http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/18/what-i-would-do-about-guns Comments On: What I Would Do About Guns by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 21 May 2013 17:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Just saying, but if we look at ze charts. States w/ High Gun-ownership and States with Low Gun-ownership vary on the ol' violent gun crimes metric seemingly at complete random. Some places have high ownership and high violence, and some areas have low ownership and high violence. Many place have High ownership and low violence.

Let's look at Europe, Luxembourg has completely outlawed the ownership of firearms, compared to Germany which has very high ownership for Europe. However Luxembourgs murder rate is roughly 6x that of Germany's. Those German's are obviously less safe, however, due to having guns, fact.

I guess you'll have to make up numbers to make guns-ownership dangerous. People who own weapons being 4.7 times more likely to be shot is a bullshit statistic.
Posted by trenchgun]]> Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:47:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by jackalope]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:44:05 -0800 The Stranger
The proposal would be simple:
1) Every gun must be insured.
2) The insurance covers not only property damage and accidental injury from the gun, but also in the event of you shooting and killing someone, the insurer pays life insurance to the family of the person shot. (possibly with costs of therapy for bystanders, etc)
3) A heavy premium is attached to the insurance. This hurts you, if, say, you loan your unhinged neighbour a shotgun and he goes and robs a store with it.

So, the knock on effects would be:
1) Anyone with mental health problems can't buy a gun. Insurance companies would
refuse to insure you, therefore no gun. Sadly, and I'm all for equality, if you have
mental health issues, ownership of a machine for killing things is something you
shouldn't have.
2) Reasonable safety would be rewarded. You buy a gun cabinet? Your premiums go
down. You attend a safety course? Premiums down. You sign an agreement to keep
ammo in the shooting range instead of at home? Premiums down.
3) Dangerous behaviour would equally be penalised, and, as the penalties are so
high, you being an idiot, if reported, is likely to loose you ownership.
3) Families of victims can get access to therapy, healthcare and anything else they
need to recover, from the payouts. Funds could also be diverted to a pot to pay for
automatic emergency care, clean-up and policing.
4) People who need guns (i.e. those who live in the backwoods) would have the lowest
premiums, as they're less likely to kill someone by mistake. Therefore, if you can
safely fire a gun, you can afford one.
Posted by Wolfgang A.]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:41:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tkc]]> Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:56:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:13:35 -0800 The Stranger
Actually there are many regulated and potentially dangerous and addictive drugs that are necessary for survival, you will find any emergency room or pharmacy quite well stocked.

Most people do not need a fire extinguisher and most will never need one.
Hopefully no one will ever need a gun in their lifetime, but when you do need a gun there is no substitute when it comes to survival .
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:14:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tkc]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:46:44 -0800 The Stranger
We're currently coming to terms with the fact that people want drugs. They don't need drugs - they are an absolute necessity for survival. They want them.

Think about the automobile. We currently coming to terms with the effects of human caused global warming of which cars are one of the largest single contributing factors. We don't need cars. We've merely constructed a society in which they provide convenience. But ultimately we don't need them.

Handguns and large capacity military styled weapons are something people want. Most don't need them at all. Of course. But they want them.

How do we make people not want these things? Just tell them they can't have them? But the horse has left the barn. They do have them. So. What do we do?

You make them pay for it.

Humans, Americans in particular - have a terrible time understanding externalized costs. Guns, cars, meat - all these things that maybe aren't so great - we have so far accepted socialized costs for. But now that way of dealing with them is too expensive.

We can see the terrible toll unfettered access to guns is taking. We have to educate people that their unfettered wants are not needs. And their wants have consequences.

We can and should regulate high capacity magazines. Sure.

But we should also teach people to pay their taxes. To fund the institutions that provide them security and health. And once those institutions function well and with equanimity people will not "feel" they need things like guns.
Posted by tkc]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:38:38 -0800 The Stranger Posted by MikeF1990]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:28:53 -0800 The Stranger Posted by MikeF1990]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:23:49 -0800 The Stranger
I'm not sure what your point is, so how could I be ignoring it?

But actually, I think you are basically answering my question by NOT answering it... In other words, there IS NO GOOD REASON for a safety-minded civilian to own one of these automatic rifles. You don't get anything from it that a regular gun won't give you, except more "YEEEEHAAAAAWWWWW".

And my point is: that's not an acceptable trade-off for public safety.
Posted by merry]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:05:54 -0800 The Stranger
I am glad that Goldy thinks that it is OK that I own guns.

As a responsible gun owner I support training and safety, it would be insane not to.

However I am against trigger locks, because they run a bar through the trigger guard the gun can still be fired with a trigger lock on, often accidentally. The trigger lock instills a false sense of security who may use one on a loaded firearm thinking that it can not be fired. Locks need to go trough the action of a firearm to ensure it can not be fired.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:39:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by randoma]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:18:32 -0800 The Stranger
You are still not answering my central question:

What was so over-the-top wonderful about that Bushmaster rifle that made it a must have for this woman who was concerned about her personal safety?

What did this semi-automatic weapon offer that no other gun in her collection could? Just the ability to squeeze off round after round after round after round?

How many bullets does it take to feel safe from a burglar or a rapist?

Why would a person think that they ABSOLUTELY NEED a weapon like that to protect themselves and their home, when they have a bunch of guns already?

And please note, I am using the word NEED, not WANT. You've already given a lot of reasons for why somebody might WANT a gun like that, but so far, no reasons as to why some civilian might NEED one.

Still waiting.
Posted by merry]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:52:59 -0800 The Stranger
"Why does a private citizen need these weapons?

The answer, of course, is: no private citizen needs such weapons. "

No private citizen needs to eat meat. Do you realize the destruction to the planet and global population that stems from a carnivorous diet? You don't NEED lots of things. Why does "need for self defense" or need at all play into it?

The shooter's mother was a gun buff and a collector. You're making the assumption that she felt she needed it for self defense. This isn't about NEED this is about wants, just like a zillion other things that people do.

In March 2010 a man with a knife murdered 8 children in an elementary school, in May 2010 another main killed 7 children and 2 adults many more were seriously injured in other attacks. Did these attackers NEED whatever knife they wielded?

Timothy McVeigh killed over 168 people, including 19 children, and injured 800 using a bomb largely made from fertilizer. You want to talk about organic farming and whether or not people need massive amounts of fertilizer? McVeigh was well versed in firearms and definitely had access to firearms.

Saying that the Newtown killer would have killed less if only his mother didn't own a Bushmaster is ridiculous. Because you have NO IDEA what he would have/could have done. How many people could he have killed with a gallon of gasoline? You've got a bicycle, you don't NEED gas.

You want to start talking about better mental health care? You want to talk about single payer health care? Maybe it is time for 800-HELPIWANTTOKILLPEOPLE lines just like the suicide prevention centers.
Posted by randoma]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:11:43 -0800 The Stranger http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/rep…
Posted by moosefan]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:48:37 -0800 The Stranger
That prospect seems fantastically unlikely (to you and I) but it must appeal to a lot of people, since the brisk sales of ARs can't all be going to guys who like to play 3-gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sp…

Posted by ScrawnyKayaker]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:49:31 -0800 The Stranger "What you're saying isn't specific at all, though, so I think ..."

No. It's pretty obvious by now that you do not think.
As I had previously shown, you cannot even read a sentence through to the end.
Which is why your mommy cries herself to sleep.

But I can do the copy and paste thing again.

So, the condensed version is, Connecticut had very restrictive gun control laws.
Yet this shooting still happened.
Therefore, the very restrictive gun control laws do NOT WORK to prevent shootings like that.
Which leaves you with the options of:
1. LEARNING that they don't work for these incidents and focusing on what DOES work for other crimes.
or
2. Trying to make the laws even more restrictive.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:45:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mattini]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:43:03 -0800 The Stranger
Regardless, I imagine whatever frustration you're feeling now will be nothing compared to what you feel when the specific suggestions like Goldy and others have made are put into place because there are no specific counter-arguments beyond "that won't work" and "focus on what does work."

It's interesting how quickly your argument unraveled when questioned. Given your need for specifics, I really thought you might have had some practical, actionable ideas.
Posted by Ziggity]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:41:46 -0800 The Stranger
...Now don't you feel safer?

Posted by Spindles]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:32:15 -0800 The Stranger "There's a national conversation going on right now ..."

Yes there is.
And maybe when you grow up you can participate in it.
But first you'll have to learn to read to the end of a sentence.

"Do you have any specific thoughts on how to reduce these types of shootings?"

Looks like it's time to copy and paste AGAIN because you STILL haven't been able to grasp the concept.

So, the condensed version is, Connecticut had very restrictive gun control laws.
Yet this shooting still happened.
Therefore, the very restrictive gun control laws do NOT WORK to prevent shootings like that.
Which leaves you with the options of:
1. LEARNING that they don't work for these incidents and focusing on what DOES work for other crimes.
or
2. Trying to make the laws even more restrictive.

I bet your mommy cries herself to sleep every single night and then dreams of all the other kids calling you "retard".
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:31:41 -0800 The Stranger
You say: "AR-15 type rifles are popular for a lot of reasons - they're very reliable, they can be very accurate, they're easy to work on, they're highly modifiable with all sorts of aftermarket doodads you can add-on/take-off..." You also list ease of use, quicker follow-up shots, and not having to disturb your sight picture when target shooting.

But none of that answers my question: For self-defense, why would you NEED such a weapon? Why did Adam Lanza's mother feel that she NEEDED the M-16 knock-off, the Bushmaster, in addition to the other guns she had? Why did she feel that the other guns were not enough for home and self-protection?

Other, non-automatic guns are also reliable, accurate, easy-to-work-on, etc etc. None of what you listed seems worth the risk to me...

The bottom line is: if Adam Lanza's mother had not had that Bushmaster rifle, fewer kids would have died. The lives of children and other innocents outweigh whatever reason you think you have for needing semi-automatic military-grade weapons. Period.
Posted by merry]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:29:48 -0800 The Stranger
If you're not interested in reducing these types of shootings, or reducing the number of people typically killed in the shootings, you can just say that.
Posted by Ziggity]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:27:35 -0800 The Stranger "What is it, specifically, that we should be focusing on that does work to prevent them?"

I bet it makes your mommy cry herself to sleep when she hears everyone calling you "retard".
Here it is AGAIN!

So, the condensed version is, Connecticut had very restrictive gun control laws.
Yet this shooting still happened.
Therefore, the very restrictive gun control laws do NOT WORK to prevent shootings like that.
Which leaves you with the options of:
1. LEARNING that they don't work for these incidents and focusing on what DOES work for other crimes.
or
2. Trying to make the laws even more restrictive.

Can you read to the end of a sentence yet?
Can you do that?
Don't make your mommy cry herself to sleep again.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:21:31 -0800 The Stranger