And yet another, seems there is always another......

[AppleDumpling]

We live in a country with a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to possess firearms, and there are hundreds of millions of them. Nothing will change in any significant way unless the 2nd Amendment is revoked and the Government forcibly confiscates firearms. Don't hold your breath.

Thanks, I’m well aware of the 2nd Amendment. And how difficult it would be to repeal or change it, although legally not impossible. There are other ways to enact gun reform that don’t require changing it. Unfortunately, there are not enough people in power who care strongly enough to make a real difference as of yet. FWIW, the Australian government confiscated hundred of thousands of guns from citizens in the late 1990’s, and the murder and suicide rate dropped significantly.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Poverty. Teenagers generally don't start jacking cars for organized crime rings or risking their lives as the foot soldiers of drug operations if they have access to opportunity and hope for the future.

But that's another problem where we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.

This is the elephant in the room that most don't want to talk about. Seems a lot of people want to talk about "criminals" without going a step further into "why do they commit the crime?"

It didn’t happen again - it happens every day. There were 7 people killed just THIS WEEKEND in Chicago. There were 516 people murdered in Philadelphia last year, but you don’t have the news coverage for those victims. The vast majority of gun killings in this country are committed by inner city young males not mass shooters on the rampage. And contrary to our media, it’s not law abiding NRA members who are going around shooting people. Most gun murders are drug or gang related in this country and more and more aren’t being prosecuted but are being left back on the streets.
The gun the suspect in California used was illegal in that state, but SHOCKER a criminal committed a crime and obtained a weapon. California and Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation yet still have the highest murder rates.
It’s like taking away booze from an alcoholic without getting to the root of his problem. You can take guns from everyone in this country yet criminals will find a way to steal them or get them illegally. We have glorified violence for years in this country - in video games, in rap music and in Hollywood movies. There are very few fathers in the home in our inner cities and drugs are flowing free over our border, so how about trying to fix some of these issues instead of lip service and more laws that don’t do diddly squat to change anything.

There is a lot in here I'm not going to touch but I will point out that the bolded is false. California ranks 31st in homicide rate among state (the highest rates are in the southern US... draw your own conclusion there). Chicago ranked 28th out of 65 cities with populations above 100k.

Chicago especially gets a bad rap often because people with a political agenda cite total murders instead of murder rate. Murder rate is what matters as it allows us to actually compare cities with different populations.

Sources:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

Most gun owners keep their hand gun loaded, even while in storage. Some may even keep them with one in the chamber too. It's done for the ready. When seconds count, to potentially save your or your family members own life, most criminals won't wait for you to call a time out to then get ready. Since the car analogy has been used earlier, it's like keeping gas in your car, so you're ready to go at any time. You wouldn't store the gas in cans and then put it into the car when you're ready to go, similar applies to loading a gun..... for the ready. Some people don't drive, just like some people don't have guns, personal choice. No one asks why I have more than car, so why does it matter why I have more than one gun?

How many of these gun owners lock up their guns when they leave the house? How many guns fall into the wrong hands after a burglary?

If gun owners are truly responsible I have no problem with them. I grew up around people who owned way too many firearms and I can tell you that the number of people I knew that had them properly locked up when not in use is few and far between. Hell, I know people that have lost a gun and didn’t notice for months.

The quote “those who seek power are least qualified to hold it” comes to mind.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Seems a lot of people want to talk about "criminals" without going a step further into "why do they commit the crime?"

That's why I said in my comment loose gun laws not being the catch all. It doesn't help with housing insecurity, income insecurity, police mistrust and community silence (by which I mean retaliation as guns are not the only tactic used), it doesn't touch on social inequalities or social programs in general. It doesn't get into the funding needed for programs to help combat the violence and programs to help with the other things. And so many other things.

Gun laws end up being *the* thing people talk about (and they are important) but don't seem to get much into so much of the other things. And IMO to keep trying to alter that which is one of the hardest (because of the ties to constitution and state laws varying) but not really putting as much effort into the other things is disappointing.

 

[AppleDumpling]

I can't answer any questions you have of other people. I can say that because I can as far as why I have one in my home. I have no other protection. It's just smart to take your own life into your hands rather than leave it for someone 15-20 miles away in a car with lights. Pretty simple reason it seems to me. And your 2nd paragraph you are just talking points that has been thrown at you over years, decades even, by politicians and news media. No, the majority of Americans don't favor more restrictive gun laws. That is a talking point that no one can show evidence of (I frequent a political forum where this discussion happens in thread after thread after thread with the same people stating the same things that they only get from news media and no actual sources.)

As for our history being a disgrace, I agree. Our history was a disgrace and because of how that disgrace was solved, we founded a new nation and put forth rules against those governing this nation to ensure that disgrace doesn't happen again, or at least the people have a way of protecting themselves from said historical disgrace.

Thanks for responding. Your answer is as I expected. In an earlier post, it seemed almost like you were bragging about how many guns your friends own (“could arm the entire county”). I don’t get that mentality.

I’m sorry you feel you need a gun for protection. You think it’s smart; I disagree. I’m 60 and have lived my entire life just fine without any guns for protection. Again, I’m done with debating, at least for today.

 

[mrodgers]

Thanks for responding. Your answer is as I expected. In an earlier post, it seemed almost like you were bragging about how many guns your friends own (“could arm the entire county”). I don’t get that mentality.

I’m sorry you feel you need a gun for protection. You think it’s smart; I disagree. I’m 60 and have lived my entire life just fine without any guns for protection. Again, I’m done with debating, at least for today.

I don't have any friends. I just live next to the most armed county in the country as far as I'm aware. The point was that there isn't any gun problem in an area where people could arm the entire county from their basement. AKA, LOTS of guns and no gun problem as the problem lies elsewhere and not in the guns.

 

[diser_fam]

Thanks for responding. Your answer is as I expected. In an earlier post, it seemed almost like you were bragging about how many guns your friends own (“could arm the entire county”). I don’t get that mentality.

I’m sorry you feel you need a gun for protection. You think it’s smart; I disagree. I’m 60 and have lived my entire life just fine without any guns for protection. Again, I’m done with debating, at least for today.

Just speaking on people owning a lot of guns and how you don't get that mentality. A friend of mine has around 50 guns, give or take. Of those 50, he has purchased 3 of them. The others were passed down to him from his father and grandfather. He hunts with 2 of the 3 he has purchased and bought the 3rd to shoot skeet. Don't think he has even fired that one. I'm pretty sure he has only fired 2 or 3 of the guns passed down to him. All of his guns, I think, are in a gun safe in his basement.

Everyone's situation and reason for why they own 1 gun or 100 guns is different. The fact that you don't get that mentality is really no relevance to anything. There are probably many, many people that don't get the mentality of someone posting thousands and thousands of times on a Disney message board. Doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it. Your comment with the rolling eyes emoji comes across as holier than thou, which may or may not be your intention.

Also, that is great that you have lived your life just fine without the need of any protection from guns. You are truly blessed in that regard. Not everyone is as blessed as you. People have different fears for different reasons. Some may be justified, so may not. Not up to you or I to determine. Everyone is different.

I own 2 guns myself and when my Dad passes, I'll add 5 or 6 more to that. My son hunts with one and I used to shoot skeet with the other. Never considered them for protection because like others have mentioned, if someone broke in during the night, I would be to out of it to go downstairs, unlock my safe and pull out on of my guns. However, if a situation arose where I did have that kind of time, I am fairly certain I would use one of them if needed.

Just my 2 cents. I'm all for strict guns laws. I'm also for strict punishment of anyone in violation of these laws.

 

[sam_gordon]

That is a tough one as it's not a finite number. It's an estimate from the CDC where they use to estimate between 500,000 and something like 3 million times a year a firearm is used as a defensive. Trying to look it up, all I see now is articles stating the CDC changed their numbers to fit the narrative so I no longer have that.

It wasn't statistical because not everything is reported. It's an estimate by the CDC.

The post above with links, it appears to be links on gun violence and perhaps incidents in defense of gun violence rather than firearm defense in general, which would include attempted rape, robbery, defense against violence from knives and pipe wrenches or tire irons or any violence and not just against gun violence.

Thank you for answering.

no gun problem as the problem lies elsewhere and not in the guns.

In the interest of continuing the discussion... wouldn't this come down to how people "define" the problem? I don't think anyone could argue that we (the US) don't have a problem with the number of people killed by firearms, particularly mass shootings.

But what is causing that problem? There are people who (at least seem to) think even a single death caused by a firearm is a "gun problem". There are others who think the "problem" lies elsewhere. A BIG part of the "problem" is the two sides (based on rhetoric here and elsewhere) is neither side is willing to listen to the other (sure, they say they do, but I have my doubts).

Personally, I'm sort of in the middle. Do I think we have an issue with too many gun deaths? Yes. Do I think making all guns illegal (and let's be honest, there ARE people who think that should be done) will eliminate the problem? No. Do I think the number of incidents can be cut down with more regulations (IN ADDITION TO enforcing the regulations we have)? Yes. What the "more regulations" should be, I have some ideas, but could be wrong.

I do think both sides (in this thread and others) have brought up some good points.

 

[mrodgers]

Thank you for answering.

In the interest of continuing the discussion... wouldn't this come down to how people "define" the problem? I don't think anyone could argue that we (the US) don't have a problem with the number of people killed by firearms, particularly mass shootings.

But what is causing that problem? There are people who (at least seem to) think even a single death caused by a firearm is a "gun problem". There are others who think the "problem" lies elsewhere. A BIG part of the "problem" is the two sides (based on rhetoric here and elsewhere) is neither side is willing to listen to the other (sure, they say they do, but I have my doubts).

Personally, I'm sort of in the middle. Do I think we have an issue with too many gun deaths? Yes. Do I think making all guns illegal (and let's be honest, there ARE people who think that should be done) will eliminate the problem? No. Do I think the number of incidents can be cut down with more regulations (IN ADDITION TO enforcing the regulations we have)? Yes. What the "more regulations" should be, I have some ideas, but could be wrong.

I do think both sides (in this thread and others) have brought up some good points.

I look at it like this. If we the people allow the government to overstep the 2A, then the US Constitution isn't worth the money it is written on any more. Just that simple. If you (collective, not you individually) want guns gone or want restrictions, it has to be a change in the Constitution because what is written is very clear to me and not so clear to others.

 

[sam_gordon]

I look at it like this. If we the people allow the government to overstep the 2A, then the US Constitution isn't worth the money it is written on any more. Just that simple. If you (collective, not you individually) want guns gone or want restrictions, it has to be a change in the Constitution because what is written is very clear to me and not so clear to others.

So in your opinion, are the current restrictions (background checks, waiting periods, whatever) unconstitutional?
Is there ANY "arm" (2A doesn't mention guns at all) that the public should be restricted from having in your opinion? Let's go back to a missile launcher, and RPG, a functioning tank? Those are all "arms", aren't they?

 

[BrianL]

Thank you for answering.

In the interest of continuing the discussion... wouldn't this come down to how people "define" the problem? I don't think anyone could argue that we (the US) don't have a problem with the number of people killed by firearms, particularly mass shootings.

But what is causing that problem? There are people who (at least seem to) think even a single death caused by a firearm is a "gun problem". There are others who think the "problem" lies elsewhere. A BIG part of the "problem" is the two sides (based on rhetoric here and elsewhere) is neither side is willing to listen to the other (sure, they say they do, but I have my doubts).

Personally, I'm sort of in the middle. Do I think we have an issue with too many gun deaths? Yes. Do I think making all guns illegal (and let's be honest, there ARE people who think that should be done) will eliminate the problem? No. Do I think the number of incidents can be cut down with more regulations (IN ADDITION TO enforcing the regulations we have)? Yes. What the "more regulations" should be, I have some ideas, but could be wrong.

I do think both sides (in this thread and others) have brought up some good points.

Sam, Sam, Sam - be careful here. You're taking a moderate and sensible position and there's just no room for that kind of crazy talk!

 

[mrodgers]

So in your opinion, are the current restrictions (background checks, waiting periods, whatever) unconstitutional?
Is there ANY "arm" (2A doesn't mention guns at all) that the public should be restricted from having in your opinion? Let's go back to a missile launcher, and RPG, a functioning tank? Those are all "arms", aren't they?

Tough to give opinion because of the definition of "arms". Every dictionary reference states "weapons, especially firearms or guns". Thus technically, no, there should be no restrictions on those you list. Any infringement is against the Constitution as is any gun laws as it is written.

However, what was the definition of "arms" in 1776? There were no missile launchers, RPG's, or tanks in 1776 when the 2nd Amendment was written (I should say, I don't think there were missile launchers and tanks in 1776.) So, I must put forth personal opinion over direct definitions and statements and say that missiles and tanks should not be included in the 2A. Everyone does take the 2A as meaning firearms/guns. It would be up to the Supreme Court to determine what "arms" are in the context of the 2A.

I only speak of firearms, weapons, guns, and the 2A in the context of firearm weapons shooting a bullet.

 

[prairie_girl]

duplicate

 

[prairie_girl]

Deleted because the answer was already giving while I was typing my question.

 

[sam_gordon]

Tough to give opinion because of the definition of "arms". Every dictionary reference states "weapons, especially firearms or guns". Thus technically, no, there should be no restrictions on those you list. Any infringement is against the Constitution as is any gun laws as it is written.

However, what was the definition of "arms" in 1776? There were no missile launchers, RPG's, or tanks in 1776 when the 2nd Amendment was written (I should say, I don't think there were missile launchers and tanks in 1776.) So, I must put forth personal opinion over direct definitions and statements and say that missiles and tanks should not be included in the 2A. Everyone does take the 2A as meaning firearms/guns. It would be up to the Supreme Court to determine what "arms" are in the context of the 2A.

I only speak of firearms, weapons, guns, and the 2A in the context of firearm weapons shooting a bullet.

On the other side of that though there were no automatic or even semi automatic "arms" in 1776. By the LETTER of the law, IMO, you either have to allow the general public to have EVERY type of weapon ("arms") OR you limit people to the types of "arms" that were available when the 2A was written.

I don't think you can say "allow all guns but don't allow the missile launcher, tank, RPG".

I do agree with you that it's up to the Judiciary to determine what "arms" means. Which means there needs to be a court case and go through that process.

ETA: The other option is to develop a 28th amendment. Good luck even writing that one.

 

[mrodgers]

On the other side of that though there were no automatic or even semi automatic "arms" in 1776. By the LETTER of the law, IMO, you either have to allow the general public to have EVERY type of weapon ("arms") OR you limit people to the types of "arms" that were available when the 2A was written.

I don't think you can say "allow all guns but don't allow the missile launcher, tank, RPG".

I do agree with you that it's up to the Judiciary to determine what "arms" means. Which means there needs to be a court case and go through that process.

ETA: The other option is to develop a 28th amendment. Good luck even writing that one.

With that, semi-automatic and automatic firearms are merely an evolution of firearms. Missiles and tanks aren't firearms. Those were new weapons not an evolution of current weapons.

 

[sam_gordon]

With that, semi-automatic and automatic firearms are merely an evolution of firearms. Missiles and tanks aren't firearms. Those were new weapons not an evolution of current weapons.

Missiles and tanks (which basically just carry a big "gun") are NOT an "evolution"? Sorry, disagree with you.

And, you even point out the dictionary definition of "arms" (when used in this case) is "weapons". IMO, the "especially" doesn't matter. ETA: "I like dollar bills, especially the 100s." So the "especially" is just a subset of the group, not a group of itself.

 

[sam_gordon]

And just so no one thinks I'm "anti-gun"...

Those of you who think more gun regulations are the answer OR that guns should be banned outright, what's your take about the latest shooter (which ever one it was) having obtained his gun illegally? Since laws/regulations as they currently are didn't prevent this shooting, why do you think more regulations/bans will?

 

[BrianL]

Missiles and tanks (which basically just carry a big "gun") are NOT an "evolution"? Sorry, disagree with you.

And, you even point out the dictionary definition of "arms" (when used in this case) is "weapons". IMO, the "especially" doesn't matter. ETA: "I like dollar bills, especially the 100s." So the "especially" is just a subset of the group, not a group of itself.

Just to note, "rocket launchers" certianly did exist in 1776 and predate that by a few centuries. They were mostly used in Imperial China, and were a bit like fireworks, with black-powder rockets propelling arrows. Rockets were first used in the West around 1800 or so. I am not really sure of the millitary efficacy of these devices, but they absolutely did exist.

I didn't know any of that, but it was easily referenced. I know they show them being used in Mulan, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Moliphino]

And just so no one thinks I'm "anti-gun"...

Those of you who think more gun regulations are the answer OR that guns should be banned outright, what's your take about the latest shooter (which ever one it was) having obtained his gun illegally? Since laws/regulations as they currently are didn't prevent this shooting, why do you think more regulations/bans will?

Is this the one where the gun was illegal to own in CA? Have they determined if it was actually obtained illegally (like not from another state where it's legal or not before it was made illegal in CA)?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Is this the one where the gun was illegal to own in CA? Have they determined if it was actually obtained illegally (like not from another state where it's legal or not before it was made illegal in CA)?

In a way though that becomes one and the same.

From the information available it's likely an illegal gun that has been illegal to possess for 30 years in the state. When you point to strengthening gun laws in this case it's a law that's been on the books for a long time. What would you strengthen I guess would be the question (rhetorical question there, just makes a different conversation that would be going on).

I'm just reading now that they wonder if the hand gun (which I accurately guessed was the one he used to kill himself) was obtained by legal measures although the handgun itself was legal to own and possess in the state.