On mass shootings and gun rights.

[MxOverkill]

To me, it's different this time around in WA; it's political. The hatred of the NRA is visceral, this is all about payback.

It's called "blow back."

Anyone could've seen this coming.

 

[ov1guy]

I believe that we, gun owners, could do a lot of good for our cause if we would not have such a absolute attitude. I do not believe that every gun control concept is the first start of taking my guns away. Some things we cry about make no sense to me. Take for instance a restriction on huge sized magazines. Or the gun show exemption. Registering to buy a gun. I could care less if these were enacted because I don't buy into the concept that it "is just the first step...". I believe that many of the gun control people look at us as fanatics because of this. I believe that on certain concepts like those I mentioned, that if we said, "yeah, that is reasonable" but "taking my guns away is not reasonable" would make us seem less like fanatics and they would take our side of the story more seriously. Ok, now I expect to be chastised by most of you.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@ov1guy

What is a
"huge sized magazine"...?
"the gun show exemption"..?

As for registering to buy a gun...what would that accomplish...?

Just asking here to try and understand where you are coming from....

Fair warning :
I am not in favor of any more bans , restrictions or requirements that only affect those who wish to obey the law and have zero , or damn little effect on crime or criminals....
Andy

 

[DuneHopper]

I believe that we, gun owners, could do a lot of good for our cause if we would not have such a absolute attitude. I do not believe that every gun control concept is the first start of taking my guns away. Some things we cry about make no sense to me. Take for instance a restriction on huge sized magazines. Or the gun show exemption. Registering to buy a gun. I could care less if these were enacted because I don't buy into the concept that it "is just the first step...". I believe that many of the gun control people look at us as fanatics because of this. I believe that on certain concepts like those I mentioned, that if we said, "yeah, that is reasonable" but "taking my guns away is not reasonable" would make us seem less like fanatics and they would take our side of the story more seriously. OK, now I expect to be chastised by most of you.

You make a reasonable argument on your views.
Then I would ask anyone who has such thoughts within your mind set.

1. Would you accept speaking outside your home only if were approved?
2. Would you be for public speaking only for certain allowed times and words used?
3. Would you accept not being able to speak about subjects and words you are told you can't use?

Having such conditions on our First Amendment would be insane and most would agree, so why punish others who embrace other civil rights, and before you say guns kill. 10's of Millions more people in the history of this planet have been killed by mere words, not guns.

Before you laugh at such conditions of my 3 thoughts, these are the conditions the German people lived under.
So would you say that is reasonable? If it is not then you must agree civil rights have meaning. And therfore
that is your answer why we embrace the 2nd Amendment so tightly.


This is not done to insult you by any means, I can appreciate your thoughts and reasoning.
However our civil rights do not come with major conditions to them, as we are given freedom to the use any content of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights that grant us civil liberties.
You are expecting to be chastised, which means your intent was to actually insult everyone and then sit back and be attacked.
Therefore, I am giving you a rebuttable.

 

[bikemutt]

@ov1guy

First mistake is believing they care about what you think, believe, or how you react. They don't.

We are so far beyond that, it's hard to imagine.

 

[DuneHopper]

UGGGGG !!!!!!

 

[bikemutt]

I don't think that trying to understand others is a mistake...
Nor do I like "Blanket statements"...Such as those that have "they care..."

Be that as it may...
I do know that there are folks out there that are totally against firearms and firearm ownership...and no amount of discussion with people like that is worthwhile.
Andy

Everyone is free to divine the intention of their fellow citizen. I may not know much about true intent, but when 59% tell me to shove it, I get that.

 

[bikemutt]

Thank you...I do not "divine" anything....
But am glad I have your permission to do so...

Again assuming that the member I was asking the questions of is among the "59%" ...is wrong , in my opinion....If it proves otherwise later , then so what...?
Being told to "shove it " , means nothing to me.
Andy

I don't have the role of doling out anything, nor granting permission to anyone. Facts are what they are, believe them or not, free country.

Maybe, with good fortune and hard work, we'll dodge this bullet, I sure hope so.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

We need to push for Israeli-type school security because that has been proven to actually work.
Why school shootings are so rare in Israel, where guns are such a common sight

I'll address the main content in another post. For now I just thought it was worth pointing out that, in the future, it's probably better to not link to stories from the Washington Com-post. It's like spreading a disease. Note how a story about school security very quickly devolves into another pitch for disarming the American public:

"...gun violence is rare in Israel because privately held guns are so rare"

"...it is very, very hard to obtain a weapon in Israel."

"But once an Israeli finishes military service, it becomes difficult to obtain a gun."

This is typical Bloomberg-style journalism. Bloomberg makes large donations to Columbia University's Dart School of Journalism to train journalists around the country on how to "properly" cover firearm-related topics. (see The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies by John R. Lott Jr.).

 

[bikemutt]

Swell...
I do not like it when folks interject themselves into my conversation , telling me that I made a "mistake" and then assuming things....
Andy

My apologies, did not mean to come off that way.
Maybe I feel so beat-down by all this nonsense I lost my way. You are a good man, I'm sorry.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

My apologies, did not mean to come off that way.
Maybe I feel so beat-down by all this nonsense I lost my way. You are a good man, I'm sorry.

I hear you about being beat down by all this nonsense... We are all in this leaky boat of gun ownership together.
No need to be sorry over something that I have forgotten...Here's to a beer together and some gun talk in person.
Andy

 

[bikemutt]

I hear you about being beat down by all this nonsense... We are all in this leaky boat of gun ownership together.
No need to be sorry over something that I have forgotten...Here's to a beer together and some gun talk in person.
Andy

Here, here! We have some darn nice brews' in this neck of the woods, you are are always welcomed, and honored.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Here, here! We have some darn nice brews' in this neck of the woods, you are are always welcomed, and honored.

Well if you ever find yourself up this way....I know a few good spots we could go.

Andy

 

[BSG 75]

I'll address the main content in another post. For now I just thought it was worth pointing out that, in the future, it's probably better to not link to stories from the Washington Com-post. It's like spreading a disease. Note how a story about school security very quickly devolves into another pitch for disarming the American public:

"...gun violence is rare in Israel because privately held guns are so rare"

"...it is very, very hard to obtain a weapon in Israel."

"But once an Israeli finishes military service, it becomes difficult to obtain a gun."

This is typical Bloomberg-style journalism. Bloomberg makes large donations to Columbia University's Dart School of Journalism to train journalists around the country on how to "properly" cover firearm-related topics. (see The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies by John R. Lott Jr.).

Are you saying there isn't strict gun control in Israel? According to multiple sources, gun control IS strict in Israel. That's just a fact, no matter who is reporting it. So those quotes are correct.

It played into a recurring refrain on the American pro-gun right that sees in Israel an example of the American conservative's ideal of a well-trained, heavily armed citizenry.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

Israelis are well-armed, of course, but any similarity to conservative Americans masks a fundamental difference: In Israel, guns are tightly controlled and carefully tracked by the state.

Israelis must meet a detailed list of criteria to be allowed to own a firearm. They must ask the state for a license, are permitted only one gun at a time, and must even ask for permission to sell their gun. And the Firearms Licensing Department is no rubber stamp: Roughly 40 percent of requests are rejected.

Indeed, before even requesting a license, Israelis must meet minimum age requirements, be in good health and of sound mind, and have no criminal record, among other preconditions.

There's more. Once they are granted the right to carry a gun, Israelis are limited to just 50 bullets in their possession at any given time. They must shoot or return old bullets before they can buy new ones, a process that can only take place at tightly regulated shooting ranges where each bullet's sale is carefully registered. The types of guns permitted also depend on the reason for the license – i.e., a veterinarian may only purchase a gun approved by the government for the killing of animals, a hunter's license only permits the purchase of a firearm from an approved firearms list kept by the Parks Authority, and so forth.

In other words, as the Public Security Ministry explains on its website, Israeli law "does not recognize a right to bear arms, and anyone wanting to do so must meet a number of requirements, including a justified need to carry a firearm." There is no inkling of a belief among Israelis that citizens should be permitted to own guns as a check on government power — that is, as a limit to the sovereignty of the state expressed in its monopoly on violence.

Israel's social reality – the large number of firearms on the country's streets – may look like an American conservative's utopia, but it got there via a domineering statist regulatory regime that American gun control activists can only fantasize about.

Comparing America to Israel on gun laws is dishonest – and revealing

While it's true that guns are as ubiquitous in Israel as falafel stands, the Jewish state has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world.

Unlike in the U.S., where loopholes in the system allow kids to buy weapons within minutes, even Israelis who have completed their military service may only apply for a gun license at 20. Those who did not serve in the military, for whatever reason, have to wait until they're 27.

And forget about assault rifles — the best you can hope for in Israel is one pistol.

Israel also has strict background checks. Applicants not only must prove they need a gun for protection, they also have to show a clean bill of health from their physician. Even then, chances are, you'll be rejected.

I Carried a Gun in Israel. Here's What I Learned About Gun Control

Now, for those who are easily confused, my reporting the fact that gun control is strict in Israel DOESN'T MEAN I WANT ISRAELI-TYPE GUN CONTROL HERE. I WANT ISRAELI-TYPE SCHOOL SECURITY HERE, NOT ISRAELI-TYPE GUN CONTROL. You CAN have one without the other.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Are you saying there isn't strict gun control in Israel?

No. I haven't checked it out, but I'm willing to accept that firearms are highly regulated in Israel. What I was objecting to was starting off with a story that was, in a sense positive - shedding light on one good method for reducing school shootings - but then right away countering it with the, in my opinion, false correlation less guns = less violence

"...gun violence is rare in Israel because privately held guns are so rare"

and then reinforcing the statement in the readers mind with true facts

"...it is very, very hard to obtain a weapon in Israel."

"But once an Israeli finishes military service, it becomes difficult to obtain a gun."

so that the net effect of the article, as intended, is just another call for stricter gun laws.

I believe the Washington Post is right up there with the awful NY Times in spreading misleading information, if not outright lies about firearm related topics, and doesn't deserve to be quoted.

It was absolutely clear to me that you were only suggesting Israeli-style school security, and not Israeli-style firearm regulation. And I definitely agree.

 

[caarecengi]

Are there anti gun people who think the way they do for "safety reasons"...yes
Are there anti gun people who think the way they do for control reasons...yes again.
I'd venture to say that for as many pro gun people and all the varied reasons as to why they think the way they do....there is at least as many , if not more anti gun people and reasons...
Granted I also think that many folks who are anti gun for truly safety reasons are easily used by those who favor control reasons....

Life itself is dangerous , you can not 100% protect yourself from all forms of harm.
Our freedoms cut both ways...if used responsibly , Freedom to own Arms , act , think , worship , love , work , etc...can bring much enrichment to your life....failure to do so , can bring much sorrow.

Like many things the gun can be seen as both positive and negative....Kinda like Kool-Aid.
On 18 November 1978 , over 900 folks received cyanide laced Kool-Aid and died...Should we ban Kool-aid because it was the method of delivering the poison...?
Or how 'bout religion , because that was a method of control used by Jones...?
Maybe free speech , should go away , so no one can ever sway folks like that again..?

Many folks enjoy Kool-Aid , religion and free speech...and do not harm themselves or others with their use of any of the listed items....Why should any of the above be restricted for the many , by the actions of a few...?

Some folks want to ban guns because they can be used for evil ends....Well Murder and Mass murder as well as their friends Harm and Mayhem...have been around a lot longer than any firearm and will continue to work ill deeds , even if all guns magically disappear.
Andy

I find it funny that people are so adamant that guns are the problem when we kill over 1200 people annually in traffic collisions and just "accept that" as the price you pay for the freedom to drive a car.

 

[BSG 75]

For now I just thought it was worth pointing out that, in the future, it's probably better to not link to stories from the Washington Com-post. It's like spreading a disease.

I believe the Washington Post is right up there with the awful NY Times in spreading misleading information, if not outright lies about firearm related topics, and doesn't deserve to be quoted.

Sorry, with all due respect, I really don't need anyone telling me what I should or shouldn't quote. If I followed your, um, suggestions I wouldn't quote this piece from the Washington Post, which goes into detail why gun control doesn't work:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

...By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections...

...A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

or this from the awful NY Times, which refutes the call from gun controllers for Australia-type gun control:

Australia's Gun Laws Are Not a Model for America

...But the Australian model won't work in the United States. Here's why: We Australians have a profoundly different relationship with weapons. Americans love guns. We're scared of them...

...This ingrown cultural hostility toward firearms explains why there was no fear and only isolated anger at the government, even among owners, when it took away people's guns in 1996. In the United States, even if the political opposition could be overcome, such widespread appropriation of private property and limits on personal liberties would most likely be met with fierce, even physical, resistance.

Australian political leaders are rightly proud of our tight gun laws, which have also reduced criminal homicides and suicides. But it is unfair to grieving and distressed Americans to pretend that the Australian solution to mass shootings can be carried out in the United States. A homegrown plan is needed.

Opinion | Australia's Gun Laws Are Not a Model for America

or this article from the awful NY Times that showed background checks have been completely worthless when it comes to preventing mass shootings:

How They Got Their Guns

A vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least nine gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

How They Got Their Guns

Quote those pieces to gun controllers and it leaves them speechless. They can't call it NRA propaganda considering the source.

Now am I saying the NYT and WaPo are as pro-gun as American Rifleman? Of course not. But I'm not so insecure in my pro-gun rights beliefs that I should be afraid of reading and using information from any legitimate source if it helps me make my point, even if I don't like or agree with other things they print.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

I find it funny that people are so adamant that guns are the problem when we kill over 1200 people annually in traffic collisions and just "accept that" as the price you pay for the freedom to drive a car.

Actually it's much higher: according to NHTSA, 37,461 lives were lost on U.S. roads in 2016, about 100 per day. See my previous post.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Mass shootings are not the reason for gun control. The are the excuse for it. The anti-gun nuts have been slavering to confiscate guns for at least 70 years. It's just that 70 years ago there were fewer of them and they kept their silly, unpopular views to themselves for the most part. But they've been lurking in the weeds all this time. These are the group thinkers, the herd animals, the anti-DIYers. These are the "let the experts do it" people. They just want a set of rules to follow and for everyone to follow them, laid out by highly educated and qualified "experts" who know what's good for us. They've been manufacturing arguments and collecting excuses to outlaw guns for decades. Mass shootings are just the latest (and most successful) excuse.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Now am I saying the NYT and WaPo are as pro-gun as American Rifleman? Of course not.

Of course not, indeed. The overwhelming anti-gun bias of the media (full semi-auto anyone?) is abundantly clear to me, and the NYT and WaPo, are in my opinion, definitely not small-time offenders, the examples you give above notwithstanding.