-
@kes18: "Although I find the fetishation of guns that this country has to be disgusting"
YES.
-
@smocks: I agree. I'm leaning towards the belief that semi-automatic weapons that use magazines should be banned.
-
My husband's family is very pro-gun. My BIL has a safe and keeps his ammo in a separate safe from the guns themselves. My husband also likes guns for sport - firing range, etc.
My husband has a rifle he uses at the firing range. Not for literal hunting or protecting the house. Ha. He'd love a handgun for that purpose (with an appropriate safe, obviously).
We do not yet have a gun safe, so the gun does not stay here. It lives with my BIL down the street.
I am not a fan of guns. But my husband is also an adult, and if they're stored and used appropriately what exactly am I supposed to do - just pack up and leave him? I feel like some "solutions" people give are a little unreasonable.
In an effort to have less fear of them, I may take a class or go to the range with him. Hoping that will ease my fear, I've never held one or seen one in use!
I'm still not sure how we'll approach teaching gun safety. I don't even want my kids (1.5 and 3.5) to know what guns are yet. My parents would flip shit if they knew my husband had a gun/we had guns in the house, so that's not a conversation I'm willing to have yet.
-
@smocks: so I'm not a fan of guns, never owned one and don't plan on it. But the best argument I understand for assault weapons is that the U.S. is the #1 weapons manufacturer and sends a lot over seas. A surprising number of these are 'lost' or abandoned and end up in the hands of ISIS and other not US friendly organizations. The U.S. was founded on self funded militias and really has always maintained that mindset. That individuals should be able to defend themselves against 'others' with like weapons and even defend themselves against their own government. I do think the U.S. is in a really tricky position trying to send massive amounts of weapons overseas that end up in the hands of bad people and then trying to restrict gun access here.
-
I don't know what the right answer is, but I will tell you this - aside from the mass shootings, innocent people are getting killed every day *accidentally* by people who *love* them because of these things.
Three months ago, a friend of a friend was shot in the chest by her husband (they just got married two weeks before) while he was cleaning his gun. IN THEIR KITCHEN. While they were talking about what to have for dinner. Y'all - absolutely heartbreaking. They're young, early 20s. She was an elementary school teacher. She died in his arms.
And then a few weeks ago, a little girl was killed in a town not far from here. She was 6. Her parents had just split up (it was incredibly recent) and she was staying at her dad's new house for the weekend with her two siblings. Her dad was in the shower, getting ready - he was going to take them all to the zoo. Well, wouldn't you know he left a handgun fully loaded on a table by the door and that little girl blew her head off.
I get people need to protect themselves or hunt or whatever. I've got friends and family on both sides of the issues. But this is just so heartbreaking.
-
@Maysprout: I get it, but it just seems to be such an archaic mindset to me. Maybe I'm too trusting of my government and too naïve to think I'd ever have to be involved in a militia. I just think there are too many accidents, as well as horrific massacres like this one, to justify it.
-
@smocks: I feel the same way. I was just talking to someone about this and they said they didn't want the government to have any guns they couldn't have...
Except the government has all sorts of weapons that civilians can't have access to, so why should guns be any different?
-
I don't think it's realistic to ban guns, but I think we should make it much, much harder to access them. There should be some serious barriers to owning a killing machine! This about sums it up for me:
-
@MrsSCB: Here is an article about Australia: http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf
This article references the UK (among others): http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
-
@Eko: I haven't read the reports but I wouldn't be surprised at the conclusions given that they were authored by a gun rights advocate.
-
@sorrycharlie: same here. Guns terrify me. But my husband is into them (we don't own any).
I'm pretty liberal all around but gun control is one thing thats pretty complicated, IMO. I have so many questions and like Obama said, in the video that Lilyann shared, if a study could be done, we could be closer to finding a clear answer.
My only hang-up is...wouldn't a criminal still be able to find an illegal gun if they were motivated? Just like drugs? People can even build their own assault riffles. The entire subject makes me so uneasy. I hate guns.
-
With regards to the homicide rate in Australia and the U.K. etc not being significantly lower than the US, that is true, but what is lower is the number of mass shootings we have (ie none). The US averages about one 'mass shooting' per day (defined as a single incident where four or more people are shot in a single incident), whereas the UK and Australia have virtually zero incidents of such a nature.
To me, common sense says it is so much easier to kill masses of innocent people in a matter of seconds when one has a semi automatic weapon, than when one has a non-gun type of weapon. I don't understand why there is such objection in the US to banning any kind of weapon that can fire multiple rounds rapidly as its only purpose is to kill multiple people in a rapid fashion. Can someone provide some insight and explain why anyone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon?! Maybe I'm missing something here.....
-
@HLK208: Sure people who really wanted to could still find guns, but why not make it harder?
The Sandy Hook shooter stole his mother's legally obtained weapons. If she wasn't legally allowed to have this semi-automatic rifle with large capacity magazines, maybe that shooting wouldn't have happened. Would he have cared enough to carry out a mass shooting if he had to obtain his guns in a back alley somewhere?
-
@sunny: true, but the founder also happens to be an economist. Just because he's an advocate doesn't mean there isn't truth in the data. But, I suppose you can find data to support the other side, which is why there hasn't been a clear answer.
Just because the idea that there are less mass shootings in countries where there are less guns, doesn't mean it gets rid of violence. If someone is that intent on killing someone I think they will find a way one way or another.
-
@Eko: I don't exactly trust John Lott as an unbiased source...he has a clear agenda and has already been widely criticized for cherry-picking data. In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, 98 with guns. In 2014, with a higher population, the country had 238 murders, 35 with guns. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG
I also don't think anyone believes increased gun control would be a magical panacea for violence altogether. But even if it only reduced the number of mass shootings, I don't see how one could argue that's not a good thing, especially given the frequency with which they occur in this country.
-
@sorrycharlie: Okay, so I'm very anti-gun, but I honestly am curious about this - how does one go about defending their home with a gun that's locked in a safe and ammo that's locked in a separate safe? I honestly don't understand when people use home invasion as a reason to have a gun. Especially a home with kids.
But personally, I'd be just fine if guns were banned entirely. I love how it's more important to some people that their "rights aren't infringed" than that we never have another Sandy Hook. Great priorities people. Yeah, because everyone should have the right to own assault weapons.
-
@MrsSCB: I am not debating that less guns means less gun related violence. I think if you restrict guns those same people will find other ways to kill mass people if they want. So I don't think restricting guns will have an overall impact on lowering homicie deaths.
Since that one seemed unpopular, here is a Harvard study. It even shows that there are countries where more guns are available then the US they have far less shootings in the US. It also discusses how after the UK banned their guns in the late 90s, they had the highest rate of violence in the year 2000... Which was higher then the US at the time.
The article really just illustrates that there is no correlation between less guns is less crime or more guns means more crime. If you don't want to read there are charts that show the correlation between the number of gun holders per country and the murder rates.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
-
@Eko: That study was also done by two people with an agenda and uses questionable data: http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/06/Kates-Mauser.pdfWe could go back and forth with numbers and studies all day long. The fact is, the United States is the only developed country where mass shootings occur with such frequency. The status quo is clearly not working. I would rather try to do something to make a positive change that seems to be working in other similar developed countries than continue down this path because we can't be 100 percent positive increased gun control will work. The status quo not acceptable.
-
@MrsSCB: I do agree that what we are doing is not working and something does need to be done, but I think that increasing gun control is not the answer. These individuals will still find guns or use other methods to kill people. As I said I don't have an answer, I just think saying less guns means less violence is just the easiest thing to say in a very complex problem.
I think it's also easy for a lot of people to say guns aren't needed because they don't need them. I see lots of people, my in laws included, who need them to hunt and eat. I am not about to tell them I don't think they should have a gun, which provides food on their table.
-
I think of it like climate change: lots of people were pushing to take action early on, but action only started to happen after the climate had clearly started to change.
For guns, I think we will have to see many more deaths before it becomes clear that the current approach isn't working and that there needs to be a change.
-
@Eko: I think there's a big difference between a traditional hunting gun and an AR-15!
-
@Eko: FWIW, I'm not advocating taking away your in-laws' ability to hunt. I don't think pro-gun control people, in general, are advocating for a total ban on all guns. But things like AR-15 rifles, used in this and other mass shootings? Those aren't necessary to hunt. I'm all for banning those. There's no magic bullet solution for this issue; it is very complicated like you say. But I don't like that "complicated" has thus far paralyzed us from doing anything at all. Even small steps, like banning AR-15s and similar firearms, would--or could--be progress.
-
@MrsSCB: @mrbee: except hunters, my in laws included, use semi automatic weapons (not an at-15) to hunt. There is a big difference for hunters to have a semi automatic versus your traditional gun in terms of the game you can get. I do 100% agree that automatic weapons can be banned, but I still do not agree that even banning semi automatic weapons will help the problem.
-
@Eko: Banning isn't the only approach though. If it were a lot harder to buy semi-autos, then legitimate hunters could still buy them... while others would be prevented from easily buying weapons that could be used in a mass shooting.
-
@ShootingStar: in that situation I don't know. My BIL doesn't use his for safety around the house, he just likes them/uses them at the range.
When my husband mentioned a handgun he was also taking about those safes that fit in a nightstand (which makes more sense for guarding against a home invasion)
-
@mrbee: I full heartedly agree in more security screenings and background checks. So that people that commit these awful crimes possibly can't purchase them, but will allow people that need them to still have them.
-
I'm Canadian so take it for what its worth but it baffles me that some people are all for kicking out certain immigrant groups and banning muslims from entering the U.S in the name of safety but having more gun control is out of the question. IMO gun control (gun registry, banning automatic weapons, etc) is for the greater good so I couldn't care less about those people who say its their constitutional right to bear arms however they choose.
-
I like to consider myself a pretty open minded person about most things but this is one area where I am fine with being totally closed-minded. I don't get guns, I don't get hunting where the hunter has a lethal weapon and the animal has nothing but its wits, I don't understand the need to defend your house by killing - if someone was invading my house my first thought would be escape and leave all my worldly possessions behind, not confront the invader. It just all makes no sense to me.
-
@ScarletBegonia: Hunting is a way of providing for your family.
Banning guns won't keep them out of the hands of criminals. If that was the case there would be no drug problems.
In Canada and to obtain a gun you have to take a course and a background check (depending on the type of gun) to be able to have a firearm license.
-
@magnoliamama42: I read sh*t like this happening and it breaks your heart. I'm in Australia, and I don't need to read no bullsh*t statistics by *maybe* biased reasearches to tell me that there may or may not be any difference in Australia's gun crime rates in relation to gun buyback/control.
You just don't hear of these sorts of gun accidents happening here. If there is gun crime, it doesn't involve some random loony shooting a large number of people for no reason. Its mostly gun crime related to drugs/motorcycle gangs.
Sad, just sad. It just seems culturally ingrained in the US, its part of the national psyche or something I dunno.
-
@ALV91711: Yeah, I know there are families that hunt for sustenance - I'd love to know what the proportion of gun owners who actually hunt for sustenance is. As compared to the proportion who hunt for sport, or who who own a handgun for "protection", or who are collectors, or who just own guns cause guns are cool, I'm going to guess its really, really small. But I do understand that there are some gun owners who have no other way to provide for their families than by shooting and eating game.
I stand by my original statement that I don't get guns, though.
-
@ScarletBegonia: It would be nice to have access to actual stats that you can trust to not be skewed.
-
@ALV91711: If all developed countries did the long form census like Canada does maybe we would have those stats! I don't get guns but i *DO* love filling out forms
-
@ScarletBegonia: I think it probably depends on location. Where I'm at, hunting is considered quite the norm for food. There are many butchers who specialize just in Wild game because this area has so many who keep them in business. I grew up with a father who hunted every year - deer and elk. He shot a deer every fall and gave it to a poor, elderly couple in the community who loved venison and it fed them all year and the elk was for us - we had it turned into burger, summer sausage, etc. So it was quite legitimate - not just hunting for sport. Many of my friend's husbands hunt for the meat, too. I personally feel like time = money and while we do own a few guns (properly stored, and these aren't assault weapons by any means) and my husband is skilled with them we prefer to buy meat from local farms because getting out and hunting just takes a ton of time and effort that we prefer not to spend!
-
As someone from Australia I always worry opening these gun threads. My point of view is so different from some posting here. I am so glad of our gun laws and I think it's the only good thing John Howard (Prime Minister at the time) did. I am also glad I don't have to wake up and read about 20/30/50 of my friends, family or countrymen being gunned down in cold blood. Yes, there is still crime and homicides here, there always will be but I and my family feel safe on a day to day basis. I can't imagine wanting a gun more than the safety and lives of myself and others.
-
@AprilFool: im with you on this one.
-
@ShootingStar: so this petition popped up on FB. It appears to have already passed the 100,000 signatures. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-ar-15-civilian-ownership
Never mind. It's the same one you posted.
-
@ShootingStar: I totay agree with you on this. Family members of mine want guns for protection in case of a home invasion. We live in a safe suburbs...when I pushed them, they couldn't think of a single person they knew who had had their home robbed while they were at hkme. I think I hear more stories about family members accidentally killing other family members (a few local stories were teenagers sneaking in at night) than actual Home invasions.
-
@Tidybee: I'm not against guns at all but I don't really get it for home protection. If you have your gun properly locked up it isn't going to be of use by the time you get to it. It would be easier to grab a kitchen knife for protection.
-
@Eko: I am curious, if your in laws were given a steady supply of food in return for giving up their guns to hunt, would they consider taking the offer?
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
256 comments