Gun Control

[Jamezz]

To all of those who advocate for gun control, nonsense. The 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunting, fun n' games, but to grant power to the People, thus avoiding that our gov't becomes a tyranny. That's right let's have these low IQ cops and the mislead military be the only ones that can carry guns and use them on the People when the shtf. That'll make me feel safe!

 

[nightmare3983]

Does this lawsuit stand a chance? It seems like a stretch to me.

https://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html

 

[fishonjazz]

Related questions, is gun violence worse than other violence?

Yes
A gun is a way more effective killing tool than a knife, bat, or acid

(I have been stabbed with a knife and hit in the head with a baseball bat.)

 

[Sidebottom2beams]

Lol the North Koreans and the Iranians say the same thing about the US and they are considered nut cases lol.
If you can't trust the government surely they should be able to have nuclear reactors to protect themselves from the US government.

 

[Stoked]

Lol the North Koreans and the Iranians say the same thing about the US and they are considered nut cases lol.
If you can't trust the government surely they should be able to have nuclear reactors to protect themselves from the US government.

North Korea is a nut case because they starve 10s of thousands of their own citizens and are a brutal, human rights denying regime.

Iran is a nut case because they are openly calling for the genocide of an entire people and support those groups trying to do so all while denying their own citizens basic rights.

But hey! Almost there with that comparison, no really.

 

[moevillini]

On a single victim by victim comparison I would say no and in some cases less (such as a gunshot to the head v. being beaten to death with a bat). But I would say the speed with which it can escalate to multiple victims v, a knife or bat is much worse.

For example, guy robs a taco stand and people jump him to stop him, the chances of stopping him before mutliple fatalities is lower if he has a firearm.

Huh? A guy can take out more victims with a baseball bat than with a AR-15? I can't quite wrap my head around that.

Yup. An accidental discharge is almost a misnomer. If you pull the trigger, the gun should discharge....


...Here in Los Angeles, for instance, in order to purchase a handgun, I have to have a current handgun safety certificate. If I don't, then I have to take a test and pay for one. $25.00. If I am buying a handgun from a dealer, I then have to pay a DROS (dealer register of sale) fee ($35.00) and wait 10 days before I can pickup the handgun. If I am buying the handgun from a private party, I have to take that handgun into a dealer, pay a PPT fee ($35.00) and wait 10 days. I can't ship any ammunition into the city of Los Angeles, so either I have to buy a PO Box in a neighboring city outside of LA county or use a friends address in a similar location. On top of all that, only guns that have been registered and submitted the California handgun roster can be purchased in California....

seems reasonable to me, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with those regulations...


And on the subject of accidental discharge, aren't there situations where the trigger is pulled (or pushed or however it works) unintentionally, perhaps while some other action is taking place? It just seems I've heard of situations where a gun discharges as the owner is cleaning it and stuff like that. Obviously they're not handling it properly, but it's still referred to as an accidental discharge.

 

[Stoked]

Huh? A guy can take out more victims with a baseball bat than with a AR-15? I can't quite wrap my head around that.




seems reasonable to me, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with those regulations...


And on the subject of accidental discharge, aren't there situations where the trigger is pulled (or pushed or however it works) unintentionally, perhaps while some other action is taking place? It just seems I've heard of situations where a gun discharges as the owner is cleaning it and stuff like that. Obviously they're not handling it properly, but it's still referred to as an accidental discharge.

On an individual victim per victim basis the bat or knife would be roughly equal (sometimes one is vorse than the other a vic versa) to a gun.

On an ability to escalate into mulitple victims the gun is clearly worse.

Not as clear as i could have made it. My bad.

 

[Gameface]

Huh? A guy can take out more victims with a baseball bat than with a AR-15? I can't quite wrap my head around that.




seems reasonable to me, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with those regulations...


And on the subject of accidental discharge, aren't there situations where the trigger is pulled (or pushed or however it works) unintentionally, perhaps while some other action is taking place? It just seems I've heard of situations where a gun discharges as the owner is cleaning it and stuff like that. Obviously they're not handling it properly, but it's still referred to as an accidental discharge.

Within the firearms community the term "negligent discharge" is typically used instead of "accidental discharge."

I'd post the 4 rules of firearms safety again, but they're easy to find, I've posted them on Jazzfanz at least a half-dozen times, and they have been included in the instruction manual of every firearm I've ever purchased. Anyway, negligent/accidental discharge can only happen if you violate the 4 basic rules of firearm safety. Also, for anyone to be injured due to mishandling a firearm 2 or more of the 4 rules need to be violated.

IMO, any violation of the 4 basic rules should be considered when an incident involving a firearm is being investigated or prosecuted. I believe that firearms owners should be legally required to follow the 4 basic rules at all times. That any "accident" that happens when those rules are not followed is at the very least considered an act of negligence, but should often be used to show a wilful disregard for the safe handling of a firearm, a disregard for the safety of others, and a disregard for the law.

If the 4 rules are followed it is virtually impossible to accidentally cause injury to yourself or anyone else, and like I said, 2 or more of the rules have to be violated in order for discharge to result in injury.

I know you consider those CA regulations pretty reasonable, but I think the point is that they have no meaningful impact on the use of firearms to commit a crime. They are quite burdensome and it seems like they are burdensome for the sake of being burdensome and nothing else.

One of the rules there is pretty ridiculous.

Let's say I want to sell a firearm I own to a good friend of mine. Here in Utah my friend gives me the money, I give him the gun and that's it. In CA my friend and I have to drive to a gun store. We have to pay the gun store a fee for facilitating this transaction, the gun store then has to hold the firearm for 10 days at which point my friend can go back and pick it up. If I want to let my friend borrow my gun I can do that, no paperwork, no wait. The 10 day waiting period is for nothing other than waiting. Nothing is happening during that time. So, if you were a female being threatened by an ex-boyfriend or something, and you felt that you needed a gun for protection you would have to wait for 10 days until you could posses a gun for your protection.

 

[moevillini]

Within the firearms community the term "negligent discharge" is typically used instead of "accidental discharge."

makes sense

I know you consider those CA regulations pretty reasonable, but I think the point is that they have no meaningful impact on the use of firearms to commit a crime. They are quite burdensome and it seems like they are burdensome for the sake of being burdensome and nothing else.

One of the rules there is pretty ridiculous.

Let's say I want to sell a firearm I own to a good friend of mine. Here in Utah my friend gives me the money, I give him the gun and that's it. In CA my friend and I have to drive to a gun store. We have to pay the gun store a fee for facilitating this transaction, the gun store then has to hold the firearm for 10 days at which point my friend can go back and pick it up. If I want to let my friend borrow my gun I can do that, no paperwork, no wait. The 10 day waiting period is for nothing other than waiting. Nothing is happening during that time. So, if you were a female being threatened by an ex-boyfriend or something, and you felt that you needed a gun for protection you would have to wait for 10 days until you could posses a gun for your protection.

first of all, if I felt threatened by an ex-boyfriend, owning a gun would certainly not make me feel more safe -- but maybe that's just me.

secondly, what if the friend you're selling your gun to is planning to sell it to my ex-boyfriend...
those few days of waiting might be helpful to me - at least I'd have a few more days to enjoy life.

 

[Gameface]

makes sense



first of all, if I felt threatened by an ex-boyfriend, owning a gun would certainly not make me feel more safe -- but maybe that's just me.

secondly, what if the friend you're selling your gun to is planning to sell it to my ex-boyfriend...
those few days of waiting might be helpful to me - at least I'd have a few more days to enjoy life.

First, I agree with you that guns aren't necessarily an answer to security issues. I've admitted it before, although somewhat hesitantly, but I don't currently own any guns and haven't for well over a year. I never considered the guns I owned "home defense" weapons for a lot of reasons. Probably most significant is that I have a young son and I kept my guns locked up and separate from the ammo when I did have them.

But, there are some situations where a woman might know that a man is a threat to her and that she cannot physically defend herself from him. Maybe you would seek other ways to protect yourself, but a gun is a viable option. If threatened it doesn't mean you need to shoot him, being armed can be a powerful deterrent.

I get the concept of a waiting period to prevent a person from getting irrationally angry, buying a gun and immediately going on a rampage, but that is not at all the typical scenario in regard to gun violence.

I've said it so many times, but I see the types of gun laws they have in CA the way I see liquor laws in Utah:
They are made by people who do not understand the item they are regulating and who regard that item as evil and unnecessary.

So any old hoop you can toss out and make people jump through in order to get that item is just as well. But the mature, responsible adults reduced to jumping through silly *** hoops are becoming resentful of these "reasonable regulations" and become more and more unwilling to cooperate.

Just as we see the African American community less willing to cooperate with police when they want something simple like to see ID, you get to the point where you're tired of the BS and you don't want to play along anymore.

 

[moevillini]

First, I agree with you that guns aren't necessarily an answer to security issues...

But, there are some situations where a woman might know that a man is a threat to her and that she cannot physically defend herself from him. Maybe you would seek other ways to protect yourself, but a gun is a viable option. If threatened it doesn't mean you need to shoot him, being armed can be a powerful deterrent.

The only two women that I know for a fact that own guns do not have ammunition but only have them for "show" - - both are older black women who don't feel particularly safe in their neighborhoods. I know one keeps hers loaded with "blanks" to make it seem more real, I'm not sure if the other even does that much. While I don't know this for a fact, I don't think either one knows the first thing about actually shooting a gun.

Also, one of these women lost a son 15 years ago at age 20 to street gang violence during a robbery. He was with a group of friends who attempted to rob a store and the storeowner pulled a gun on them - but didn't fire it. Her son was accidentally shot by one of his friends as they were running away...

I get the concept of a waiting period to prevent a person from getting irrationally angry, buying a gun and immediately going on a rampage, but that is not at all the typical scenario in regard to gun violence....

Definitely agree - and while that is the type of violence that gets the most publicity, that's less the violence that concerns me. I'm more worried about the everyday street violence that's happening in neighborhoods in Chicago.
Much of it with stolen guns or straw purchases.

So any old hoop you can toss out and make people jump through in order to get that item is just as well. But the mature, responsible adults reduced to jumping through silly *** hoops are becoming resentful of these "reasonable regulations" and become more and more unwilling to cooperate.

Just as we see the African American community less willing to cooperate with police when they want something simple like to see ID, you get to the point where you're tired of the BS and you don't want to play along anymore.

two comments to this:
first of all, for MOST of these people, this is not the FIRST gun they are buying and they are NOT buying it because they are in immediate fear for their lives
(that is conjecture on my part, but I'm sure it's pretty accurate)

And if they are so angry and resentful that they can't or won't follow reasonable precautions, then why should they be trusted to own a gun in the first place?

Anyhow, we can go 'round and 'round about this...
It's just unfortunate that so much of the discussion seems to be driven by those with the most extreme views. Or at least it's the extreme views that seem to get the most attention.

 

[Stoked]

The only two women that I know for a fact that own guns do not have ammunition but only have them for "show" - - both are older black women who don't feel particularly safe in their neighborhoods. I know one keeps hers loaded with "blanks" to make it seem more real, I'm not sure if the other even does that much. While I don't know this for a fact, I don't think either one knows the first thing about actually shooting a gun.

Also, one of these women lost a son 15 years ago at age 20 to street gang violence during a robbery. He was with a group of friends who attempted to rob a store and the storeowner pulled a gun on them - but didn't fire it. Her son was accidentally shot by one of his friends as they were running away...



Definitely agree - and while that is the type of violence that gets the most publicity, that's less the violence that concerns me. I'm more worried about the everyday street violence that's happening in neighborhoods in Chicago.
Much of it with stolen guns or straw purchases.



two comments to this:
first of all, for MOST of these people, this is not the FIRST gun they are buying and they are NOT buying it because they are in immediate fear for their lives
(that is conjecture on my part, but I'm sure it's pretty accurate)

And if they are so angry and resentful that they can't or won't follow reasonable precautions, then why should they be trusted to own a gun in the first place?

Anyhow, we can go 'round and 'round about this...
It's just unfortunate that so much of the discussion seems to be driven by those with the most extreme views. Or at least it's the extreme views that seem to get the most attention.

This is my opinion. They focus on the couple million that yell "from my cold dead hands" and the couple million who favor door to door confiscation. Not the hundred million + that are somewhere in the middle.

 

[fishonjazz]

Within the firearms community the term "negligent discharge" is typically used instead of "accidental discharge."

I'd post the 4 rules of firearms safety again, but they're easy to find, I've posted them on Jazzfanz at least a half-dozen times, and they have been included in the instruction manual of every firearm I've ever purchased. Anyway, negligent/accidental discharge can only happen if you violate the 4 basic rules of firearm safety. Also, for anyone to be injured due to mishandling a firearm 2 or more of the 4 rules need to be violated.

IMO, any violation of the 4 basic rules should be considered when an incident involving a firearm is being investigated or prosecuted. I believe that firearms owners should be legally required to follow the 4 basic rules at all times. That any "accident" that happens when those rules are not followed is at the very least considered an act of negligence, but should often be used to show a wilful disregard for the safe handling of a firearm, a disregard for the safety of others, and a disregard for the law.

If the 4 rules are followed it is virtually impossible to accidentally cause injury to yourself or anyone else, and like I said, 2 or more of the rules have to be violated in order for discharge to result in injury.

I know you consider those CA regulations pretty reasonable, but I think the point is that they have no meaningful impact on the use of firearms to commit a crime. They are quite burdensome and it seems like they are burdensome for the sake of being burdensome and nothing else.

One of the rules there is pretty ridiculous.

Let's say I want to sell a firearm I own to a good friend of mine. Here in Utah my friend gives me the money, I give him the gun and that's it. In CA my friend and I have to drive to a gun store. We have to pay the gun store a fee for facilitating this transaction, the gun store then has to hold the firearm for 10 days at which point my friend can go back and pick it up. If I want to let my friend borrow my gun I can do that, no paperwork, no wait. The 10 day waiting period is for nothing other than waiting. Nothing is happening during that time. So, if you were a female being threatened by an ex-boyfriend or something, and you felt that you needed a gun for protection you would have to wait for 10 days until you could posses a gun for your protection.

What about dat ricochet doe

 

[Gameface]

What about dat ricochet doe

That's where knowing your target and what lies beyond (the 4th basic rule of firearm safety) comes into play. Generall, in order for a bullet to maintain enough energy to be lethal it will have to continue in the same general direction that it was fired.

 

[fishonjazz]

That's where knowing your target and what lies beyond (the 4th basic rule of firearm safety) comes into play. Generall, in order for a bullet to maintain enough energy to be lethal it will have to continue in the same general direction that it was fired.

Sometimes you can't know what lies beyond your target.

Like if you are hunting and you fire at your prey, you can't always know that there won't be another hunter beyond what you are shooting at.

Also if it's the heat of the moment and you are shooting at someone to protect yourself and you miss, that bullet could accidentally hit someone imo

 

[Gameface]

Sometimes you can't know what lies beyond your target.

Like if you are hunting and you fire at your prey, you can't always know that there won't be another hunter beyond what you are shooting at.

Also if it's the heat of the moment and you are shooting at someone to protect yourself and you miss, that bullet could accidentally hit someone imo

There should always be a backstop (mound of dirt, the ground, or whatever) beyond your target. If you can't be certain of your target and what lies beyond then you don't take the shot. Even in a self defense situation, if you don't have a clear shot at the threat and/or you don't have a safe backstop, you don't take the shot. To me this is 100% how it works. If I can't take a clean shot then I have to accept the fact that I may be killed because I am not justified in taking another innocent person's life to possibly save my own.

 

[Jamezz]

This is my opinion. They focus on the couple million that yell "from my cold dead hands" and the couple million who favor door to door confiscation. Not the hundred million + that are somewhere in the middle.

There's no in the middle here, we're either for power to the people or to the gov't. Where are you boy?

 

[Jamezz]

Yeah that's what I thought, who trusts the gov't. Not me that's for sure.

 

[Stoked]

There's no in the middle here, we're either for power to the people or to the gov't. Where are you boy?

To say there is no middle here is absurd. There are plenty of gun owners, myself included that are for sensible measures on gun control. Such as background cheks and flagging those that have had mental health incarcerations or have been disgnosed with certain illnesses.

To say I have to be a raving lunatic on side or the other is absurd. If the majority of the people want those middle ground measures then guess what. That is the will of "the people".

Also, hahahaha at you giving me 1 minute to respond then acting like I had no response.

 

[fishonjazz]

There should always be a backstop (mound of dirt, the ground, or whatever) beyond your target.

But there isn't always.
Ever hunted pheasants, ducks, grouse, dove, chuckers, etc?
When hunting birds you are often shooting at your target while in flight.

Also you can shoot at a duck with a shotgun while it's on the water and have the bullets ricochet off the water. (I have first hand experience with this. I got hit with some bbs from a shotgun shell after the bbs hit the water and ricochet)

When hunting it's quite hard to always have the ideal background when you fire your weapon.

As for self defense..... in the heat of the moment when someone is trying to kill you, most people are just trying to stay alive and focusing on the target rather than the background. (You might be the rare exception)

Accidents do happen