Can We Just All Accept Reality? Guns Are Not Going Away.

[dballance]

The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. So I support it just as I support the rest of the Constitution.

Rather than demonizing guns because of the relatively small number of people who use them in a completely horrible way perhaps we should start to think differently. Just like we think the GOP should start to think differently after their losses in the last election.

Maybe we should be really pushing for more education on how to safely use firearms when one purchases a firearm so I can stop reading the stories about idiots who shoot themselves or someone else because they forgot there was a round in the chamber or they didn't get the meaning of the word "safety" when it applies to that little switch on a gun.

Maybe we should encourage people to do a better job of keeping loaded weapons out of children's hands so I can stop reading the stories about toddlers who got their parent's weapons and accidentally fired them killing themselves.

Maybe we can do what my dad did teaching us gun safety and almost getting apoplectic when I let the barrel of a rifle point at another person. I got appropriately scolded for that. Even though pointing the rifle at another person was not intentional dad wanted to teach me to be responsible and pay attention to what I was doing with something that could maim or kill. Much like he tried to teach me to be responsible when I was learning to drive.

If we did these sorts of things I believe it would remove a lot of the arguments people use to complain about guns. That would be a good thing.

I grew up on a farm. We had guns, I hunted, I killed animals that we later ate. We did target practice with clay pigeons. There is not a thing in the world wrong with any of that.

We just need responsible gun ownership. That's all.

[KWorth]

1. Wonderful perspective.

I think you have said it very succinctly and I agree with every point you made.

[2on2u]

2. If light sabres are outlawed only Siths will have light sabres. All kidding aside, I think guns

for home use should have a 4 ring code ring thing like those annoying padlocks, the odds of a child figuring out the combo to one would be one in a very large number.

I know this will get "shot down" but a trigger lock can be left off a pistol.... a built in code lock that inhibits the firing pin would not be.... just an off the wall idea that I haven't seen or at least I don't think I have.

[KWorth]

4. I'm open to any suggestion that would make it harder for children to get hurt

by a firearm.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Try dialing that combination, in the dark, when you have heard someone...

...breaking into your residence. Many modern new pistols already come equipped with a special key that locks the action of the gun. I have three pistols with that device. I leave them always unlocked and the keys in a drawer. These are a better idea:

Put your fingers on the safe, type the combination, and grab the gun.

[Iggy]

3. Uhhh, I'm Not Asking for Guns to "Go Away"

what I suggest is responsible gun ownership be more heavily stressed and enforced. however, the NRA and the RTKBA crowd continually pushes against this.

for example, when seven year old Tommy gets hold of his idiotic father's loaded handgun (left where the kid can easily get to it) and shoots the six year old neighbor Billy dead-- Tommy's father needs to pay a heavy fine and go to prison.

The notion these occurences, which happen all to often-- are just "unfortunate accidents" and are "nobody's fault" is a total load of horsecrap. it's not responsible gun ownership.

second, laws regarding keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people needs to be much more rigorously enforced.

[DonP]

7. When a child gets access to a loade firearm, it's negligence ...

...not to mention child endangerment, whether anyone gets shot or not. Both of which are prosecutable in any state.

I'm not aware of any time the NRA or any other RKBA group has claimed anything else, or defended someone in that instance, but I'd be happy to read any stories or original cites you have that say otherwise.

Or even posts here on DU where any gun rights supporter said anything close to; "nobody's fault" or "unfortunate accident". Nobody refers to it as an "accidental discharge" it's commonly referred to now as a "negligent discharge" for a reason.

As to the mental health issue, your beef is with the ACLU, not so much the NRA.

They are the ones fighting the idea of including private medical records in the NICS data base. But there are more than few states dragging their feet on submitting the names of those committed voluntarily or involuntarily to the NICS screenings. I don't know if they are just being slow and don't have the staff or if they are purposely dragging their feet out of fear of violating the HIPAA laws.

[Iggy]

11. You're Wrong

Years ago.. I'm talking in the 1990's, when I lived in Indianapolis, some in the Indiana state legislature finally got sick of kids killing other kids with their parents' loaded guns left lying around-- and started working on some serious legislation to stiffen the penalty for, you're correct, this gross negligence. the NRA got wind of this effort, came in and spread some bribes, errrrr, I mean campaign contributions around the state house-- and that was the end of the legislation.

so please give me a break regarding what the NRA is or isn't doing regarding responsible gun ownership.

kids are still killing other kids with guns; the NRA just doesn't give a crap.

[DonP]

17. Yeah, that's why they spend millions of $ on teaching gun safety to kids each year

Want to tell me how much Brady or any other gun control groups spends teaching gun safety?

If you have a hard on for the NRA, that's fine. But vaguely recalling one incident from 20+ years ago, with no reference to support it ain't making a big impact on the discussion.

But you can't legislate against stupidity when even cops have these things happen in their homes.

The only complete solution is to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Then only the criminals kids will shoot each other.

[jeff47]

27. Then why are they spending 100's of millions preventing legislation that

won't hurt responsible gun owners? Such as "keep your loaded gun out of reach of kids". NRA and related lobbyists claim that this is just the first step on getting rid of handguns and go nuclear.

But vaguely recalling one incident from 20+ years ago, with no reference to support it ain't making a big impact on the discussion.

Because this doesn't happen often. It only happened that one time 20+ years ago.

The only complete solution is to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

The only complete solution is to publicly execute irresponsible gun owners in as painful a manner as possible. A few examples every so often should make irresponsible gun owners realize that being irresponsible isn't a good idea.

However, most people will find that solution a tad too extreme.

Then only the criminals kids will shoot each other.

So you're pretending criminals are responsible gun owners in your strawman?

[Straw Man]

32. False.

Then why are they spending 100's of millions preventing legislation that

won't hurt responsible gun owners? Such as "keep your loaded gun out of reach of kids". NRA and related lobbyists claim that this is just the first step on getting rid of handguns and go nuclear.

Where do you get this crap? Do you just make it up?

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/infoparents.asp

[jeff47]

35. Again, having a "safety" program doesn't change what they are doing.

They are lobbying against laws that would enforce their own safety program.

[Clames]

37. That's a blatant lie.

They lobby against laws that do nothing except waste money. Laws that don't make anyone safer, don't affect criminals, don't address the root causes of gun violence let alone any type of violence.

[jeff47]

39. It's a lie because it disagrees with what they told you?

Golly...that's better evidence than what they're doing.

[Clames]

42. They told me? More nonsense...

...just one more drop in the comprehensive ocean at that. It's a lie because it is baseless screed and is easily dismissed as such.

[Straw Man]

41. "Safety."

They are lobbying against laws that would enforce their own safety program.

Never met a "safe storage" law you didn't like, I'll bet. How about "community storage" laws, which would require gun owners to store their guns with the police and check them out when they want to shoot? Tell me why you would support that, and I'll tell you why the NRA opposes it.

[Eleanors38]

36. Lots of straw, there. You do know that childhood accidental

death rates by gun have been falling steadily and significantly for years, and ranks below other categorized causes like electrocution, drowning?

Listen to the controller/prohibitionists, and you will hear straw arguments. Over & over.

btw, most pro 2A folks here are every bit as progressive as other DUers. But the controllers won't have that, and constantly build a narrative that thus group is RW, NRA parrots, "hidden criminals," etc.

[lalalu]

5. It is gun advocates who have turned this into a circus.

I grew up around people who owned guns, hunted, and were in the military. They never ever behaved the way I see gun owners behaving now. They did not leave guns out in the open around kids, they did not take kids to gun shows, they did not hang guns on the walls, they did not treat guns like toys, they did not brag about owning guns or even carry them around everywhere.

Guns were locked away and only used when necessary as for hunting. This whole gun ownership thing has turned into a freak show and become very irresponsible. Posting pictures of themselves and bragging about carrying and being ready to kill is just cowardly and shows a lack of common sense.

I am not against gun ownership but there needs to be better licensing and tracking of who owns what. Too many loose cannons running around armed these days.

[Decoy of Fenris]

8. I agree with you. There's only one problem.

You cannot say that guns are a liberty and then deny access to them based on arbitrary guidelines. In essence, "Irresponsible people" could be widely interpreted along racial, sexual or orientation-based lines with improper legislation. I'm not saying that's what you're suggesting, but simply stating a potential issue.

Likewise, the same could be said of what you consider inappropriate behavior. Am I, for instance, ready to kill? Yes, if a dire enough threat arises. Will I live with that death on my hands for the rest of my life, possibly regretting it even though it was justified? Also, yes. That does not make me a maniac unworthy of owning a weapon.

I do agree with licensing and tracking in regards to handguns only. Rifles, shotguns, heavier weapons are much too uncommon to justify an across-the-nation campaign, and would only unnecessarily hinder those who would otherwise obtain such firearms through legal means.

[Iggy]

13. Correct

I've a friend, he and his wife are both avid duck hunters.

they had three sons. the shotguns were kept in a gun safe-- in the garage.

WHY is this so hard to grasp? How utterly and hopelessly ignorant does one have to be to leave loaded handguns where kids can't get them??

[dballance]

16. I think you're actually agreeing with my points

Guns are fine as long as they are used responsibly and those people using them are taught they have a responsibility to be safe and respect that fact they are wielding a weapon that can kill other people.

[gejohnston]

19. What's wrong with taking a kid to a gun show?

or a flintlock over the mantle?

[PavePusher]

31. I think your observations have been biased by the omnipresence of modern media....

and the fact that every instance of carelessness across the is now shoved into our perception.

They did not leave guns out in the open around kids

This varies considerably, and always has. Where I lived, guns were easily accessed, but we were trained not to do so without adult permission until we were deemed responsible enough to do so.

they did not take kids to gun shows

Sure they did. And what's wrong with it?

they did not hang guns on the walls

Wrong again. My grandmother even had a floor-lamp made out of an old French military rifle.

they did not treat guns like toys, they did not brag about owning guns

Most people still don't. I don't see an increase in that, myself.

or even carry them around everywhere.

Again, this varies widely by location. But you may actually be correct on this point, in that many people are rediscovering the fact that it's a Constitutional Right, perfectly legal, and may have some anti-crime benefits. I see nothing wrong here. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Guns were locked away and only used when necessary as for hunting.

Unfounded, unsupported assertion, that seems contrary to actual history.

This whole gun ownership thing has turned into a freak show and become very irresponsible.

Opinion unsupported by fact or evidence.

Posting pictures of themselves

So what? People post pictures absurd, moving or irrelevent doing all sorts of things. Why do you care? What actual affect does it have? Or is it simply something that offends your sensibilities for no apparent reason?

and bragging about carrying

While I've statements that some make that they carry, I don't recall any instances of actual "bragging". Perhaps you are conflating "bragging" with "simple statement of fact", due to the action seemingly offending you?

and being ready to kill

Got citations? I think you are confusing the term "defend" with "kill". A common mistake.

is just cowardly and shows a lack of common sense.

Another opinion without evidence. We'll wait....

[AtheistCrusader]

38. My great grandfather has a .30-30 hanging on the wall, and has for as long as I've been alive.

So our anecdotes cancel each other out, right?

[AgingAmerican]

6. You conveniently left out intentional gun violence

N/T

[Decoy of Fenris]

9. Not "conveniently", just "obviously". Not every murderer uses a gun. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

12. How about "Intentionally"?

Not "every" murder is committed by gun, just most of them.

[Decoy of Fenris]

18. Not even most, any more.

Firstly, even if there's only three murders a year and two of them are with a gun, that's "Most". Secondly, "Most" is only applicable if you count suicides, and if you do that, there are other, more prevalent causes of death. Finally, as above, "Intentionally" only qualifies if you count suicide, which I suppose you could, if you defined murder as "Kills a human".

[AgingAmerican]

20. The amazing world of semantics!

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

"In 1991, 15 years after Washington, D.C. banned handguns, researchers from the University of Maryland conducted a study to assess the impact of the ban. They tracked homicides and suicides in the district from 1968 to 1987 and found that homicides by firearm fell by 25 percent and suicides committed with firearms dropped by 23 percent. Murders and suicides committed by other means neither rose nor fell—in other words, people didn’t use other methods to commit an act they already wanted to commit. And there was no similar reduction found in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. The D.C. gun restriction was repealed in 2008 after the U.S. Supreme Court found such ordinances unconstitutional."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/robwaters/2012/07/24/gun-violence-the-public-health-issue-politicians-want-to-ignore/

Since 1970, 65% - 70% of homicides in the US were committed by gun.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

Facts don't lie.

[gejohnston]

21. so, why hasn't there been a study by criminologists?

and did the ban actually have anything to do with it? I would have to see the actual study for myself. DC still has a strict gun law that amounts to a defaco ban.

I fail to see how GDP of a country is relevant, other than a way to cherry pick. Although we are a wealthy country, our wealth inequality doesn't make us comparable to Canada or Europe, but puts us closer to Mexico and Brazil. The problem is, both of those countries have gun laws that are not much different than DC, and have murder rates that make us look like Japan.

1965 had fewer per capita gun murders than now, even though stricter federal and state laws have been passed since then.

[AgingAmerican]

23. Facts are stubborn things

Mexico has high murder rates because of drug mafia violence.

I have been in the favelas in Rio. There were teenagers walking around openly carrying AK47s, trying to intimidate our tour. They are drug gang members and they procure most of their weapons from police and illegal gun dealers. Brazil is not the USA or Canada or the UK.

Both countries have extremely poor people and extremely wealthy people, with tiny middle classes. You are attempting to compare apples and oranges.

[gejohnston]

24. it hasn't shown me as fact

It was an opinion piece that made a claim about a study that may or may not exist. Why is El Paso the safest city in North America? Why does Minnesota and Manitoba (similar demographics, different gun laws) have about the same murder rate?

I have been in the favelas in Rio. There were teenagers walking around openly carrying AK47s, trying to intimidate our tour. They are drug gang members and they procure most of their weapons from police and illegal gun dealers. Brazil is not the USA or Canada or the UK.

How is that different from DC and Chicago? Most are drug gangs getting guns from illegal gun dealers and cops. You seriously think MS13 goes to the local gun store or gun show in the US? In the US, most murderers and murder victims have criminal records.

Actually I'm not. Check out the Gini coefficent. We are closer to Mexico than Canada in terms of wealth inequality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

[busterbrown]

33. Why is there so much push back to stricter gun control on this site?

As you mention facts don’t lie. As a matter of fact they are overwhelming in support of the
need for stricter gun laws. I’m not against hunting for sport, but Christ there are so many
people out there arming themselves for a pending race riot. These fucking people are crazy
and need to be watched like hawks. Most of them add alcohol into the equation which makes
this situation even more dangerous! How many more times do we have to read about idiots
getting loaded then going looking for trouble.... All the Time!
I’m relatively new to this site and the computer so I am continuously searching for new sources
of info and facts to make evident that new and stricter gun laws are desperately needed in this
country.

Keep up the great work!

[shadowrider]

34. I don't think any pro-gun person on this site is against stricter gun control

The devil, however, is in the details.

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is by drug gangs fighting over turf, money and drugs. How do you propose to disarm them without infringing on law abiding owners?

[Clames]

43. Fact: There is NOT overwhelming support for more gun control laws.

In fact that has been on the decline for nearly a decade. I would also suggest searching for sources that help you develop an objective view point on gun owners as it is an incredibly small percentile that are troublemakers and the supremely vast majority are very responsible and prefer to take an educated approach to gun-control based on what could actually work to prevent gun violence without undue and impractical restrictions on gun ownership.

[KWorth]

10. Which is usually committed by criminals.

Most of the guns in the country are owned by people who don't commit crimes.

[dballance]

14. No I did not

Perhaps you missed the statement in my post "Rather than demonizing guns because of the relatively small number of people who use them in a completely horrible way" that speaks to intentional gun violence.

If you have a valid idea to identify people like the Columbine killers, the VA Tech killer, the Aurora, CO killer or robbers who freak out and end up shooting innocent convenience store clerks I'm open to hearing it.

One of the points of my post is that common possession of a weapon is demonized because sometimes it goes wrong. As in when a child finds a gun or an idiot shoots themselves.

Yes, there is intentional gun violence. The recent NFL player incident is a good example. But those types of incidents are really still rare given the number of guns vs. people and crimes in the US.

[AgingAmerican]

15. Intentionally vague

"But those types of incidents are really still rare given the number of guns vs. people and crimes in the US."

Nations with the strongest handgun control laws are; Australia, Great Britain, Japan, Canada and Sweden. Each has less than one hundred murders by handgun per year. Here in America, which has the weakest handgun controls, we have about ten thousand handgun murders a year. That’s one hundred times as many, and even with per capita adjustment, it’s always more than ten times as many. Hell, just in the state of Texas, where guns transcend even Jesus, it’s ten times the amount as many countries. In 14 states, gun deaths surpass motor vehicle deaths.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. I Can Support the Second Amendment and Seek to Reduce Gun Violence

Characterizing that as complaining about guns is a gross over simplification of what gun control advocates seek.

I'm not inclined to 'accept' the 'reality' of gun violence.

[oneshooter]

29. So I ask you, What do gun control advocates seek?

And what laws, rules, or regulations would they recommend for this to happen?

[beevul]

30. Nobody wants to accept the "reality of gun violence".

And nobody is asking anyone to accept the "reality of gun violence".


I do note however, that you talk about "gun control advocates".

When "gun control advocates" turn into "gun violence prevention advocates", and can accept that there are other ways to combat gun violence than gun control, maybe we can actually sit down and have a conversation.

Either way, you aren't going to get much, if any, more gun control than you already have, other than in a few anti-gun strongholds.

The way things currently stand, in spite of whatever polls you might post attempting to show the contrary, gun control on the federal level costs more votes than it brings to the table. Gun rights support, on the other hand, has no attatched parallel political cost.

What that means, is this:

Gun violence prevention advocates NEED the support of gun rights supporters if they want to get anything done legislatively. Gun rights supporters don't NEED the support of gun violence prevention supporters to get things done legislatively.

Think about that, really hard, and ask yourself if thats likely to change.

[Deep13]

26. not the issue. nt

[godai]

28. No.... n/t

[Kaleva]

40. For all intents & purposes, the gun debate is over

There is and will always be skimishes on the edges but the main conflict is pretty much done. Unless there is a huge shift in public opinion, the laws we have now concerning gun control are the laws which we will have for a long time to come with little change.