Summations Only

It isn't "Hollywood-invented"; it's what we see on the news - like a father whose daughter has just been shot to death saying, "I need a gun."

Not convinced I've seen vast numbers of Hollywood films which portray the sorts of things Mr Hambre was mentioning - Hollywood does tend to go the opposite way, romanticizing gun use. Just think of Dirty Harry, Red Dawn, Lethal Weapon etc etcWhen every statistic, every bit of critical thinking, every datum supports the view that guns cause more harm, death, injury and loss than they prevent, what is it that causes such a visceral desire to have and keep guns, in the intelligent, responsible human beings you describe ?

Guns are beautiful.Shooting is fun.Guns pose no threat to me.

Agreed. Just look at this baby: Agreed. Noisy, but fun. You're dreaming. Even if you owned no guns they would still pose a threat to you, just like they did to the students in Umpqua. But you do own guns, and that places you in even greater danger than if you didn't. The odds of mishandling or misuse of one's guns are not zero unless you own no guns.--Percy

The sentence beginning the Trump excerpt about the gun-free zone rode was included inadvertently. I was commenting on the next sentence about a possibly better outcome had teachers or students possessed a gun or two. Around 1 in 16 adults in Oregon has a concealed carry permit. How many with the permit actually carry I couldn't find. Anyway, if there was a gun or two in that classroom then since they weren't used it's one additional data point against guns as defensive weapons.--Percy

But I am not the students at Umpqua and the threat to me from guns is so small as to be nearly ignored. But in the almost unimaginable chance guns did pose a threat to me I carry one myself. And yes, of course the threat of mishandling or misuse of my guns really is zero.Edited by jar, : remove extra "d"

You're being obtuse. Weren't the students just going about the activities of their daily lives, just as you do? Don't their daily activities take them to places where there would be no expectation of a gun threat, just as you do? You're answering just like the other gun nuts here. You guys are not some kind of supermen whose eternal vigilance makes them always prepared to use their guns to defend themselves in all circumstance, and whose lightning quick decisions and reactions are unerring and never endanger innocent bystanders. Another gun nut answer. The threat is not zero. Again, you are not some kind of perfect superman who could never forget to lock up the gun (leaving open the question of how safely locked up guns could aid in your defense), never leave the safety off, never forget there's a bullet in the chamber, never accidentally aim it at someone, never accidentally discharge it, never suffer any psychiatric condition, etc. You're a normal human being just like everyone else. Stop fooling yourself.--Percy

Most of the people I know who own guns come from families where gun ownership goes back generations. A couple are avid hunters and teach their children to hunt, one is a WWII vet (pushing 90) who owns a couple of guns from that time and keeps them in shape and well hidden, and in my family guns go back to the mid-19th century in wild country where they homesteaded and guns were essential. It was part of life and got passed on as part of life to the children who passed it on to their children. Mostly all they do with them is go out into the desert for target practice, but they still consider the guns a necessity even if times have changed.It is not part of any "gun culture," it's not some kind of fetish, it's just considered common sense to own a gun and the Second Amendment agrees with them. There has never been a gun accident among any of the people I know who own guns, they are extremely safety-conscious about their guns. And if it weren't for the big media flap made over incidents that they consider to be alien remote and unrelated to any of their own experience, they wouldn't give it a second thought.To them it IS some kind of attack on their rights and freedoms, and might as well be a conspiracy against them. The fact that there is such a push to deprive them of this ordinary right does suggest that some enemy is trying to disarm them and the country.If it were just about regulations to keep the guns out of the hands of potential murderers and irresponsible people the focus would be there instead of on getting rid of guns period, but notice the rhetoric: it's always about guns per se, it's always about some supposed crazy gun culture, it is always full of negative characterizations of America as a whole, it confuses statistics from high crime areas with the majority of gun owners elsewhere, it's a totally irresponsible approach to the problems they say they want to deal with. It only puts the good guys on the defensive. And rightly so. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I have said, the threat is so negligible that I simply don't worry about it, however I also do always try to maintain vigilance and consider what might be needed. Nor have I made any such claim as you would know if you read what I wrote. But I do practice for such scenarios and particularly as I have gotten older and less physically capable I have tried to increase my awareness. But again, any threat to me from guns is simply so far down the list if things to worry about that it simply doesn't concern me. Of course I can always remember to lock a gun up if I am not carrying it. Fortunately most of my guns don't have safeties. And of course I check to see if a bullet is in the chamber; any gun without a bullet in the chamber is not something I would carry except during certain competitions. And of course I never aim a gun accidentally at anyone.I do not believe an accidental discharge is even possible with any modern weapon and that anyone making such a claim is simply at best ignorant, more likely lying. There can be negligent discharges though.And the one thing in your laundry list is the possibility of a psychiatric condition. That though is again not of any greater threat related to guns than anything else.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote dBCode.

Yes - I imagine the government would consider instituting a buy back scheme like Australia did. Then you are telling me that most gun owners are not law abiding citizens. This seems to justify taking their firearms. An unregistered gun is already a 'novelty' and their value is already up. I doubt anybody in my family would risk a 5 year prison sentence per firearm (consecutive) and a criminal record for possession of illegal weapons - unless they needed them to protect a lucrative criminal enterprise that I am unaware of. The same way they react to people with hand grenades and other military grade hardware today. With overwhelming force, I expect. About the same as their searches for military grade hardware. If they have reasonable suspicion somebody has weapons they are not allowed to, law enforcement has tended to have a pretty intense reaction.And remember, a person with an illegal firearm is a criminal. A criminal with a gun is a threat to cops. Cops in the US have a reputation for erring on the side of murder in such cases. Whether that's justified or not, I don't think a cop will turn a blind eye to someone with illegally held weaponry. Yes. I advocate a UK based system. This is not a total gun ban, but his heavily restricted. I doubt this is realistic for the USA today. As such, I advocate a handgun ban first. If we assume the 2nd Amendment must stay in place then I think a UK based system may not be feasible - but I see no reason why the USA can't institute laws that limit firearm ownership to weapons like non-repeating double-barelled shotguns. Weapons which can be used in domestic hunting and home defence. Other weapons would be allowed, but only to certain people in certain contexts (game hunters, farmers, off duty police officers etc).I'm not sure this is optimal, personally - but I think it'd still fall within the remit of the 2nd amendment as people would still have access to better weapons than the founding fathers envisioned. I'd be happy if only 0.6% of the US population were using firearms per year.

What a red herring of a response. The gun nuts are not hunters or collectors or homesteaders. The gun nuts are people like Jon and Cat Sci and Jar who think they're safer with guns than without, and even worse, that they almost have godlike powers of reliability, detection, reaction and discernment. Put a gun in some people's hands and suddenly they're Superman. You're a gun nut if you share these attitudes, not because you're a hunter, collector or homesteader.--Percy

Yeah, sure. If you really had no worries you wouldn't carry. I did read what you wrote - I quoted you above, and I'll quote you again here. You carry because you believe guns make you safer, that "Guns pose no threat to me." You believe "the threat of mishandling or misuse of my guns really is zero." If you don't want it pointed out how laughably ludicrous and naive those statements are then don't make them.You and Jon and Cat Sci and Faith are normal human beings, not supermen and superwomen. Guns are a threat to everyone in their vicinity, and nothing can change that. Guns are more dangerous in some people's hands than other's, but there's no one with such superhuman powers that they can handle a gun safely always everywhere.--Percy

Sure, I understand all that. Your description applies to the folks who live in my rural village area with a long hunting tradition. Accidents are rare; deliberate shootings are few. But we part company here. The tens of thousands of Americans killed by guns each year do not constitute a "big media flap"--it is an authentic national crisis.Moreover, while our acquaintances in our respective communities may find gun violence alien, it is not alien to rural America in general. The highest rates of gun murder are found almost exclusively in the more rural, conservative states of the south and west. It isn't just a big city plaque defined by gangs and hoodlums; it's everywhere, and, apparently, particularly bad where gun control is resented most.By the way, small-town Connecticut (Newtown) and Oregon aren't high crime areas. Beware of justifications that involve the word 'always'; also beware characterizing a national political discussion in the terms of present personal discussions. Let me add that gun critics turn to "cultural analysis" when pro-gun folks insist nothing can be done.And I think you need to inspect the rhetoric of your side a bit more closely.Perhaps you'll notice those who insist that assault weapons with huge magazines containing armor-piercing rounds--"cop killers"--must not be banned because of the 2nd Amendment; that "high crime areas" must not be allowed to ban the cheap handguns that do worsen urban violence, because of the 2nd Amendment--I guess local control is good until you're not in control; that background checks violate the 2nd Amendment; that open carry permits should be universally valid, wherever they go, regardless of the local will; that "Your dead kids don't trump my 2nd Amendment rights."There is no confusion about the statistics: the plethora of guns in the U.S. produces an avalanche of death, many of them in places that are supposedly harbors of safe gun ownership. That's a fact, even if some find it offensive: that fact is fundamental to the push to have reasonable gun regulation.There is no push to eliminate responsible gun ownership: could you point to some organized effort to do so? The strident rhetoric comes mainly from the pro-gun camp, led by the NRA, arguing that any regulation of firearms is a scum-sucking liberal plot to disarm them so that they can be herded into government camps. Democrats for the most part have refused for a decade to campaign on the issue, because it's a loser: not because their propositions are unreasonable or unconstitutional, but because any proposed gun regulation is national electoral suicide.Our present background check laws include a "three-day" provision: if the background check cannot be completed in three days, the recently discharged psychopathic felon gets his gun anyway, right now. That was lobbied for ardently by the NRA and others. It is difficult to accept as rational the mind that finds that preferable to keeping guns out of psychopathic felons' hands. The CDC is prevented by Congress from studying gun deaths, because in the 1990s the CDC found that having a gun in the house made the folks who lived there three times as likely to become homicide victims. Shoot the messenger, squared...Your position is that the status quo bloodbath cannot be addressed because liberals put good gun people on the defensive; indeed, it's the liberals who are "totally irresponsible" because they persist in pressing for effective background checks and the reasonable regulation of high-powered ordnance. I think that's pretty high-school lame and shockingly cold-blooded on their part, but okay; hurt feelings, dead kids, we're even.But that will change. If your friends want to continue enjoying responsible gun ownership, they might want to admit that many gun owners are not responsible, and support reasonable laws to address the problem. Opinion shifts quickly in the pendular U.S. body politic, opinion drives politics and court appointments, and ultimately determines what the 2nd Amendment means. A future polity may decide that, say, 50,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 gun deaths are too many--whatever the 2nd Amendment originally meant, it can be changed. If we continue on this trajectory, it will be.So is there an upper limit to the death toll that you are willing to accept before you see a need for change?

Actually I don't mind at all when you make absolutely laughable ludicrous and naive statements. If you do not want me to point those out, then don't make them.There really is no threat of misusing or mishandling my guns. I actually understand just how dangerous they are and so do not misuse or mishandle my guns. For over a half century no one has been harmed by my guns.

Really? You're going to ignore the argument and play games? You *did* say you carry because "Guns pose no threat to me," and you *did* say "the threat of mishandling or misuse of my guns really is zero." Those statements are ludicrous and naive. They're self-evidently wrong unless you have superhuman powers. Repeating your rebutted arguments unchanged? That's your response? Really?The argument you didn't respond to is that you do not have superhuman powers that enable you to handle guns safely always everywhere. Reasserting, in essence, that you do too have superhuman powers is absurd. Either give an answer that's not ludicrous, or get off the thread and stop wasting people's time. It shouldn't have to be explained that you can't use single data points or anecdotal data. There are old people out there saying things like, "I've smoked all my life and now I'm 90, so smoking isn't dangerous," so why don't you take up smoking. They've got as much evidence that smoking is safe as you do that some people could never misuse or mishandle your guns.No one can make you make sense or respond constructively - you have to handle that part yourself.--Percy