the entire world are in the US. The rate of murders by gunfire in the US is almost 20 times higher than the average rate in 22 other populous, high-income countries where the frequency of other crimes is about the same. There is clearly a connection between these two facts, but it is not necessarily simple cause and effect. Here's one reason to suspect that it's not that simple: the American rate for murders of all kinds - shooting, strangling, stabbing, poisoning, pushing people under buses, etc - is seven times higher than it is in those other 22 rich countries. It can't just be guns. Here's another clue: the rate of firearms homicides in Canada, another mainly English-speaking country in North America with a similar political heritage, is about half the American rate - and in England it is only 1/30th as much. What else is in play here? ... By the mid-20th century, the murder rate in England had fallen more than one-hundredfold: in London, it was less than one person per 100,000 per year. In most western European countries it was about the same. Whereas the US murder rate is still up around seven people per 100,000 per year. Why? Pinker quotes historian Pieter Spierenburg's provocative suggestion that ''democracy came too early'' to America. In European countries, the population was gradually disarmed by the centralised state as it put an end to feudal anarchy. Only much later, after people had already learnt to trust the law to defend their property and protect them from violence, did democracy come to these countries. This is also what has happened in most other parts of the world, although in many cases it was the colonial power that disarmed the people and instituted the rule of law. But in the US, where the democratic revolution came more than two centuries ago, the people took over the state before they had been disarmed - and kept their weapons. They also kept their old attitudes. Indeed, large parts of the US, particularly in the south-east and south-west, still have an ''honour'' culture in which it is accepted that private individuals may choose to defend their rights and interests by violence rather than seeking justice through the law. The homicide rate in New England is less than three people per 100,000 per year, while in Louisiana it is more than 14. None of this explains the specific phenomenon of gun massacres by deranged individuals, who are presumably present at the same rate in every country. It's just that in the US, it's easier for individuals like that to get access to rapid-fire weapons. The intense media coverage of every massacre also gives many other crazies an incentive to do the same, only more of it. But only one in 300 murders in the US happens in that kind of massacre. Most are simply due to quarrels between individuals, often members of the same family. Private acts of violence to obtain ''justice'', with or without guns, are deeply entrenched in American culture and the murder rate would stay extraordinarily high even if there were no guns. Since there are guns everywhere, the murder rate is even higher. But since the popular attitudes to violence have not changed, that is not going to change either.
On the school protection front, I don't see armed teachers or full-time on-duty guards being a possibility nationwide, but I wouldn't mind seeing work done to establish a local emergency response network with SWAT and medical personnel. Require a maximum 30 minute (or something similar) response time by a special forces unit to any school, not just uniformed town cops. The concept of multiple shooters attacking people in a school or mall or other public area unimpeded for up to 30 or 45 minutes is terrifying, and could lead to much larger victim counts. I went to school in suburban Maine (read: quite rural, since cities are pretty sparse) and the possible response time for a SWAT team would be much longer than in surburban CO or CT, in addition to the nearly non-existent security system at the school. Full-on prevention might not be possible, but we should at least prepare ourselves better in case of such a situation.
That buyback is an anomoly... notice it was relatively close to where the shooting occured and the day after it happened too. The vast majority of buybacks, even in poor urban areas like that, net a tiny fraction of what that one in particular did. I have no problem with gun buybacks, but wouldn't depend on them.
I went to school in a rural area, too. What the county SWAT team did was smart: they picked one or two guys from each local PD and trained them up (usually ex-military). It reduced the time that at least someone would get to a school and provide a presence until the others got there.
I saw this and thought "that's gotta be bullshit". But what do you know: there are almost three times as many weapons in the U.S. today as there are AK-47s and AK-47 variants that have ever been produced. Neat fact for the day.
We have those laws here in Australia, you must purchase an approved gun safe and have it bolted to two surfaces (wall and floor). After its been installed you make an appointment with the police and they send someone out to confirm it is secured correctly and give you the final seal of approval on your firearm application. Only then you can pick up your gun from the dealer and take it home. Any subsequent firearms applications require a reconfirmation by police that the safe is still there, secured and capable of fitting all the firearms in it. I understand there are penalties for having an unsecured firearm stolen as well. Is it a pain in the ass? Yes because i would want it properly secured even if there weren't these laws in place (as any responsible gun owner would), but i understand the reason for it and whens all said and done i don't have a choice, if i want to get myself a rifle (for target shooting) next year that is what i have to do. I can imagine something similar costing a lot of money and manpower to implement in the States, but it is do-able. This does however only effect law abiding firearms owners, like most gun legislation. The criminals just continue to do what the fuck they want.
Apologies for the double post, but just read this: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/shooter-left-little-for-investigators/story-fn3dxix6-1226541458089" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/br ... 6541458089</a> So he destroyed his hard-drive. Seems fairly calculated for someone with a mental illness but i don't really know. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Also: If the only person who he was socially engaged with is dead, who is telling the investigators he spent the weeks prior to the shooting playing 'violent videogames'?
Something occurred to me while sitting here reading this thread. To preface the following statement, I spent most of my twenties in war-torn shit holes in the ME. Only in the most elite economies of the western world would this argument take place. It's fair to say that statistics related to different crimes including murder, rape of little boys and abuse of little girls are hard to come by for places like Afghanistan. In places like the U.S., these statistics are at everyone's fingertips. Few would argue that there are many more violent places than the U.S. in terms of gun crime, although, they are all in 'developing' countries. Realizing what life is like outside of the 'developed world' it seems like we in the West live in a bubble where life is so safe that when a tragedy like this happens we really have no frame of reference to place it against. Since this is the case, we set about to try and change our world to make it safer or return ourselves to this sense of normalcy we are used to. The same thing happened after 9/11. After living in these places and seeing man in his most base form. It seems to me that we are learning first-hand or in most of our cases through the media that bad things happen to seemingly good people and that there are a lot of bad* people out there. There isn't a law or rule that you can enact to make them go away or behave. *Sick.....evil......pick your favorite term.
You don't get it, people don't arm themselves because they are scared, people arm themselves to be ready in case it happens and because we aren't afraid of inanimate objects. Nobody owes you an explanation as to why they enjoy the things that they enjoy. According to Gallup gun ownership is at its highest since 1993.