OT: Chaos

[spdrun]

Allan from Fallbrook – Because the problem is the culture of solving problems with guns, not the guns themselves. Many European countries have 40-50% the gun ownership rate of the US, yet the number of gun crimes is MUCH lower than 40-50% of the US level. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s idiots’ and psychopaths’ extreme willingness to use them here.

If you see a gun as something like a fire extinguisher (home protection) or a tool (hunting), then you’d be much less likely to abuse it than if you saw it as a shiny(!) new toy and extension of your manhood.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]Because the problem is the culture of solving problems with guns, not the guns themselves. Many European countries have 40-50% the gun ownership rate of the US, yet the number of gun crimes is MUCH lower than 40-50% of the US level. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s idiots’ and psychopaths’ extreme willingness to use them.[/quote]

Spdrun: On this, we completely agree and your point is a valid one. However, as you also stated, how does one go about doing that?

America is “Gunfighter Nation”. It’s woven into our DNA. I’m not saying that it isn’t worth trying, but how?

Even if every poster on this thread were to simultaneously agree that an outright ban is the best option moving forward, there are 300 million guns in the US. So, now what?

[spdrun]

Not many suggestions, but here’s one:

This might be really counterintuitive, but expand the availability of high-school JROTC and match-shooting/biathalon (at least up north) programs. If the guns are going to be around, might as well instill responsible use of them from the teen years on. Make the association between gun use and discipline.

As an aside, I’d also support going back to 1960s and making machine-shop and home-ec programs mandatory (as they were in my high school in the 90s). A basic education in How Shit Works(tm) is as important as rigorous programs in languages, sciences, math and history.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
Never is probably an exaggeration, but if the assertion was that gun owners should be required to have insurance covering every possible kind of damage done by a gun, then I suspect it would be pretty cost prohibitive. Standard homeowner policies and umbrella policies cover accidental gun discharge. I don’t know whether they require prior disclosure or listing, I’m guessing not, at least for liability purposes. I know there is also concealed carry coverage available, though it excludes criminal acts.[/quote]

Statistically speaking there just aren’t a whole lot of cases where a law abiding citizen accidentally discharges a weapon and it causes injury. It happens but it’s relatively rare in the world of gun violence.

One’s of my points was mandatory gun liability insurance isn’t about compensating victims it’s about trying to attach an annual cost of ownership to firearms. A gun ownership tax isn’t going to pass but if you disguise it as insurance maybe it will.

In the recent mass shootings I don’t see how any of the proposed regulations would have prevented or limited the damage. I just see in effort to collect and track more data on American citizens in the guise of safety. Maybe you like the idea of big brother, most people seem to think it’s ok until you end up with the wrong dictator.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Spdrun: I don’t know if it’s around anymore or not, but the NRA ran a program when I was a kid, using WWII surplus M-1 Garands, teaching gun safety, gun use and how to become an accurate shot. It was taught (in our area) by some former soldiers and Marines, including a Gold Cup shooter. You could also purchase the rifles for like $100, which was stupid cheap, even back then.

I think it was called the Civilian Marksmanship program.

I’d be all for that How Shit Works class, too. Seeing the vacant stares you get from kids these days when you attempt to show them something mechanical is terrifying. If the power went out, half these little SOBs would starve cuz the electric can opener doesn’t work.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=livinincali]
One’s of my points was mandatory gun liability insurance isn’t about compensating victims it’s about trying to attach an annual cost of ownership to firearms. A gun ownership tax isn’t going to pass but if you disguise it as insurance maybe it will. [/quote]

Sure and we can have a breathing fee too. In reality, breathing is just as much to blame as law abiding gun owners.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=dumbrenter]We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.[/quote]

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks![/quote]

Thank you. Also note that there is no demand for national registry of dog owners and most of the registrations on local government level (not even state if I am not mistaken). There will be no media generated frenzy if you are attacked by a dog.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=ocrenter]
#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?[/quote]

Wrong. 2nd amendment goes much further than self defense.

[FlyerInHi]

I wonder why insurance companies don’t ask about guns before providing homeowners coverage. They would deny coverage or charge more if you own a bulldog. But I’ve never been asked about my guns.

[spdrun]

As ownership of arms is a Constitutional right, is it legal for them to ask?

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=ocrenter]

#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?[/quote]

OCR: So, what if we made your response above into an analogy, by replacing the phrase “excessive firepower” with the phrase “excessive horsepower”? Then we could repurpose your sentence, “Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?” to read, “Why do you need a Ferrari Enzo if the maximum speed limit (in California) is 70mph?”

Come to think of it, it doesn’t even need to be a Ferrari Enzo. The latest Corvettes, Mustangs and Camaros all feature versions that are all capable of performance in excess of 150mph, which is double the maximum speed limit.

There are numerous street legal cars that possess well in excess of 500 horsepower and even from relatively staid manufacturers, like Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz. Isn’t that “excessive horsepower”?[/quote]

The analogy is a partial fit. While both excessive firepower and excessive horsepower can kill, excessive firepower is applied to an object whose whole reason for existence is to kill or at least threaten to kill. Whereas excessive horsepower is simply excessive bling. Excessive horsepower, while increases the probability of death when involved in an accident, does not increase the number of death. Excessive firepower, increases the probability of death AND increases the number of death dramatically.

[ocrenter]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=ocrenter][quote=dumbrenter]We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.[/quote]

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks![/quote]

Thank you. Also note that there is no demand for national registry of dog owners and most of the registrations on local government level (not even state if I am not mistaken). There will be no media generated frenzy if you are attacked by a dog.[/quote]

So are you saying if local government is going to start registering all guns within its border, you would be ok with it then?

Reason why national registry works better is because trafficking of guns would be easier than trafficking of dogs.

[KIBU]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=KIBU]More shootings and death in Santa Monica, close to the college:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/two-injured-santa-monica-shooting-566213

It seems like everyday, there are plenty of the so called “isolated” deaths by guns all over the cuountry.[/quote]

KIBU: Again, a red herring. There are thousands of gun deaths around the country. I never disputed that. My point was specific to mass killings, and a specific rebuttal to your assertion that mass killings were commonplace. Which, they are not.

Let’s try this another way, since you clearly skipped your Logic 101 course in undergrad.

What do you favor as the answer to this intractable problem?

A complete ban on all firearms?

A partial ban on some firearms?

Some specific limits?

Instead of being sarcastic, and without a plan, how’s about you take a stand and tell us your SPECIFIC PLAN WITH DETAILS.

You up for that? Or, are you simply content to spew bullshit talking points without actually addressing a problem you clearly feel so strongly about?[/quote]

One has to be sincere and understand that a real problem exists in this country before talking about the solution.

When one is still dishonest about the issue then the asking for solutions is just another dishonest attempt for more rhetorics in the hope to distract with the aim to go no where on this issue. I won’t entertain those grade school begging for a fight, but at other threads and other time, I have put in some suggestions for discussion on gun safety which others have raised them here as well.

How about starting with accepting that we do have a serious problem with guns in this country. From there, nothing ever could stop Americans in finding a solution for anything. If we don’t accept that there is a problem, don’t kid around with solution.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

KIBU: I’ve never denied that there is a problem. Far from it. Going further, I’ve also written numerous times supporting ANY AND ALL measures that will improve safety and make gun ownership less dangerous.

However, in a neat piece of dissembling, you make it seem as though any disagreement with what you said is “dishonest”. In early posts, you accused me and other pro-gun supporters of being “self-delusional” and twisting facts and evidence to support our position.

It’s obvious that you’re anti-gun and virulently so. Fine. It’s America and you’re entitled to your opinion, same as everyone else.

However, you’ve not stated your plan to solve the problem and continue to avoid answering the question.

Yes, we have a problem. What’s the solution? With details, please.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]KIBU: I’ve never denied that there is a problem. Far from it. Going further, I’ve also written numerous times supporting ANY AND ALL measures that will improve safety and make gun ownership less dangerous.

However, in a neat piece of dissembling, you make it seem as though any disagreement with what you said is “dishonest”. In early posts, you accused me and other pro-gun supporters of being “self-delusional” and twisting facts and evidence to support our position.

It’s obvious that you’re anti-gun and virulently so. Fine. It’s America and you’re entitled to your opinion, same as everyone else.

However, you’ve not stated your plan to solve the problem and continue to avoid answering the question.

Yes, we have a problem. What’s the solution? With details, please.[/quote]

To add to this, I’d like to ask the anti-gunners what their plans are when someone is left defenseless at all times. As it stands, when one has a stalker or other violent criminal intent on harming them, s/he can at least buy a gun and have a chance of defending him/herself. Without a gun, how do you propose to protect these now-defenseless people from violent criminals? Mind you, these criminals will still own guns and other weapons, and they will still be every bit as capable of killing their target(s). Registration has NEVER prevented a crime from occurring.

How do you protect the victims when a determined killer/attacker targets them? And please don’t say that they should call 911, since cops almost always show up to take a report, not to proactively protect a victim of a violent crime.

[Author]

Posts