We need more guns!

Blasphemy, I say. Surely you enjoyed shooting that Mag. I don’t own one but have enjoyed when folks have let me shoot theirs. Cannons are fun.

Edit: Just to be clear, I have never shot a 44mag in a trailer park or in the direction of a trailer. Having spent the first 12 years of my life in a 10x50 Rollohome, I know how weak those walls are.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a struggle over control. Gun enthusiasts, who are majority conservative, culturally if not politically, want the illusion of control in owning a gun. Progressives want an illusion of control in preventing dangerous inviduals from acquiring guns. I don't think either side is very rational wrt smart solutions toward reducing violence.

I'm not against gun regulation, which is a vague phrase. I'm not even in favor of a right to own a gun. But it's fact that the right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution. It's a part of American cultural life. Many people derive a great deal of pleasure from owning and firing
guns. They view it as extremely important to their sense of identity and sense of liberty.

If progressive states want to ban assault weapons that's fine with me, maybe it will save a few people. It's not much different than investing in road infrastructure, speed limits, and innumerable other mundane decisions a state government might make, but have conseqeunces for peoples' lives. Mass shootings comprise a small number of gun related deaths, generally involve legally purchased guns, and are typically committed using handguns. I don't see how gun legislation is going to prevent that.

I think the comparison to alcohol is a very good one, although it requires a degree of mental flexibility some are incapable of. Both alcohol and guns are inextricably linked to crime, violence, suicidality and to each other. If people were forced to internalize the shear amount of suffering and life destruction that alcohol causes, their blithe attitude toward drinking would disappear. Like gambling, it's an activity that can't be engaged in responsibly and prays upon the illusion of self control. Alcohol Misuse And Gun Violence: What We Know. I also dispute that alcohol is "regulated" in any responsible sense. It would be treated as a controlled substance if consistent with policy, and would have a zero percent chance of approval for human consumption if introduced on the market today. It's tolerated because it's a part of culture, and because its externalities are largely attributed to human error, not disimilar to guns, only guns rights are protected by the Consitition and have justification for use in self defense. If the end goal is to reduce violence and alleviate human suffering why is one prioritized and the other ignored? Because just love getting drunk? Well there you go, many people love their guns.

 

I like my firearms, my now Wife likes our firearms we shoot them quite a bit I would be disappointed if they took them away. Would I be heartbroken or angry? That is a good question

 

I think you make some good points.

Short of an outright ban with criminal penalties, what are examples of what you'd consider the responsible regulation of alcohol? And could we apply whatever those examples might be to the responsible regulation of guns?

Personally, I don't want to ban guns, but I also don't support incarcerating people for using alcohol or drugs either. Some of our problems are cultural, and we need to think about tackling these externalities on several levels - maybe like with cigarettes. One thing I'd note about criminalizing something is that prohibition creates a black market, which results in violence and turf battles. They also result in less safe products. I think those negatives have to be factored into the cost benefit analysis as well since none of this happens in a vacuum.

 

Okay, let's take a look at the "good guy" narrative. Say you have a person trying to prevent a robbery with their gun. They shoot the gun. They hit the robber. Good guy, right? Now, instead, same scenario, but they missed and hit a bystander or the robbery victim. Are they still the good guy? He would have to be, right? Intent didn't change, just the outcome did. So is the person that hit the victim or the bystander a good guy with a gun?

Let's take another scenario. Two people with guns get into an argument. One pulls a gun. Then the other does. One of them ends up shot. Is there a good guy here? Is it the person who pulled second? Is it based on the nature of the argument?

Let's try a third scenario. A minor car accident happens. The drivers yell at each other. One of the drivers reaches into his pocket to grab his phone to call the police. The other guy thinks he is going for a gun, and proceeds to shoot him. Is there a good guy in this scenario? What if the person who did the shooting was a bystander who thought that the guy was going for a gun and he was saving the other guy's life?

Perhaps the real world is a lot more complicated than "good guys" and "bad guys" and that means gun violence in reality is as well. That a lot of the "good guys" are doing bad things as well. Not out of ill intent, but either due to mistakes or the inevitable escalatory aspect of mass gun ownership, especially when such ownership is only in the loosest senses tied to appropriate training and management of firearms.

 

Switzerland, norway, italy..all high rates of ownership, low rates of gun violence. Can we learn anything from them?

 

From the NYT write up on the Serbian shooting in Belgrade


A seventh-grade student armed with pistols and Molotov cocktails shot and killed eight children and a security guard on Wednesday in an attack against his school in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, shocking a country where gun ownership is high but violence from the weapons is rare.

The shooting took place around 8:40 a.m. at Vladislav Ribnikar primary school, in Vracar, an upscale neighborhood, Chief Veselin Milic of the Belgrade police, said at a news conference. The student fatally shot seven girls and one boy using two handguns, which he took from his father. He also carried four self-made Molotov cocktails, Chief Milic said.

Six children and a teacher were also injured in the attack. One of the children, a 13-year-old, was described as having “life-threatening injuries,” officials said.

“Today is one of the most difficult days in the modern history of our country,” President Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia said in a speech on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, Serbia is united in grief.”


Mr. President, it only seems like one of the most difficult days in modern history. You’ll get used to it. Soon it won’t even be newsworthy.

Breathe the air of freedom. A small price to pay.

 

This is a false dichotomy. It also ignores the fact that many gun control advocates have proposed evidence-based policies that have been shown to reduce gun violence, such as background checks, red flag laws, and restrictions on certain types of firearms. Sounds "rational" to me.

And those "evidence based policies" are far from clear. Gun enthusiasts will submit their own statistics, and you can argue about it for 20 pages with them. It's not like you can do a controlled study on this. It's all a prediction. And some states may decide the additional liberty is a fair trade off for whatever incremental risk exists due to the unregulated guns in circulation.

I think "gun enthusiasts" have myraid of reasons to own a gun aside from control. Hunting, investment, home protection and recreational shooting come to mind. You do dig the stereotypes.

I think people who stockpile guns are attracted to the sense of control it gives them. I think I was clear that was a personal opinion.

Those folks have my pity. But by all means, allow folks to kill others because it is important to their identities.

It's also an individual liberty enumarated in the Constitution. The premise behind a liberty is that you have the right to do it, irrespective of whether it is good idea in the aggregate. If you own a high powered gun and are subject to a home invasion, or if you are armed and are threatened by a mugging, having a gun might protect you. It might be more likely that it won't, but in that specific encounter, it could



You seem to be cherry picking mass shootings to downplay the significance of gun violence and ignoring greater number of suicides, homicides, and accidental shootings, all of which may be reduced with appropriate gun control measures.



Isn't this a false equivalency? You suggest that just because both are linked to crime and violence they should be treated similarly. However, this ignores the fact that alcohol and guns are very different products with different purposes and levels of potential regulation.



You suggest that alcohol is not "regulated" in a responsible sense and is tolerated only because it is a part of culture. This is untrue - alcohol is heavily regulated at both the state and federal level, with laws governing everything from production and distribution to sales and advertising. These regulations have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol-related harm, such as drunk driving deaths. Maybe you want more regulation. That's fine. Why don't you start a new thread about it? Pretty please?[/QUOTE]

This is a false dichotomy. It also ignores the fact that many gun control advocates have proposed evidence-based policies that have been shown to reduce gun violence, such as background checks, red flag laws, and restrictions on certain types of firearms. Sounds "rational" to me.

And those "evidence based policies" are far from clear. Gun enthusiasts will submit their own statistics. It's not as if you can do a controlled study on this. It's all a prediction. And some states may decide the additional liberty associated with fewer gun regulations is a fair trade off for whatever incremental risk more guns in circulation may cause.

I think "gun enthusiasts" have myraid of reasons to own a gun aside from control. Hunting, investment, home protection and recreational shooting come to mind. You do dig the stereotypes.

I think people who stockpile guns are attracted to the sense of control it gives them. I think I was clear that was a personal opinion.

Those folks have my pity. But by all means, allow folks to kill others because it is important to their identities.

It's also a right enumerated in the Constitution. The premise behind a liberty is that you have the right to do it irrespective of whether it's likely to be a good idea. If you are armed and are threatened by an assailant, having a gun might save you. It might be more likely to increase the level of danger, but in that specific situation, anything might be the case. And it's only a minute percentage of gun owners that ever kill anyone else.

You seem to be cherry picking mass shootings to downplay the significance of gun violence and ignoring greater number of suicides, homicides, and accidental shootings, all of which may be reduced with appropriate gun control measures.

Mass shootings are most frequently used to justify additional gun control measures. Suicides, homicides, and accidental shootings may be reduced somewhat through additional control measures, or they may not be. Most crimes are committed through illegally acquired guns.

Isn't this a false equivalency? You suggest that just because both are linked to crime and violence they should be treated similarly. However, this ignores the fact that alcohol and guns are very different products with different purposes and levels of potential regulation.

I think say they should be treated similarly, I said they were both associated with enough of the same social problems, such as suicide, to be worthy of comparison.

You suggest that alcohol is not "regulated" in a responsible sense and is tolerated only because it is a part of culture. This is untrue - alcohol is heavily regulated at both the state and federal level, with laws governing everything from production and distribution to sales and advertising. These regulations have been shown to beeffective at reducing alcohol-related harm, such as drunk driving deaths.

I said consumption isn't regulated in a rational way. It's not. And I think that's obvious. The definition of a schedule 1 controlled substance is a drug that has no acceptable medical use, lacks an accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and has a high potential abuse. Alcohol clearly meets that criteria. I didn't say that alcohol wasn't regulated at all or that alcohol regulations don't mitigate the harm somewhat.

 

I don't support laws prohibiting alcohol at this point. It's highly unrealistic. I do think using the anti-smoking campaign that heated up (no pun intended) in the 90's should be template for action with education and pressure on corporations to move in a socially responsible direction a start.

 

Didn’t see this mass shooting mentioned. Run of the mill now


Official: Gunman kills 3, then himself in rural Georgia town
Official: Gunman kills 3, then himself in rural Georgia town - Tampa Bay Times

For more great content like this subscribe to the Tampa Bay Times app here:

 

Serbia with two mass shootings in 2 days

Serbia: man arrested after eight die in second mass shooting in days

 

Yea, but everyone of my age knows the “Did he shoot 5 or did he shoot 6” speech by heart!

 

Not sure if this is an argument for more guns, the futility of guns, or the need to shoot first, which I hope it isn't. I do like the hero attorney:


“He was just coming at me, laughing and he ended up grabbing my pony tail and threw me down and he punched me repeatedly and was laughing,” she added.

At that time, Tampa attorney Charles McKeon and his son noticed what was going on. “I saw a woman down on the sidewalk and she was either in a seated, or kneeling position and a man just repeatedly striking her in the face and head. I mean, just whaling on her,” McKeon recalled.

The attorney carries a concealed weapon, and pulled his gun out and yelled at the attacker to stop. Instead, the man turned on McKeon.

“He came at me and he hit me in the head. I fell backwards, hit the back of my head on the sidewalk and things got a little blurry at that point,” McKeon said.


Obeying the four paragraph rule, the attorney's son chased the assailant off and he was arrested. Glad they were there, and glad of the arrest. Interesting
‘Just whaling on her’: Jogger attacked in broad daylight in Hyde Park saved by attorney, son | Brightgram

 

A good alternative to more guns is pepper spray. If people are mainly concerned about personal protection, pepper spray comes in a relatively small container, it's inexpensive, and it can light somebody up without killing them. I carry it, my wife carries it. I will not hesitate to use it if I feel threatened. My firearms stay in the house.

 

Not a mass shooting. Will cross-post to Roe v. Wade thread

 

I think that one happened right next to my house. I grew up here, so I am not surprised.