.

^^That is inspired

...and that's just the cops scorecard.

/I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

I'm on your side of this issue but this is just implausible to me. If anything, I think the number of people who own guns with the intention of firing them at other people is the negligible group, unless you are considering people who buy them for home defense to be in that group. I don't think that's really fair because I do not think most people who buy guns for home defense expect to ever have to use them. And even if we argue they have an "intent" to fire them at people, it's not really fair to lump them in with people who intend to commit crimes.

My understanding is that most gun owners own them for some combination of self defense (people with concealed carry permits), home defense, and as a hobby (i.e. shooting them at a firing range for fun, collecting). There's a smaller, but quite substantial group in the midwest, south, and rural parts of other states, that uses guns for hunting, but those are typically not handguns.

All of the above are "legitimate" reasons to own a gun that do not just amount to "I wanna go **** someone up with this!" I do not think any of the above rise to the level of importance to make gun ownership a legitimate right or to outweigh our interest in public safety, but it's not really fair to say gun owners are just kooks or criminals.

Being "inside" the sporting community, I am in agreement with the entirety of what you stated, especially the quoted. I also understand those "outside" that community will exaggerate the numbers to favor criminals.

As I understand it, there’s an active sport shooting community in commie Euroland but they work under much tighter regulations. Almost like we can have nice things if everyone operates under common-sense gun laws.

If the bar is 'no gun violence' at all then of course it's not going to get done. There was a super lazy but effective Daily Show piece a while ago which essentially went to some gun lobbyist who said 'people who want a gun can always get one, like crack' and the Daily Show guy said 'so if we can't eliminate drugs 100% there's no point having drug laws at all' and they had no response. Literally any better regulation is better than what the US have now

There are regulations on the books..... and then there is enforcement of said regulations.

((I live in a county where the sheriff has said he will not enforce the magazine size restrictions that apply in my state))

Enforce the laws, close the loopholes (specifically gun show loopholes), find a way to stop the ownership to mentally unstable people (hardest to legislate/enforce).

i still think the future of gun control will have to be biometric guns/locks and tiered buyback programs that go from full price to eventually "tier-down" to non biometric guns being confiscated and owners issued citations.

I get the point you are trying to make, but "self defense" and "killing people" are not mutually exclusive. It is a weapon that, when used, is more likely than not to result in serious injury or death. That is its purpose, whether used in self defense or otherwise. That was my point in the post to which you replied (and the post before it, which I think ended up staying in the other thread) - other weapons (e.g. knives) have purposes other than killing or injuring people, guns do not. That is literally what they are designed for.*

*With the narrowly crafted exceptions for hunting and sports discussed earlier, but that is why I made the point that only a negligible % of them are actually used for those exceptions.

This discussion, and my comments in particular, lost a little bit of context after it got split across threads.

Its a mental health issue and no other country has issues with mental health . Oh wait

See what I do not understand about the second amendment. From what I learned is that it gives the right to bear arms to protect yourself from a tyranical government (ie democrats) Yet you can not own a rocket launcher, missile or bombs. Reality is even with a AK47 your gonna get wiped out by a drone in a heartbeat.

As well banning assault rifles seems dumb. Its the pistols that are the issue

Gun companies must love it when a democrat gets elected


Though I also think if you restrict folks with mental health issues many folks will not seek treatment for mental health

Maybe we don't really disagree. I read your post as suggesting that the typical use of a civilian-owned gun is shooting other humans. I don't know the numbers, but I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of civilian-owned guns are never fired at another human. Crime, and in particular home invasions, are much rarer than your typical home defense gun owner probably perceives, so most "self defense" guns never get used for that purpose. I guarantee you civilian guns are fired far more frequently at paper targets than they are at people. Your posts make it sound like you are saying they are fired at people more than at paper targets or animals, and if that is your claim, then we do disagree.

unless you factor in suicide

No, that was not the claim, and we don't really disagree. Earlier on though I had made the point that there is a whole culture on America where owning a gun is just a normal thing to do, and it's the only Western country with that sort of culture as far as I know. Not many people in other countries feel the need to own guns for self defense either, but that is all part of the culture. If everyone else has one, then I need one too.

Would recently freed slaves right after the civil war be pro gun ownership or anti gun ownership?

As an outsider, I find the talk of mental health when it comes to guns interesting. I mean, it's not wrong. I'm sure mental health is hugely important when it comes to reducing everything from suicides to mass shootings to crimes of passion. But it also feels like the right are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they say this.

Handling mental health issues is a difficulty that most countries are under-equipped for because it's expensive, highly time consuming to assess and treat an individual, and still somewhat controversial (lots of people still sneer at depression and other conditions). America can't even agree to socialise cancer treatment, so when (and I'm not accusing you of this, knowing nothing about your posting history) you hear say a Fox News anchor saying about a mass shooting "It's a mental health issue" it rings hollow. They don't intend to support any kind of mental health policies any more than they support any kind of socialised medical care.

It's pretty much taking one issue people don't want to do anything about and transferring it to another issue they don't want to do anything about. The question of what policies people are actually willing to advocate for is still wide open.

I feel like there should be a name for that argument.

There is, it's called disingenuous. The right is famous for it.

Well, sure, I was thinking something more specific but it is simple dishonesty at heart.

I don't know about dishonest. It's pretty callous, though, to say we have a mental health problem boosting gun violence and be anti-healthcare.

Storyville doc on BBC4/iplayer tomorrow night: Raising a School Shooter. Haven't seen them all but sometimes good docs.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000xnzx

The people who talk the most about guns are often those who know the least about guns.



There were an average 15 million guns sold in the US each year since 2010.

https://tacticalgear.com/experts/gun...-by-state-look

There were about 50,000 suicides in the US in 2019, about half of those were by firearm.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

that may be true but the flip side ignores the fact that having guns will make the idea less attractive. I think Chris Columbus said something like "these handsome Indians have no weapons. We can take complete control of them with little cost."

Compare home invasion burglaries in the U.S to UK. Here in the U.S burglars make sure houses are empty.

I don't know if there's stats to back that up but it is something I think speaks to a culture of fear in America. Assuming there is a significant difference, I basically never hear anyone in the UK worrying about arming themselves in case of home invaders. I've never lost a minute's sleep thinking about that.

Most Americans don't lose sleep thinking about home invaders, either. I bet the "do you worry about home invaders?" question would be answered roughly the same in both countries. Though, there's a certain satisfaction in knowing that you can protect your property if the situation arises, and you're allowed to do so in the USA.

The criminals just want to make sure they don't get shot in the face while they're going about their business.

Maybe this is why UK robbery and burglary rates are higher than in the US.

You say that, but then we sit around and discuss how you need guns in case of burglars.