Guns

[Phoebe]

The fact about where the US ranks in all of those charts doesn't do any favors for the pro gun rights position.

[Bonefish]

[Walrus]

Ahhh, so we're going with the assumption that I said something about all guns being banned? Funny, I don't recall that.

Does gun violence still exist? yes. But if you remove access too guns that are designed to kill mass numbers of people, the mass killings evaporate.

But hey, enjoy pretending that I claimed it was all about banning every gun and saying there was no gun violence, because that's not hyperbolic at all.

[Bonefish]

[Walrus]

Ahhh - so there is a problem with the drug trade so we should ignore all other problems.

Frankly I think handguns should be far more highly restricted too - They are a tool, and just like a screwdriver, they aren't made for hammering nails.
Most deer or pigs or ducks won't notice if you don't have your gun concealed. That's a mostly human trait.

Dealing with violence resulting from guns in general - I would love to see that vanish. But, no, I am not your naive bleeding heart favorite foe who one dimentionally thinks banning all guns would automagically solve all problems.

however, if we return to the gun restrictions proposed, and quit pretending these propositions will solve the drug trade, or wipe out organised crime, or stop all gun violence.

It's already been shown that mass killings without access too automatic weapons, and those modified to be, and with restricted access too other guns, suddenly kills a lot less people.
So a case study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia
If you look forward from 1996, the port Arthur massacre - as that was the instigating event for the heavier gun restrictions in Australia - you'll notice that there is a marked decline in deaths in mass killings.

Strangely enough, it's a lot harder to kill more people when you have to line them up with a car, or actually stab them, or keep reloading a hand gun.

And again, just incase you choose to miss it again. I never said this resolves all gun violence, or organised crime, or mass killings for that matter.
It makes mass killings harder to do, and shrinks their size.

Then you want to compare with countries like Israel and Switzerland maybe? Countries that have manditory military service. So that every citizen is properly vetted, and trained in the use of the weapons, rather than in america where any yahoo with 20 min and the ability to sign their name just has to go to the right state to get signed off on having a gun. Because there could never be a problem with that.

is there a problem with organised crime? yes. Is there a problem with general crime violence? yes. Are those going to be solved by restricting access to weapons? no. they may be assisted by it, but that's not the point. The point is that just because they are problems doesn't mean we have to ignore other problems.

But hey, If you prefer setting fire to straw men, I hear that burning effigies is popular in the us, so be my guest, it comes under free-speech right? Just don't pretend that it actually answers the problem, accept that you just don't want to deal with the problem and let everyone who does, go deal with it and solve it for you.

For my opinion, I would ask what use any general citizen would possibly have for a hand-gun, or something fully automatic, or even semi-automatic for that reason.
They are tools. And I have yet to hear a single cogent argument that holds water as to why a general citizen would need to have a tool that is about concealing having a human killer, or killing mass numbers.
Anyone who would apply to have the license should probably be looked at with more than a little suspicion.

[Bonefish]

In regards to port Arthur: New Zealand didn't do any of the things you claim were effective, yet have had similar trends. California has extremely restrictive gun laws, yet... San Bernardino. Conniticut had the most restrictive gun laws in the country when that lunatic shot up a school with an ar15. Baltimore is in a restrictive state, yet is known colloqially as Bodymore, Murderland. Germany and Norway have restrictive laws, yet are ranked above the US in mass shootings. In other words:. No, there is no conclussive evidence that limiting firearms or classes of firearms reduces mass murders. It may impact firearms related homicides, but even then, the top 9 countries for firearms homicides are all restrictive in ownership.

In regards to ”any Yahoo with 20 minutes" can buy a gun... No. That's an outright falsification. Everytime I have bought a long arm without havind a valid concealed carry permit, it has involved atleast an hour for the background check through the FBI. Once, it look me three hours to repurchase my carbine that I pawned, due to the wait. Atleast one mass murderer who should not have been able to buy his firearm was due to the fall re of the FBI to return his background check in three days. There are private sales where background checks are irrelevant, but that is a really difficult area to legislate, and there, as of yet, have been no proposals to expand the NCIS system to make it more accessible for private sellers. I have bought about half my guns through private sales, though I have generally run them through an FFL at some point in order to establish a proof of purchase. I am currently negotiating with the Cheyenne PD to regarding n possession of two of my firearms, and I wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if I didn't have proofs or purchase for them.

I am not against licensing or registration, provided it is done in a fashion that doesn't establish undue restrictions in an effort to establish a de facto gun ban. There is also the problem of financing such a system. If we use the DMV as a point of comparison, we can conclude that it would cost billions of dollars, for a minimal return.

[Walrus]

So new zealand didn't do the things Australia did - because they didn't have to, their gun laws were already more restrictive than Australia's were at the time, and from all appearances more restrictive than anything in the US, though I'll be the first to admit, I am not especially familiar with the rather insane state by state laws that the US seems such a fan of.

And as to state by state laws. Since there is no border control between states, it's kind of meaningless.

And however restrictive or careful the laws may be on paper. When people can get concealed carry licences, with no more hassle than a short gun safety course, of which more than half the class should have failed by rights, and yet didn't (they paid their $$ after all) then these alleged laws are not being abided by if they exist. And then publish their efforts as a word to the wise. Which makes them just as meaningful as not having them.

And that still doesn't answer the question - what does joe public actually need with automatic weapons? Or semi automatic weapons?
Are there deer or bears that come at hunters in such large numbers they need to be mown down?
Or do they watch bushwalkers for guns so hunters need to conceal them?

[Bonefish]

Automatic firearms have been heavily restricted since 1934. One of my local gun shops has a transferable lower, and that goes for about 15k. If you have a class three or go through the ATF. It's also reliant on getting your local police chief or sherrif to sign off. Charlotte's sheriff hasn't signed off on anything in the past thirty years.

Semi automatics make up the bulk of rifles, shotguns and handguns. They are widely used for hunting(with the appropriate magazine restrictions depending on the state). When it comes to handguns, they are the most suitable for self defense, as there isn't a single common pistol cartridge that can reliably incapcitate a dangerous person in one shot. My instructor, as well as every instructor I have ever talked to recommends that you fire until the threat has stopped. Most of these instructors are either ex military or police, and are generally very tight with local law enforcement.

The idea that instructors are providing McCarry training is... I don't know where it comes from. I have yet to encounter anything approaching that, as most instructors are very serious about their job. Many moonlight as advisors for police departments.

As I have pointed out previously, the majority of firearms homicides are committed by poor, young black men, who have extremely low rates of firearms ownership. Well, reported rates, atleast. Not by "yahoos”.

[Walrus]

The idea of providers giving 'McCarry' (not a bad name actually, I like it, descriptive) training, may not be somthing in your own town, but it is something that is not that uncommon.
The publicised experience was near Chicago (no idea of how close that may or may not be to you. My in the US geography is about as poor as most american's global geography knowledge).

Frankly, at the age of 7, when I first tried out shooting, I could have done better than about half of the folks on that training who ended up being passed for concealed carry.

The fact that semi-automatics are used for hunting doesn't answer why they would be needed.
I can use the end of a wrench to bang in a nail, doesn't make it the right tool for the job, just means it will work.

And there is still no reason for carrying concealed firearms for the joe-public - but hey, who needs a reason right?

Anywho - I don't know why I end up digging into this nonsense - I don't live in the us. I wouldn't be caught dead moving there, and am remarkably unlikely to visit. so it's effects on me will be minimal and vicarious at best.

What's worse, All this giving a hoot about others who end up caught in the middle ruins my carefully crafted misanthropist reputation.

I've heard the argument 'If you don't like those laws, don't live there' and it works fine for me, mostly because in not liking them, I am not trapped in a situation where I have to live there.

[Bonefish]

Ah. Chicago. Yeah, that explains it. One of those places where it's damn near impossible to get a firearm unless you are a wealthy white person. I can just picture it, liberals who have never handled a firearm getting a carry license to protect themselves from the poor black people. Yeah, that makes sense to me.

In regards to semi auto for hunting, it depends on what you are hunting and what you are hunting with, I guess. I don't hunt, though I am an avid shooter. But I imagine the main reason for ar15 style rifles becoming popular is the same as it's been for hunting rifles in the us:. They largely mimic whatever the current service rifle is, or are a cycle behind it. Part of this is cost:. Mass produced rifles are cheaper, there are more accessories and gunsmiths knowledgable in them, and ammo is cheaper.

But hell, I know guys who go white tail hunting in the woods with 7mm rem mags, and I can't imagine why you would need such a powerful cartridge for white tail. White tail are human sized, so anything good at killing white tail is gonna be good at killing humans or vice versa. And the short ranges around here don't really require the 500m plus performance of the rem mag. Hell, I only know one 400m range within a few hours drive to practice at.

As far as why anyone needs a pistol for self defense? Well, we do have a higher crime rate than Europe or Australia, and the average response time for the police is around 9 to 15 minutes. In rural areas that can stretch out to an hour, and strangely, in poor urban areas, you can have similar times, hence the politically incorrect joke of calling 911 and saying "hurry, there's four black guys raping a white girl, and I don't have a basketball". For myself, I am a construction worker who works in rural areas where wild dogs or bears are a reasonable threat. And I don't want to think about the disreputable types you find hanging out cheap motels.

[Bonefish]

On the training thing, I would love some sort of national training regime. I learned to shoot when I was 12 or so, and even when using air rifles, it was impressed on me to never point my rifle at something I didn't want to kill, and that unloaded guns are the most dangerous guns in existence. I have taken a few friends who didn't have any existing experience out shooting and that was frightening. Had to take away the rifle from one and told him in no uncertain terms that he wasn't fit to carry a firearm.

I find it mind boggling that in a country with more guns than people, we don't teach basic gun safety.

[Walrus]

[Tahlvin]

[Walrus]

It's not that I don't understand the idea of individual liberty.

the problem I have with it, is that humans live as a societal creature. Individual liberty quickly comes into conflict with the idea of living together as a communal society. There comes a point where the good of the society as a whole should win out over the desires of the individual. But while clinging to the ultimate goal of pure individual liberty as the gold standard, the 'rights' of people to run around untrained with weapons is going to constantly trump the rights of the society to be safer.

Liberty can only be compatible with societal life when responsibility is taught and enforced. and these days, the idea of consequences and taking responsibility seems to be like throwing holy-water onto undead.

When deplatforming is framed as infringing on free speech, when counter-protesting is claimed to be silencing or violence, when someone's 'right' to own tools they don't need, is taken as the most important factor in deciding societal policy.
that all tells me that the idea of taking responsibility in the US has devolved to the level of a toddler.

The bit about this that really grinds my gears, is that so many western countries are so damn eager to follow this trend and crank up the hate rhetoric and bring on the violence. It would be far more of a meh, shrug fest for me if this attitude weren't being wholesale exported.