Gun Control Debate #3

[bluesneakers]

Exactly. You got it. Now I keep expecting to hear some "common sense" and "reasonable" gun control proposals, as that's the buzz words I always hear mentioned, but when it comes down to the details it's anything but common sense and reasonable. As it turns out, many people don't see a need for guns at all, so their solution is to take ALL guns away from EVERYONE.

If you do have some reasonable ideas that would actually help, I'd love to hear them.

Where are you getting this information?

 

[bobcat]

Where are you getting this information?

Right here on the Websleuths forum!

 

[bluesneakers]

Using your link for my data, living in a pretty loose state myself (they call us Guntucky). We have had, unless I missed any;


1978
1 student, in the 70s a student was injured by a firearm going off while watching two students fight. (.32 pistol)


January 18, 1993
1 shooter killed a teacher, and custodian, and held a classroom hostage. (used a revolver and had additional ammo).

The Tragedy in Room 108
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/1993/10/31/the-tragedy-in-room-108




December 1, 1997
1 14 y/o shooter killed three students/wounded five others participating in a prayer group.





http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/2017/11/28/20-years-later-michael-carneal/




2013
Three were killed ( two adults, one child), by 21 y.o. drive by shooter, at Hazard Community College while sitting in the parking lot - Police believe the shooting may have been the result of a domestic dispute. ( semi automatic pistol)


2014
A student shot another student due to a dispute. The student survived. The shooter was caught. Unsure of firearm but think it was a pistol.


And, most recently; Jan 23, 2018 (semi auto rifle)
A shooter enters Marshal County H.S and shoots 16, resulting in two deaths.


I am a Native Kentuckian
I own guns and keep them up. I usually carry when I'm travelling. (.38 Revolver)
I support the 2nd amendment.
I have never supported or been a member of the NRA
I am for raising the purchase age to 21 but with exceptions.
I have larger magazines but I'm okay with them cutting down the size, however, realistically, if folks want high capacity magazines, to do maiming and killing, they'll just rig their magazines together.
I won't go into a dark depression if they discontinue making semi rifles. However, again, keeping firearms out of the hands of folks who don't need to have so much as a b b gun, is where the problem lies.

Where does Kentucky rank for number of school shootings compared to population of the state?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Exactly. You got it. Now I keep expecting to hear some "common sense" and "reasonable" gun control proposals, as that's the buzz words I always hear mentioned, but when it comes down to the details it's anything but common sense and reasonable. As it turns out, many people don't see a need for guns at all, so their solution is to take ALL guns away from EVERYONE.

If you do have some reasonable ideas that would actually help, I'd love to hear them.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory thread.

This thread’s filled with reasonable ideas, imo.

You and I have even agreed on multiple options. There are reasonable solutions on the table. We just need to decide which ones we can live with before someone else decides ‘em for us. IMO

[emoji106]

 

[bluesneakers]

Right here on the Websleuths forum!

Do you have a link to back up this assertion? If anyone has called for a total ban on all firearms I've missed it. Thanks.

 

[flourish]

Well, because I know a lot of people, and I think it's pretty obvious that people who own guns don't want them taken away. And that's really what gun control comes down to, as I said- registration and confiscation. Registration comes first, then the government knows who has guns, and confiscation is then possible. Just from reading the gun control threads on this forum it's apparent that many people would like to see guns gone entirely in the United States. All guns. I don't need a poll to tell me that the Americans who do own guns, are in favor of giving up their guns, the guns that they use for in their daily lives, and for recreation, and for protection. Yes, a huge percentage of people, mostly people who live in the cities, don't want people to have guns. Because THEY don't have them, or want them. So they think nobody else should either.

Because you know a lot of people...

Well there we have it. Super scientific and reliable.

 

[flourish]

Do you have a link to back up this assertion? If anyone has called for a total ban on all firearms I've missed it. Thanks.

Fwiw, bestie blue, I remember two posters off the top of my head who have said they'd like to see that, but I don't know that they were literally calling for it.

 

[bobcat]

This isn’t a conspiracy theory thread.

This thread’s filled with reasonable ideas, imo.

You and I have even agreed on multiple options. There are reasonable solutions on the table. We just need to decide which ones we can live with before someone else decides ‘em for us. IMO

[emoji106]

Well, maybe I'll have to go back and read through the thread again, or the older ones. The ones that stick in my mind are the ones that say take away all guns, and tax ammunition so that nobody can afford it. Those just aren't reasonable and go 100% against the 2nd amendment.

 

[bobcat]

Do you have a link to back up this assertion? If anyone has called for a total ban on all firearms I've missed it. Thanks.

At the moment, no. Sorry, I'm short on time right now. I'm going to get off here for a while and come back when I have more time.

 

[bluesneakers]

Fwiw, bestie blue, I remember two posters off the top of my head who have said they'd like to see that, but I don't know that they were literally calling for it.

Thanks! I know some people feel that way, but I also know most studies and gun control groups are not advocating to a total ban.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

The Prohibition Act of 1920 was actually enacted via a Constitutional Amendment. Hard to believe, what with the stringent voting requirements to amend that document. I guess it just goes to show that if enough voters want something.....

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Right here on the Websleuths forum!

Absolutely, I agree with you!

 

[CoverMeCagney]

July 2016:
Where does Arizona rank among America’s most violent states?

10. Arizona
> Violent-crime rate: 399.9 per 100,000 (16th highest)
> Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate: 4.7 per 100,000 (20th highest)
> Median household income: $50,068 (21st lowest)
> June unemployment rate: 5.8 percent (Ninth highest)

Arizona is the 10th least peaceful state in the nation. In addition to an above-average violent crime rate, the incidences of property crime, larceny, and motor vehicle theft in Arizona are each among the 10 highest compared with other states. So far this year, data collection and research group Gun Violence Archive has tracked four mass shootings in the state in which a total of 12 people were killed. Just seven other states have had a higher number of deaths from mass shootings.

Death by gun: Top 20 states with highest rates

14. Arizona (tie with Idaho)
Death by firearm per 100,000 population: 14.1 (above the national average of 10 per 100k)

States with strict gun laws have fewer firearms deaths. Here's how your state stacks up

Arizona:
Firearms deaths per 100,000: 15.2
Number of firearms-related laws: 11

Thanks for these links, Blue. Just looking at this image of gun laws vs gun deaths, it does seem to confirm that tighter controls work, though there are anomalies. I wonder which particular laws prove most effective in reducing deaths

 

[Bernina]

I don't believe polls anymore. Not after the 2016 presidential election. The polls don't reflect reality. Americans don't want their guns taken away. Simple as that. They try to make it sound like the new laws they want won't affect us and they like to call it "common sense" laws and "gun safety" laws, when truly what they want is registration and confiscation. That's what the NRA is fighting against and that's why gun owners support the NRA.

Because there's no "exact" number as to how many members there are in the NRA, you have to figure between 3-5 million from what I can glean from the internet from various sources.

That's 3-5 million out of 323.1 million people (2016) that live in the US. Honestly, I don't personally know anyone in my community who is a member of the NRA (lots of ex-members). And because we're rural, open range, just about everyone has weapons.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/ne...ped-by-47-million-following-sandy-hook-surge/

New NRA Tax Filing Shows Membership Revenues Dropped by $47 Million Following Sandy Hook Surge

(January 23, 2016)

But the truth of those numbers is a matter of debate — the NRA has never allowed an outside party to authenticate its membership, and independent estimates predict a much smaller number. Circulation audits of American Rifleman and other NRA-published magazines that are sent to every member come in at around 3 million. One former board member told the Washington Post in 1998 that when the NRA counts its size, it includes many deceased lifetime members.

It makes the post I put up about the Russian guy who was a NRA member funneling funds through them that more plausible.

My ex BF's BIL was a regional director for the NRA 10 years ago. He quit after 9 months because of what he called "financial corruption" and "lack of integrity".

Kind of chaps my hide that gun owners are being represented by 3-5 million people........

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html

There's a gun for every American. But less than a third own guns.

1. We don't know how many people own guns


There is no countrywide database where people register whether they own guns (the law doesn't allow it). We have to rely on surveys instead. High quality telephone polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. According to the General Social Survey, which has a much higher response rate than telephone polls and interviews people in person, a relatively lower 32% of Americans said in 2016 that they lived in household with guns. The gap between telephone and GSS surveys has existed in some form for 20 years, so it isn't just a one-off difference.
It's not clear which datasets are more correct. The GSS, with its high response rate, is generally thought of as the gold standard survey in understanding social trends in America. It is conceivable, though, that people may not want to admit to owning guns to people who are standing in front of them.

2. Gun ownership was trending downward, but now there is no trend

3. Many people live in households with guns, but don't personally own them

4. Handguns are most common, but most gun owners have multiple types

5. Gun ownership follows traditional political trends ... to a point

 

[Lulu_la_Nantaise]

I believe the most successful solutions have been to buy the guns back, and then make them illegal on a certain date. Door to door searches would be overkill, and probably not effective.

I'd like to add, after this certain date punish illegal guns ownership with a stiff fine and/or jail, BUT still keep the option of buying back the illegal gun, no question asked. Not for as much money as an incentive, but keep the possibility open.

 

[Bernina]

Exactly. You got it. Now I keep expecting to hear some "common sense" and "reasonable" gun control proposals, as that's the buzz words I always hear mentioned, but when it comes down to the details it's anything but common sense and reasonable. As it turns out, many people don't see a need for guns at all, so their solution is to take ALL guns away from EVERYONE.

If you do have some reasonable ideas that would actually help, I'd love to hear them.

As a gun owner myself, would you accept bringing the age of purchase up to 21?........I wholeheartedly believe this is "common sense" and "reasonable".

Arming teachers I believe is not common sense. In an active shooter situation, I believe veterans who have had real combat experience are really the only ones who could STOP that kind of situation and not freeze. They could identify their target and shoot, without seeing them as someone they have taught, interacted with, or be caught up in getting other children to safety.

Seriously, what are children going to think when Miss Marbles just blew away one of their classmates? Teachers are there to teach and nuture, not maim or kill.

If all the checks and balances that were set in place to begin with, background checks, prohibited possessors, the "data base" was actually receiving the names of pro-poss from mental health professionals, THE MILITARY, LE, etc., we probably wouldn't be in the quandary.

JMO

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

'Naked politics' of punishing Delta could haunt Georgia

https://apnews.com/b772eeb56ed6447f...itics'-of-punishing-Delta-could-haunt-Georgia

 

[human]

Break the contract and move. Come on back to Minnesota!

 

[flourish]

Thanks! I know some people feel that way, but I also know most studies and gun control groups are not advocating to a total ban.

Yes and I don't think most Americans feel that way.

 

[Spellbound]

Originally Posted by bobcat
Exactly. You got it. Now I keep expecting to hear some "common sense" and "reasonable" gun control proposals, as that's the buzz words I always hear mentioned, but when it comes down to the details it's anything but common sense and reasonable. As it turns out, many people don't see a need for guns at all, so their solution is to take ALL guns away from EVERYONE.

If you do have some reasonable ideas that would actually help, I'd love to hear them.

Where are you getting this information?

Right here on the Websleuths forum!

Please don’t take this as anything other than an honest question.

Do you actually believe most of us here at WS are saying to take away ALL guns? If so, I respectfully suggest you read back through the threads when you are in a calm state of mind. I believe you will find most who may have suggested ALL were replying to something that was anger-provoking, perhaps even meant to rile things up here. [not that you are ... I really don’t always understand some of your posts at times, and that is how they may come through. Apology if I misread your intentions]

When you make statements like theins I quoted here, it only increases the likelihood of a retort, possibly with a sarcastic remark such as “take them ALL away”. That just gets us nowhere. Does that make sense to you?

I think, and may be mistaken, the majority here know there is never going to be a ban on all guns, every shape, size, strength or color. But do we really need any that rip apart your entire body so there is no chance of repair and saving your life? Does anyone under 21 need to own or buy a gun or a rifle or any other shooting weapon? Do we really need to own bump stocks? And can we add some way to determine a mental health status (without requiring a doctor’s signed note) that says we are a safe buyer/owner? I don’t know what that could be, however. But those would be my first steps toward improving the statistics on gun deaths. And I am still open to reasonable logic as to why they should not be acceptable steps to take, in every state.

And out of curiosity, if there were no bumpstocks could someone invent their own? I really don’t know, but if it is possible, it will get done by some curious or dangerous person.

thanks, if you are able to give me any considerate feedback.