Does Allowing More Access to FA Increase Incidents?

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by RicInOR, Mar 10, 2016.

  1. RicInOR

    Washington County
    I aim to misbehave Silver Supporter

    Likes Received:

    The story says yes.

    All the other reports I have seen say no.

    What is up with Missouri ?
    First, East St. Louis is about the most violent place in the USA - worse than the failed cities in NJ. Worse than cities in war zones.
    Second, Black Lives Matter - the movement has been there and that has drawn bad actors no matter how you look at it.
    Third, MIZZOU is the center of violence - remember the professor calling for "meat" to rough up a reporter? Their applications are so far down, they'll be short 32 million next year.

    Did the violence, which is not sudden, lead to the "Natural Experiment?" Or, did the loosening of gun laws lead to violence?

    I bring this up, as this is one of those places, situations, which will be used to justify being more restrictive.
  2. PiratePast40

    Willamette Valley
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    East St Louis has been a hell hole for over 50 years. No reason to expect it wouldn't move across the river. Not an excuse, but prolonged poverty and frustration seems to go hand in hand with crime.
  3. SCARed

    Vancouver, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Ha, I saw "FA" and thought someone was talking about allowing more Full Auto guns. :cool:
    Dyjital likes this.
  4. Roop

    La Grande
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    This brings to mind Montana's experiment a few years back with speed limits.
  5. DuneHopper

    Time Is Now
    Last Time For Everything Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    St. Louis, is a hell of a place, stopped thru there once about 14 years ago, stopped long enough to get fuel and GTFO out of that place on the way back drove pass St. Louis didn't stop go or collect 200 dollars. Was on a road trip to Alabama, I found Birmingham way more hospitable then St. Louis. Better eats in Alabama mmmm., oh sorry slid off topic. Digress it was a pretty rough place back then can't imagine it now.
  6. Lilhigbee

    SE Portland
    Visit Gold Supporter

    Likes Received:
    From the opening picture to the fact that "gun-violence prevention advocates" were part of the survey and no group from the gun owner's side were, I have to consider this an opinion piece, not anything resembling real science.
    To answer the OP's question; of course. Greater exposure to anything increases the number of accidents. Nobody flies, no plane crashes. No one drives, no traffic fatalities. No guns, no ND's. None of these are a viable option for a free country.
    RicInOR and AndyinEverson like this.
  7. AndyinEverson

    Everson, Wa.
    Moderator Staff Member Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    I wonder if some people have lost or never been taught to respect what responsibility they have when they own a gun?
    We had guns when I was growing up. They were not in a safe or locked up.
    I had all manner of easy access to any of our guns.
    I was however taught at a early age some basic rules :
    Not to touch a gun unless my dad was there.
    Guns are not toys , they are not to be "played" with.
    Always check to see if a gun , any gun is loaded before looking at it.
    There were a few more but you get the point , I was given rules about safety.
    I knew where dad kept the loaded "house gun".
    I knew how to safely use it and not to mess with it unless needed.
    I was taught that if you have a gun , you have the power of life and death , and to never abuse this power.
    With these rules in place , there were no shootings or misuse of firearms at my home while growing up , even with easy access to them.

    Firearms are a paradox , they are works of art that can kill.
    We admire the lines , how they fit and function and the beauty of a well made gun. All the while you must remember that no matter what gun , it was meant to take a life.*
    The gun deserves and demands your respect because of this.
    * I guess a case could be made that a gun designed solely for target shooting can be exempted , but if misused , just like anything else , can still kill.

    Edit to add: You know where the "facts" are headed when you see that awful picture used in the OP's news story link.
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016
    etrain16 likes this.
  8. etrain16

    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter 2017 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    I would say that among certain groups, yes, FA's do increase incidents. Those groups would be groups of folks that are already prone to violence and show a complete and utter lack of self control and the ability to conduct their lives under the law. Street gangs come to mind. The other group that comes to mind is a bit more broad based, but those that maybe are not affiliated with a gang, but perhaps are just plain ignorant when it comes to safety in general. These are some of the YouTube nut cases that do really stupid things with guns then get themselves or someone else shot.

    With that said, I still don't think it warrants increasing gun control laws. I do believe the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, non-violent people that take things like safety with firearms very seriously and don't grab for their gun just because they're angry about something. As I stated on another thread recently, I believe the individual should be held accountable for their actions, not the general public. Unfortunately, many lawmakers, supported by far too many voters, believe restricting the rights of others is the only way to stop dumbsh!ts from being dumbsh!ts. Never mind that that has NEVER worked.

    Growing up, I got my first gun, a Marlin Model 60, when I was 14. It was kept in my room with a trigger lock and only my dad had the key. When I turned 16 and had demonstrated responsibility with the gun, I was given that key and the okay to take it out shooting with friends, so long as I never, ever violated any of the rules. I still have that gun today and it has never, ever shot anyone.

    I believe you can give a thousand guns to a thousand responsible people and you won't have a single incident. Give one gun to a POS and something will happen. But 'dangerous freedom' is something we live with in this country if we wish to remain truly free. Sometimes bad things will happen, but that is no reason to take our rights away.
  9. PaulB47

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    A bit of gun control propaganda... o_O

    If that really was it's purpose, I would get rid of mine, because I have no desire to take a life. If that was its purpose, it must be the most ineffective tool ever designed, because (perhaps outside of military arms) only a tiny minority of firearms have ever done that.

    It is also a mistake to say guns are designed to defend a life, because only a tiny minority have been used for that too.

    What purpose does any gun we strap on our hip, always provide, every time we use it? Insurance. It's there to give us options on the rare occasion when bad things happen.

    That's not why they do it. That is also propaganda. They do it because rulers prefer unarmed peons, and that is not being unreasonable on their part. We are a lot harder to push around if we are armed. But just because it is not unreasonable on their part, does not mean it is reasonable for us. Our interests are not aligned with those of the rulers.
    nammac likes this.
  10. AndyinEverson

    Everson, Wa.
    Moderator Staff Member Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Paul ,
    No gun control propaganda ...
    I said meant to take a life. Not that they do always kill.
    I bought my deer rifle to kill deer not as insurance.
    It was meant to kill game by its design.

    As for a self defense gun it also was to designed to kill , otherwise what is the point?
    If you have to shoot in self defense , you might kill someone. It is just a fact .

    To be blunt , the gun does not care what you desire. It does what it is designed to do.

    I do not view this as insurance.
    You buy bullets that are meant to enter flesh and cause trauma,possibly death. Those bullets are designed to do just that. Just as the gun was designed to shoot them where you want those bullets to go.

    What I choose to shoot is my decision. It does not change what the gun was built / meant to do.
    Firearms are weapons , weapons are meant to kill.
    The fact that I own and safely use firearms shows that one can use and enjoy something that can have multiple uses.
    I stand by my word choice.

    Please do not mistake me as a victim of gun control propaganda.

    The point of my phrase was to remind folks of the power of life and death they now have when they own or handle a gun. And to never abuse that power, nor forget to use that power responsibly.
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016

Share This Page