0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

[trixR4kids]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

You've posted this statement before, probably multiple times. And, of course, it is obviously correct. If there is no gun in a household, the likelihood of an accidental shooting, the likelihood of a shooting in response to a fight or violence, etc..., almost disappears. Someone would have to bring a gun to that household if any of those were to occur, obviously.

I personally have not one, but many guns in my household, and I certainly don't want my household to be unsafe. However, here is why your statement/statistic doesn't frighten me, doesn't worry me, and doesn't cause me to remove the guns from my household. There has never been anything remotely close to an unsafe event in my home. There have been no accidental discharges of firearms, and my practice of keeping the guns unloaded, checking them immediately when they are picked up or before they are set down, storing them in a safe location, keeping them away from where the ammo is stored, etc..., basically removes all risk. I've never been frightened enough to load my weapon in the house. I've never even dreamed of loading my guns in anger in the house, or anywhere else.

I'm not unusual in this regard. I dare say that a majority, if not a super-majority, if not like 95% or more of all gun owners have had the exact same experience as me. Which means we view the increased danger as being no greater than the increased danger of having a can full of lawnmower gas in my garage. Yes, conceivably that product could cause great harm to me and my family. But only if I'm an idiot. I'm not an idiot.

I agree with you obviously, you probably did some research before owning a gun and took a hunter's safety course and could pass a mental health background check etc.

The problem is there's way too many people out there that couldn't or don't do any of those things and can easily get a gun.

So no offense, but I'm not concerned with your welfare - you know the risks. Its unfortunate for other adults living there. But the real injustice is for any children or guests. They don't have the knowledge of the dangers or the ability to affect them. In the end, youre desire for household security is increasing the danger for everyone that walks through your doorway.

I don't disagree about your C&C point but this is ludicrous. If he has his guns locked away unloaded in a safe then no, there really isn't any danger to the guests.

 

[rufus]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

You've posted this statement before, probably multiple times. And, of course, it is obviously correct. If there is no gun in a household, the likelihood of an accidental shooting, the likelihood of a shooting in response to a fight or violence, etc..., almost disappears. Someone would have to bring a gun to that household if any of those were to occur, obviously.

I personally have not one, but many guns in my household, and I certainly don't want my household to be unsafe. However, here is why your statement/statistic doesn't frighten me, doesn't worry me, and doesn't cause me to remove the guns from my household. There has never been anything remotely close to an unsafe event in my home. There have been no accidental discharges of firearms, and my practice of keeping the guns unloaded, checking them immediately when they are picked up or before they are set down, storing them in a safe location, keeping them away from where the ammo is stored, etc..., basically removes all risk. I've never been frightened enough to load my weapon in the house. I've never even dreamed of loading my guns in anger in the house, or anywhere else.

I'm not unusual in this regard. I dare say that a majority, if not a super-majority, if not like 95% or more of all gun owners have had the exact same experience as me. Which means we view the increased danger as being no greater than the increased danger of having a can full of lawnmower gas in my garage. Yes, conceivably that product could cause great harm to me and my family. But only if I'm an idiot. I'm not an idiot.

Then what do you need them for?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Couple of things:

1) Guns in the home - Fatalities appear to be about 5x higher in homes with guns (11x higher for children). If as you say 80ish% of gun owners have super awesome approaches to storage, then that would mean that the danger of fatalities could be not better than 3x in 'safe' gun households with the other households being much greater.

So no offense, but I'm not concerned with your welfare - you know the risks. Its unfortunate for other adults living there. But the real injustice is for any children or guests. They don't have the knowledge of the dangers or the ability to affect them. In the end, youre desire for household security is increasing the danger for everyone that walks through your doorway.

2) Outside of the home - 'C&C' makes all those super safe storage steps impossible. It also puts guns in direct contact of innocents and masses of them in public spaces where they would expect to be safe. The risk danger from gun accidents or misunderstandings goes through the roof.

As you can see, my top concern is the risk posed to innocents. They didn't do anything to deserve this...and innocents are the largest gun casualties based on statistics - regardless of whether in the home or in public. But I would reluctantly support you putting all your house guests and children at risk...if we could stop putting the masses of innocents at risk due to c&c who didn't agree to be near you.

The problem with your argument, and it's always been the problem with your argument, is your insistence that someone having guns safely stored at home creates a similar risk to guests, or "innocents" to use your terminology, that is created by someone walking into a nightclub with a loaded handgun just because they have a c&c permit.

Almost all gun owners fall into the former and very, very few of us fall into the latter. Furthermore, there is virtually no similarity between the two. Gun owners who are responsible, and I think the vast, vast majority fall into that category, realize guns aren't toys or something to be paraded around town just because you can. It's the same reason I don't walk around Walmart with an operating chainsaw.

Until you recognize the differences, and stop trying to equate all gun owners and the alleged dangers created by them to persons who walk around brandishing loaded weapons in public, we won't accept anything you say on the subject to be logical or worthy of consideration.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Then what do you need them for?

What do I need what for? My guns?

First, I don't know that I actually "need" them, just like I probably don't "need" a car or golf clubs or a lawn mower or any of the hundreds of other personal property items I own.

I choose to own my guns because I hunt with them. I don't "need" to hunt. I have a Costco membership, so I'm good there. But I enjoy the social activity and exercise associated with hunting, and the opportunity to be outdoors in the fall.

 

[rufus]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

How many guns do you need to hunt with?

Small gauge and large gauge shotguns, and a good rifle.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

How many guns do you need to hunt with?

Small gauge and large gauge shotguns, and a good rifle.

I gotta be honest, you're sounding a lot like my wife.

Seriously, at any point in time I only need one. But I have more than one, for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons are practical, like a shotgun with a longer barrel and full choke for waterfowl, versus a shorter, lighter gun for upland game hunting. Other reasons are sentimental, such as the first gun I ever purchased, a couple of guns owned by my father and his father before him, etc...

 

[jerphisch]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

The problem with your argument, and it's always been the problem with your argument, is your insistence that someone having guns safely stored at home creates a similar risk to guests, or "innocents" to use your terminology, that is created by someone walking into a nightclub with a loaded handgun just because they have a c&c permit.

Almost all gun owners fall into the former and very, very few of us fall into the latter. Furthermore, there is virtually no similarity between the two. Gun owners who are responsible, and I think the vast, vast majority fall into that category, realize guns aren't toys or something to be paraded around town just because you can. It's the same reason I don't walk around Walmart with an operating chainsaw.

Very very few might be a stretch...
∼1.69 million children in the United States <18 years old are living with loaded and unlocked household firearms.

 

[burd]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

I gotta be honest, you're sounding a lot like my wife.

Seriously, at any point in time I only need one. But I have more than one, for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons are practical, like a shotgun with a longer barrel and full choke for waterfowl, versus a shorter, lighter gun for upland game hunting. Other reasons are sentimental, such as the first gun I ever purchased, a couple of guns owned by my father and his father before him, etc...

And I think the vast majority of people feel it should be legal to own those kinds of firearms, provided there is a clear but practical process in place to register them and keep them out of the hands of felons and people with documented mental or emotional disorders. I think the real disagreements arise for most people on issues of public carry and weapons that are not designed for hunting or typical target sport and present and increased capacity to kill that goes beyond hunting or target shooting.

For one thing, there is no way in he!! the government is going to, or should be able to, prevent Joe Citizen from owning and using the Winchester Model 12 his grandfather used for duck hunting.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNHDxnabADM

 

[alfablue]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

As a practical matter, how would you propose to implement your ideas? Obviously restrictions could be placed on newly manufactured guns by some sort of change in the laws. But how do you propose to address the millions of existing guns in private hands that don't meet your criteria?

At the moment, there's not much anyone can do. We should ban the repeater BS that the Nevada shooter did- that should made 100% illegal, and people should be encouraged to turn them in or face huge penalties if caught using them.

Legal users should be encouraged to follow the law. Non legal ones should have their guns taken as soon as they use their weapons illegally. All of their guns.

But because you can't do anything with the current population of guns does not mean we should do nothing for future ones. That's a very lame excuse, and one that should be dismissed as a "do nothing" argument.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

At the moment, there's not much anyone can do. We should ban the repeater BS that the Nevada shooter did- that should made 100% illegal, and people should be encouraged to turn them in or face huge penalties if caught using them.

Legal users should be encouraged to follow the law. Non legal ones should have their guns taken as soon as they use their weapons illegally. All of their guns.

But because you can't do anything with the current population of guns does not mean we should do nothing for future ones. That's a very lame excuse, and one that should be dismissed as a "do nothing" argument.

Let me see if I can address your points.

First, you propose banning bump stocks. Ok, I really don't have a problem with that, although it's a little like trying to solve drunk driving by banning Amaretto. As far as I can tell, taking that step would have resulted in a change to only one event, the one in Las Vegas. But even without a bump stock do we know he wouldn't have killed a bunch of people? But fine, you want to ban bump stocks, I really have no objection. Just don't claim you've accomplished anything.

As for "encouraging" legal users to follow the law, we are required to follow the law. That's why it's the law. If we don't, we can be prosecuted for it.

As for confiscating the guns of users who use them illegally, I'm not in law enforcement or the prosecution business, but I think this is already done.

You admit there is nothing that can be done about the current population of guns, but suggest that doesn't mean we should do nothing about future ones. What exactly do you propose? That's the question we keep asking.

Do you propose a ban on all future manufacture and sales of guns? If that's your proposal, tell me ahead of time so that I don't accidentally get stampeded at the entrance of a Cabelas or some such place. You would instantly convert the number of guns owned by private citizens in this country from about 3 million to about 6 million overnight, as every single gun currently held by retailers and manufacturers would be snapped up instantaneously, to say nothing of the output that would occur as your proposed legislation was debated.

You decry "do nothing" arguments, but I say to you, if you're going to do something, accomplish something. Don't ban bump stocks or a particular model of gun, then pat yourself on the back and pretend like you've made the world safer for democracy.

If you want to solve gun deaths by way of legislating the weapons themselves, then you need to be prepared to do what other countries have done and basically make it illegal to own or carry weapons. That will solve your problem. But that's a big hill for you to climb, and will probably require constitutional amendment, so you better get working on it.

Everything else falls in the "do something, accomplish nothing" category.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

The problem with your argument, and it's always been the problem with your argument, is your insistence that someone having guns safely stored at home creates a similar risk to guests, or "innocents" to use your terminology...

If he has his guns locked away unloaded in a safe then no, there really isn't any danger to the guests.

If as you (Hov) suggest 80ish% of gun households are 'super safe', then 3-5 times mortality rates in gun households dictates that 'safe gun' households are far, far more dangerous than you suggested. The math doesn't work any other way because 300 to 500% (1,100% for children) greater fatalities are huge numbers.

Alternatively, there could be a much, much smaller number of 'safe storage' households than you assert. That's the only other possibility.

Until you recognize the differences, and stop trying to equate all gun owners and the alleged dangers created by them to persons who walk around brandishing loaded weapons in public, we won't accept anything you say on the subject to be logical or worthy of consideration.

Help me through the above math then.

Don't get me wrong...I don't think guns should be outlawed. But people should know that in spite of perceived 'home protection', guns make everyone around them much, much less safe.

...that is created by someone walking into a nightclub with a loaded handgun just because they have a c&c permit.

Great! It appears we have USCHO consensus that conceal and carry is extremely dangerous for all and therefore, its terrible policy that should be eliminated.

 

[Drew S.]

If as you (Hov) suggest 80ish% of gun households are 'super safe', then 3-5 times mortality rates in gun households dictates that 'safe gun' households are far, far more dangerous than you suggested. The math doesn't work any other way because 300 to 500% (1,100% for children) greater fatalities are huge numbers.

Alternatively, there could be a much, much smaller number of 'safe storage' households than you assert. That's the only other possibility.



Help me through the above math then.

Don't get me wrong...I don't think guns should be outlawed. But people should know that in spite of perceived 'home protection', guns make everyone around them much, much less safe.



Great! It appears we have USCHO consensus that conceal and carry is extremely dangerous for all and therefore, its terrible policy that should be eliminated.

It’s such a rare event that it makes your percentages meaningless. Kids are much more likely to die via car accident, drowning, etc. Driving/riding in a car is by far the most dangerous thing the vast majority of people do.

 

[alfablue]

Let me see if I can address your points.

First, you propose banning bump stocks. Ok, I really don't have a problem with that, although it's a little like trying to solve drunk driving by banning Amaretto. As far as I can tell, taking that step would have resulted in a change to only one event, the one in Las Vegas. But even without a bump stock do we know he wouldn't have killed a bunch of people? But fine, you want to ban bump stocks, I really have no objection. Just don't claim you've accomplished anything.

As for "encouraging" legal users to follow the law, we are required to follow the law. That's why it's the law. If we don't, we can be prosecuted for it.

As for confiscating the guns of users who use them illegally, I'm not in law enforcement or the prosecution business, but I think this is already done.

You admit there is nothing that can be done about the current population of guns, but suggest that doesn't mean we should do nothing about future ones. What exactly do you propose? That's the question we keep asking.

Do you propose a ban on all future manufacture and sales of guns? If that's your proposal, tell me ahead of time so that I don't accidentally get stampeded at the entrance of a Cabelas or some such place. You would instantly convert the number of guns owned by private citizens in this country from about 3 million to about 6 million overnight, as every single gun currently held by retailers and manufacturers would be snapped up instantaneously, to say nothing of the output that would occur as your proposed legislation was debated.

You decry "do nothing" arguments, but I say to you, if you're going to do something, accomplish something. Don't ban bump stocks or a particular model of gun, then pat yourself on the back and pretend like you've made the world safer for democracy.

If you want to solve gun deaths by way of legislating the weapons themselves, then you need to be prepared to do what other countries have done and basically make it illegal to own or carry weapons. That will solve your problem. But that's a big hill for you to climb, and will probably require constitutional amendment, so you better get working on it.

Everything else falls in the "do something, accomplish nothing" category.

Have you not been paying attention?

5 round limit on magazines
A fire rate limit slower than finger speed.

I’ve proposed that many times.

That way people can play army and have guns that look cool, but it still lowers the rate and number of rounds that can be gotten off, which will reduce the severity of mass shootings.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

If as you (Hov) suggest 80ish% of gun households are 'super safe', then 3-5 times mortality rates in gun households dictates that 'safe gun' households are far, far more dangerous than you suggested. The math doesn't work any other way because 300 to 500% (1,100% for children) greater fatalities are huge numbers.

Alternatively, there could be a much, much smaller number of 'safe storage' households than you assert. That's the only other possibility.

The latter point is probably correct, you have a lot of idiots owning guns and we don't have a well-regulated militia by any stretch of the imagination. That is a problem.

Hovey locking up his guns safely isn't a problem to his guests or anyone else though.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

It’s such a rare event that it makes your percentages meaningless. Kids are much more likely to die via car accident, drowning, etc. Driving/riding in a car is by far the most dangerous thing the vast majority of people do.

Stop with this stupid trope Jesus ****ing Christ. Kids probably die less often from falling off a cliff and yet we still put railings there to prevent it because it's a common sense proposal.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Have you not been paying attention?

5 round limit on magazines
A fire rate limit slower than finger speed.

I’ve proposed that many times.

That way people can play army and have guns that look cool, but it still lowers the rate and number of rounds that can be gotten off, which will reduce the severity of mass shootings.

Your proposal regarding a fire rate slower than finger speed is basically banning semi-automatic weapons, I guess. I don't think you'll ever get that accomplished, and even if you did you wouldn't accomplish anything. I can fire a pump action shotgun about as quickly as you can fire a semi-auto shotgun. The recoil from the weapon always causes a momentary pause during which the lever action or pump action or some other action can be operated.

But let's say you got rid of semi-automatic weapons and magazines greater than 5 cartridges. Have you really accomplished anything?

No. You propose that your suggestions will reduce the severity of the "mass shootings." That might be true. I won't concede the point because I think Charles Whitman used a bolt action rifle to kill 18 people. I still think people who want to commit mass homicide are going to be able to do it even with the guns you're restricting them to.

But let's assume you are correct and the "severity" of "mass shootings" is reduced by your changes. What we are really talking about is maybe a handful of events, tops, each year, accounting for what, maybe 100 of the 12,000 annual gun homicides in this country each year?

That's what I keep saying about all of these proposals are "do something, accomplish nothing" proposals. Yet you guys would parade around and brag about all that has been accomplished.

Gun deaths in this country aren't the result of some guy blazing away with a Tommy gun filled with a hundred rounds. The gun deaths you hear about, that you see stories about on tv for a week after they occur, are. But those are a tiny, tiny fraction of gun homicides.

99% of the gun homicides in this country are just caused by a someone shooting one or two shots at another person with a shotgun or a handgun or a deer rifle, and not a result of the Las Vegas type shooting. A guy shoots his wife and kid. Someone shoots another guy in the street.

 

[BassAle]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Stop with this stupid trope Jesus ****ing Christ. Kids probably die less often from falling off a cliff and yet we still put railings there to prevent it because it's a common sense proposal.

how many people got killed by lawn darts? Those things are banned.

 

[Drew S.]

Your proposal regarding a fire rate slower than finger speed is basically banning semi-automatic weapons, I guess. I don't think you'll ever get that accomplished, and even if you did you wouldn't accomplish anything. I can fire a pump action shotgun about as quickly as you can fire a semi-auto shotgun. The recoil from the weapon always causes a momentary pause during which the lever action or pump action or some other action can be operated.

But let's say you got rid of semi-automatic weapons and magazines greater than 5 cartridges. Have you really accomplished anything?

No. You propose that your suggestions will reduce the severity of the "mass shootings." That might be true. I won't concede the point because I think Charles Whitman used a bolt action rifle to kill 18 people. I still think people who want to commit mass homicide are going to be able to do it even with the guns you're restricting them to.

But let's assume you are correct and the "severity" of "mass shootings" is reduced by your changes. What we are really talking about is maybe a handful of events, tops, each year, accounting for what, maybe 100 of the 12,000 annual gun homicides in this country each year?

That's what I keep saying about all of these proposals are "do something, accomplish nothing" proposals. Yet you guys would parade around and brag about all that has been accomplished.

Gun deaths in this country aren't the result of some guy blazing away with a Tommy gun filled with a hundred rounds. The gun deaths you hear about, that you see stories about on tv for a week after they occur, are. But those are a tiny, tiny fraction of gun homicides.

99% of the gun homicides in this country are just caused by a someone shooting one or two shots at another person with a shotgun or a handgun or a deer rifle, and not a result of the Las Vegas type shooting. A guy shoots his wife and kid. Someone shoots another guy in the street.

Bingo. Most gun murders are a criminal shooting another criminal or a domestic situation. The odds of a ‘regular’ person dying in a non-domestic shooting are incredibly low.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

how many people got killed by lawn darts? Those things are banned.

I want my Jarts! Jerks.