Guns In America

a reply to: MPI80

you should lurk less and type more.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: AntiTrump

While not truly an anti-gun liberal, I will share that I think the statistics over the past 4 decades supports getting firearms out of the hands of most americans. I grew up on US Army bases around the world. Most, not all and I'll get to that, were kept in armories. My father, an officer, kept his sidearm at home, in a gun safe that I never even knew where it was and it was only taken out when he was officer of the day and required to wear one. That's two points 1) verifiable statistics and 2) how the military handles firearms under their purview.

Now to the Responsible Gun Owner trope. I know several gun owners that are very responsible in storing and maintaining their 'arsenal' however few of those practice their 'skill' regularly on a range (and I mean weekly). This ain't the movies folks - if you don't practice you don't hit what you are aiming at which isn't so good for 'sefl-protection' (maybe that's why gun enthusiasts prefer semi or full auto weapons, a simple lack of skill).

Now to a point that includes hunters in it. I have no trouble with hunting per se (see the semi/full auto remark above) so let's get to the 'responsibility' issue once again. Why is no liability insurance required on all weapons for damage to life and property like is required for our home, our vehicles and our professions?

A nationwide insurance mandate (nasty word that - I'll say again mandate) would begin to draw down the sheer number of firearms in the hands of 'responsible' people. Yes, I know you will say that criminals and other less than responsible citizens, will not comply which further argues against the "responsible gun owner' trope. Prove that you are responsible and have thought through your ownership.

It is a shame that there are more weapons designed to kill people in the hands of americans then there are citizens. And those weapons are in only 40% of households.

Think on this.

Like you, I grew up in a military family and had the exact same experience. Like you, I'm not anti-gun... but I do have a problem with some aspects of the gun culture. And I'm also liberal (as we all know.)

It strikes me that we're talking about two different kinds of homicide and injury here - acts that are directed against a single target (person or family) and acts that are directed against a lot of people (mass shootings.) An example here in Texas is this story of a woman shot and killed by an abusive husband versus the Uvalde Texas shooting and it highlights how different the situations are.

One was from a known offender, where "red flag" laws can help stop them (yes, in some cases it's overreach. However... in many cases it's not.) In other cases (mass shooting) there aren't many laws that could prevent this, and some of the ones that could have in the past were taken off the books by lawmakers.

I'm a fan of "treat them like cars" - NATIONAL licensing (state licensing is... all over the place), insurance, and safety training (some parents who have had family members shot by toddlers who found guns clearly didn't have any safety training or common sense).

It won't, of course, solve the problem entirely because sometimes guns are used as a political statement (to start a "race war" as an example) so the truth is there's no easy answer. Community programs may or may not help in a situation like this.

So... (going Full Metal Academic here) what you see is called a "wicked problem" - a "problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize"

Looked at as a "wicked problem" you can recognize that there's actually no solution. You can make a situation better or you can make it worse but you're not going to be able to solve it. What works for one area won't work for another area.

So maybe the real approach is something like "women are often shot to death by husbands who are legal gun owners with no criminal history. How do we reduce this statistic?" or "what can we do to reduce the number of family killings by family members?" Look at small chunks of the problem and see how it can be addressed.

You can own a vehivle on your own property / farm / ranch, and never drive off your land, and you don’t need the license / insurance / etc.
Just like with a gun.
Sometimes I think you guys don’t even try to learn anything about what you’re screaming about.
And yet another military expert who never served a minute.
I don’t think the “military brat” version of gun expert consultant, is as big a segment as you seem to think it is.
Virtually everything in your post is minuscule minutiae issues. How about we discuss and address the massive issues of rampant, get out of jail free crime, and rampant mental illness, first ?

a reply to: MPI80

Don't lurk anymore.

That was well said, and well written.

Welcome to ATS!! Hopefully, you'll find it fruitful.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

No need for compromise. It's constitutional to have whatever gun you want.

Until the current laws on the books are enforced and people truly go after criminals and stop mentally ill people from getting weapons, there will never be a compromise.

Go after the actual issue and stop trying to normalize mental illness.

originally posted by: seagull

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

I'll give it a shot. See what I did there?

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

If too many of them were to get their way? None. As that would somehow, magically, make all the bad things go away.

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

Oddly enough, the same answer as above, though for completely differing reasons. None. Why should I, my guns, regardless of type, have harmed no one, God forbid, I ever have to use them to do so.

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .

A federal stamp, eh? To make confiscation easier. Yeah, no. Again, you're attempting to make it more difficult for people who've done nothing wrong--and likely, never will. Why, so some corrupted politician can beat his breast claiming to have saved the Universe as we know it? Again, no.

Shall not be infringed.

If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.

Oh, and they're not already headed in that direction?? Red Flag Laws ring a bell?? Those have already cost innocents their lives.

I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

I know people who hunt with their "tactical" rifles. ...and just out of curiosity, what the devil is a "tactical rifle"? My Savage 30-30 bolt action is a "tactical rifle" under certain circumstances--as I can reach out and touch a target at several hundred yards...is that "tactical"? Or is it just those scary, scary black rifles??

I'm looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

No you're not. It's always the same, those of us who support, without restriction, the 2nd amendment are always the ones who "should compromise", never the Anti-2nd folks.

So, no. NO compromise. You want 'em, come get 'em. Just pack a lunch, it's gonna be a long day.

They literally know nothing about the topic, and do nothing but recycle scary words and images that have no rational or consistent meaning.
And offer nothing but lame, disjointed, uninformed “ideas” that could never work in real, adult life.
But hoo boy, can they ever make noise and roll out their little narcissist bluster.
Classic democrat lefty approach.

a reply to: stevieray

Something you, and to a degree, I need to realize, and always bear in mind, is that the Republican righties would do exactly the same if it suited their purposes.

I trust none of them to have my best interests at heart. None of my rights, much less my second amendment rights, are safe from political expedience.

A politician is by his/her very nature a treacherous beast, not to be trusted out of earshot, or sight.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
People should only be allowed the same guns as people had when the 2nd came into force.

Think I'd better add I'm only joking before people get angry.

Giant canons. Count me in.

Haha, I can just imagine that.

Bunch of old boys cruising round with a big cannon mounted in the back of their pick up.

NO COMPROMISE
That's why the 2nd is so high on the priority list

Why don't we just making using guns during the commission of a crime against the law??????

FWIT I carry almost daily, am licensed in 6 states and live in one of the bluest gun hating states, so I have spent $$$ obtaining my pieces of paper!

I also practice with laser cartridges a couple of days every week so my proficiency is pretty darn good

Compromise you say?

NOPE....NOPE....NOPE

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
People should only be allowed the same guns as people had when the 2nd came into force.

Think I'd better add I'm only joking before people get angry.

Giant canons. Count me in.

Haha, I can just imagine that.

Bunch of old boys cruising round with a big cannon mounted in the back of their pick up.

Back? think bigger. Dual cannons on the front. and a general lee horn.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: MPI80

Don't lurk anymore.

That was well said, and well written.

Welcome to ATS!! Hopefully, you'll find it fruitful.

I hope he/she was thrown some applause along with an explanation of what it's about.
That was a refreshingly adult post.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: stevieray

Something you, and to a degree, I need to realize, and always bear in mind, is that the Republican righties would do exactly the same if it suited their purposes.

I trust none of them to have my best interests at heart. None of my rights, much less my second amendment rights, are safe from political expedience.

A politician is by his/her very nature a treacherous beast, not to be trusted out of earshot, or sight.

but here we have others to remind us of how virtuously we spoke of the Constitution and how important it is to follow and protect it. I need reminding from time to time, when my argument falls short of my past posting.

I expect opera laughs from DB when that happens.

a reply to: Byrd

I'd like to know your opinion of MP180's post directly above yours (as a fellow brat).

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
People should only be allowed the same guns as people had when the 2nd came into force.

Think I'd better add I'm only joking before people get angry.

Giant canons. Count me in.

Haha, I can just imagine that.

Bunch of old boys cruising round with a big cannon mounted in the back of their pick up.

Back? think bigger. Dual cannons on the front. and a general lee horn.

You can definitely own one. Mobile, I’m not sure. Save room for the truck bed 50 cal Rat Patrol gun.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: stevieray

Something you, and to a degree, I need to realize, and always bear in mind, is that the Republican righties would do exactly the same if it suited their purposes.

I trust none of them to have my best interests at heart. None of my rights, much less my second amendment rights, are safe from political expedience.

A politician is by his/her very nature a treacherous beast, not to be trusted out of earshot, or sight.

but here we have others to remind us of how virtuously we spoke of the Constitution and how important it is to follow and protect it. I need reminding from time to time, when my argument falls short of my past posting.

I expect opera laughs from DB when that happens.

The US constitution is essentially a primer on how to keep the govt as small and non-abusive as possible.
Private Weapons is the most important right in that context.
No other country has accomplished this, even those who claim to have a constitution, or to be a republic / democracy. All BS, every one of them. You thought Canada and UK had freedoms, eh ?
We just watched them lose their freedom of speech and assembly in the last year or two.
Biden and co are working hard to do the same. Working that “whatever you said was insurrection, terrorism, hate, and threats”.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That's why I mentioned enforcing existing laws. As there clearly is many people getting away with trafficking guns.

a reply to: Turquosie

Just out of curiosity, how do you define trafficking??

If I buy 3 or 4 guns from my neighbor, who for whatever reason is getting rid of them, is he trafficking in your opinion..?

a reply to: seagull

Obviously not, trafficking meaning selling to known criminals in this case. Which, we may have to make private sales involve further regulations to prevent. I'm all for being able to sell and buy guns but clearly there is A LOT of wiggle room allowing non-criminals to buy multiple guns and traffick them to criminals. And whatever we're doing is not working that well to prevent this.

a reply to: Turquosie

Project Gunrunner
Operation Fast and Furious
7 Billion worth of weaponry left in Afganistan.
Arming Ukraine.


I dont think youve an argument here.

a reply to: JinMI

No doubt the federal government has its own weapon trafficking issues. But thats a bit of a differn't discussion.

Why is it so hard to discuss possible gun law reforms and enforcement? Especially when I don't want to restrict law abiding citizens from having guns. There just is no reason to own hundreds of guns that go unchecked.