We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[sk_tle]

Why aren't law abiding citizen allowed to own nuclear missiles ? That's a clear breach of their 2nd amendment and civil liberty rights.

[theflashunc]

last try here... we do hold car companies when their autos designs and implementations fail and kill people (especially when the companies are aware of the problem). we do NOT hold car companies accountable when individuals behind the wheel (& who purchased the car on their own) go crazy and use the car as a weapon, or drink and drive, or speed recklessly. please tell me you see the difference here.

when guns as a tool fail and don't go boom properly, gun companies are held accountable. guns aren't generally defective...people are. please, please tell me you see this difference.

I see the difference. And we also held tobacco companies to account when they knew for years that their product killed people, and did nothing to curb it's use. The states won over by suing to recoup the healthcare costs for people affected by use of the product. See any parallels there with, I dunno, spree shooting victims?

Drop a few civil suits with discovery on any major assault rifle manufacturer in the US and I guarantee you'll find material as incriminating as what came out of the tobacco industry investigations.

And how is it misuse? Firing an AR-15 rapidly into a bunch of targets is literally what it's designed for. The targets just happen to be human beings. What else is an AR-15 designed for? Picking squirrels off the fence post?

[Colinmclelland]

I'll give you an approximation of the original reason.
Standing Armies were seen as threat to liberty, think military coups.
A citizen militia, being under local control was harder for a would be despot or cabal to use
compared to a standing army paid for by the central government.
Standing armies were also a drain on the treasury.
" a well regulated militia " is an 18th century term for an locally controlled organized trained military unit,
a military version of the volunteer fire department.

Except...outside the US....it's 2019.

And civil liberties? I suck up the oppression of my civil liberties twice a day when i put on my legally compulsory bicycle helmet, despite the havoc it creates with my hair. But again, in the rest of the world they wear seat belts in cars. Civil liberties are less important than not flying through the windscreen if you crash. I think civil liberties are less important than not getting shot. Again, the US has an obsession with civil liberties and the constitution that seems weird to me as a non-US citizen.

It's not that i don't appreciate the sacrifices and struggles of people before me for my current rights. But they are my current rights. Yes, i take them for granted. It's 2019...it would be rude not to.

Going to the moon took decades of consistent, national effort with public support. Getting any class of firearms out of society will take no less commitment and effort. Consistent, long term application of big sticks, big carrots, public relations, education, etc is the only way. Or capitulate and know that things will only get worse as environmental and societal stressors are exacerbated, as we see them doing.

Why is that the case in the US? The UK didn't find it hard. Wasn't hard in Australia. It's working in NZ now. I'm sure crooks hold on to theirs. It doesn't matter. It's a policy that works despite that. Gun deaths go down. They just do. You don't have to get guns out of society, you just have to make them uncommon.

tax the ammo much more than guns. Collectors can still keep their precious toys.

I like the taxation argument, but i suspect it would end up like Greece, where Google Earth shows swimming pools everywhere, but for taxation purposes almost no one has a swimming pool. Taxing the bejesus out of ammunition would be much easier to implement too.

[BBB]

Yes it is 2019. And this is the confusing part to the whole rights argument. People are standing on their rights to bear arms, via a constitutional amendment, in circumstances where the rationale for that right went out the window a very long time ago. There is a standing army paid for by the federal government (a quite sizable one in fact) and a navy and air force. Not to mention various intelligence organisations. What the hell is a well regulated militia, noting there is not such a thing in any event (setting aside a few flag waving survialist nuts worried about a black President and a new world order or some demented BS like that), actually going to do in the face of overwhelming force? The logic behind the right is dead and buried. If the very thing under pinning the right is gone, then get rid of the right. The right is the only thing standing in the way of protecting people from harm (somewhat ironically).

Remove the majority of guns from circulation and licence the remainder for those things people profess a love of doing (target shooting, hunting etc). We don't have a right to bear arms in Australia, but people still have guns for sport shooting, hunting, farming etc and the right to have those guns is heavily regulated. Just because you don't have a right doesn't mean you can't own a gun.

But, none of this will happen and people will keep being shot.

[ron l edmiston]

-- you can tax, make it a crime or wtf.., but until mega money is held accountable for the destruction they create / change mind-set for "my constitutional right and self-preservation:
pounding sand down a rat hole is sooo more effective...

-- aginst the fuc-ing law period... to own a weapon of mass-destruction for any reason... no way to rationalize a reason..
i read all the above and again ask, "have you ever seen the rain or been wet," i have...

ronnie been there done that

[jclay]

jclay...just to clarify...i'm in agreement with you 100% in terms of the planet and environment being a key issue going forward....snipped....but the devil is in the details as to who decides, when, and how much.

I am happy to have misunderstood the intent of your Q.

Why is that the case in the US? The UK didn't find it hard. Wasn't hard in Australia. It's working in NZ now. I'm sure crooks hold on to theirs. It doesn't matter. It's a policy that works despite that. Gun deaths go down. They just do. You don't have to get guns out of society, you just have to make them uncommon.

Why the case here? In a very abridged nutshell, The Marlboro Man and a rapidly changing world.

Expanding a very little bit: The individualistic Frontier Mentality that is still very much alive in the US. The notion that individuals should be able to do pretty much anything they want regardless of the cost to the society. And fear, chiefly (and ironically) found largely in white, males who's position of social and economic primacy is being challenged by a rapidly changing society; competition from women and non-whites, loss of blue collar jobs, an increasing concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller percentage of society; that sort of thing. We're a gun-centric society and the messages start getting absorbed at a very young age. Having a “kick ass” firearm gives a lot of folks a sense of power. Obama hit the nail on the head when he made this comment: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Politically it was an unfortunate move but absolutely spot on.

Surely there's a sociology professor on the list that could provide a better summary but those are among the foundational elements. It's insanity of course, but no less real.

[Doug Fattic]

I think there is a good chance there will be an increase in gun control laws. Eventually. There just needs to be enough people to support the idea. It is a numbers game. The NRA created a very extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment with accompanying arguments but their rein can only continue if enough people agree. They don’t need a majority to maintain control as Republicans are masters of that. But as some point there will be a tipping point when a sustaining majority of people will see the connection between the almost unlimited sales of a weapon designed to kill as many people as fast as possible and a bunch of people actually getting killed quickly. Getting better gun control laws requires voting out Republicans in congress – especially those in the Senate. That may be a challenge but not an impossibility.

[mnoble485]

-- you can tax, make it a crime or wtf.., but until mega money is held accountable for the destruction they create / change mind-set for "my constitutional right and self-preservation:
pounding sand down a rat hole is sooo more effective...

-- aginst the fuc-ing law period... to own a weapon of mass-destruction for any reason... no way to rationalize a reason..
i read all the above and again ask, "have you ever seen the rain or been wet," i have...

ronnie been there done that

So it took over 200 posts for someone (thanks Ronnie) to call these what they are. If we all start calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction and not sporting goods, toys or hunting weapons we might get to a solution. Sorry, but that's what they are.

Mike

[e-RICHIE]

-- you can tax, make it a crime or wtf.., but until mega money is held accountable for the destruction they create / change mind-set for "my constitutional right and self-preservation:
pounding sand down a rat hole is sooo more effective...

-- aginst the fuc-ing law period... to own a weapon of mass-destruction for any reason... no way to rationalize a reason..
i read all the above and again ask, "have you ever seen the rain or been wet," i have...

ronnie been there done that

Thank you Ronnie.

[mzilliox]

Yes it is 2019. And this is the confusing part to the whole rights argument. People are standing on their rights to bear arms, via a constitutional amendment, in circumstances where the rationale for that right went out the window a very long time ago. There is a standing army paid for by the federal government (a quite sizable one in fact) and a navy and air force. Not to mention various intelligence organisations. What the hell is a well regulated militia, noting there is not such a thing in any event (setting aside a few flag waving survialist nuts worried about a black President and a new world order or some demented BS like that), actually going to do in the face of overwhelming force? The logic behind the right is dead and buried. If the very thing under pinning the right is gone, then get rid of the right. The right is the only thing standing in the way of protecting people from harm (somewhat ironically).

Remove the majority of guns from circulation and licence the remainder for those things people profess a love of doing (target shooting, hunting etc). We don't have a right to bear arms in Australia, but people still have guns for sport shooting, hunting, farming etc and the right to have those guns is heavily regulated. Just because you don't have a right doesn't mean you can't own a gun.

But, none of this will happen and people will keep being shot.

this. we are so weird here, and we make mad excuses for our weirdness. its becoming downright silly hearing fools try to hold onto reasons for their weapons fetishes.
so much fantasy, so much bluster, not so much reason. lots of good talking points in here. lots of folks eloquently saying the bullshit i try to say. if i didnt know better, its almost like the majority of Americans dont own guns or like them or support their overuse. so a strong minority with lots of bluster is keeping this thing alive. why? so you can target shoot and brag to your buddies how long your rifle is? as i write this, a neighbor shoots his guns, a sure sign of freedom if ever there was one, now where is my silence? i move to the country so i didnt have to hear people.

[monadnocky]

Regarding 2A, why is it that the well regulated part is completely overlooked by 2A folks? It's pretty clear. It's right there.

[mzilliox]

last try here... we do hold car companies when their autos designs and implementations fail and kill people (especially when the companies are aware of the problem). we do NOT hold car companies accountable when individuals behind the wheel (& who purchased the car on their own) go crazy and use the car as a weapon, or drink and drive, or speed recklessly. please tell me you see the difference here.

when guns as a tool fail and don't go boom properly, gun companies are held accountable. guns aren't generally defective...people are. please, please tell me you see this difference.

so you say people are generally defective, but you still think we should give them guns, more easily than cars? great idea. why is this the right so many folks hold onto? why dont people use their right to grow their own food, or any of the other things that would make a person much more free from the external world. its not freedom folks care about, its their toys, and somebody telling them what toys they can or cannot have.

why is this the right folks care so much more about? why?
makes perfect sense.

[vertical_doug]

Even if you don't explicitly ban assault weapons, whether background checks , red flag laws etc, will result in a reduction in gun related deaths just from preventing some suicides. From a fatality point of view, assault weapons and mass shootings are only a small part of the problem and to get hung up on assault weapons, we may miss an opportunity to make some real headway versus gun related deaths.

[TTX1]

Short of owning a pistol for the shooting range, or a shotgun for hunting (neither of which I'd ever do), what reason is there to own a military or assault or automatic weapon? Is it the second amendment thing at work? Once it's explained to me maybe then I can walk to the table.

Here's what I've observed.

I attended a small liberal arts college in VT. Students were largely elite, in one way or another. Meanwhile, the people in town largely ate what they could kill, in one way or another. The two groups coexisted in close proximity and some degree of interdependency, like most small college towns.

As a kid in Central MA, I grew up near firearms, so guns were not unfamiliar to me upon arrival at school. As a financial aid student, one of my jobs was working the graveyard shift in the campus security booth, so more proximity to guns and familiarity with people who carry every day, etc.

This is just context.

To your question...

I knew a guy at school who had an extraordinary collection of vintage rifles. One-of-a-kind Civil War era black powder stuff. He invited me to the hills to fire off these noise makers and put holes in coffee cans, and I came away feeling lucky I didn't lose a finger, hand, or arm. Why did he need any of these old rifles? I guess it's the same question for a guy who has a Sachs, a Weigle, a Bayliss, etc. It simply becomes an interest, a fascination, a hobby, a compulsion. It seems harmless enough, but does anyone really *NEED* any of these bikes in the first place? Granted, the bikes are unlikely weapons, but the impulse to collect is similar.

I knew another guy who transferred to my school from UVM where he had been president of the Young Republicans. He was a great wit, and more of an adult than a lot of others on campus. I enjoyed his company, and our girlfriends were friends. He invited me to the range when his new handgun arrived. Nothing fancy, might have been a Glock? Had a magazine. In any case, after taking my turn I asked him - "Is it legal to keep this on campus" and he gave me the old raised eyebrow. "Dude, I've got like 10 of these in my room. Don't tell anyone, ok?" Fabulous. If this guy was a cyclist, he wasn't collecting esoteric steel frames - he was stockpiling Taiwanese plastic. It was like he had a Trek, Specialized, Giant, Cannondale... maybe a Diamondback and a Raleigh for good measure. Just a whole collection of contemporary handguns. "Why so many?" A: "How many wrenches are in your dad's toolbox?" I won't go into details here, but suffice to say a new policy was quickly formalized re: on-campus registration and storage of pew-pew devices and no one was injured or insulted or exposed in the process...

So why does anyone need an AR? Why does anyone *need* a Bruce Gordon frame? To the person who wants one, it's just a bit nicer, or better, or different, than whatever they have now. They envision that it will work just right at some time and place they hope to visit. "I need to fit 32s" = "I need semi auto" in the mind of a gun lover. Every one else is running 32s, I want to try it too. Everyone else is just a little bit more comfy on the downhill, I want that too. My current ride won't fit 32s, so I need a new frame that will... The other guy at the range can land a nice cluster at 100 yards, I need that too. Never mind putting in more miles, more practice, I want to buy satisfaction now. You know this guy. Slippery slope, next thing you know the spare bedroom is full of bikes. Or guns. Including ARs.

And the opportunity to customize guns is even greater than it is with bikes. Handles, sights, endless mods, on and on and on...

ARs are like snow bikes with, like 4" tires. They do something that other bikes don't do. So of course, some people want them.

Now if someone posted that Chuck and Nancy were seriously advancing legislation to limit the number of bikes one person can own, or the tire capacity of a frame, we'd all say "that's preposterous - I can do whatever I want! I can own as many bikes as I want! This is America, and you cannot infringe on my god-given right to happiness. And bikes are happiness, dammit!"

And that's pretty much where we are at with automatic and semi-automatic guns and firearms in general. The N+1 mindset may actually be stronger for gun types...

Happiness, for a lot of folks, is a warm gun. Bang bang, shoot shoot.

The moral of the story: this has nothing to do with rational behavior.

As Ronnie and others have rightly, rationally, fairly stated: No one really needs an AR, or whatever.

Gun nuts will make a range of arguments, from personal safety to preparing for Armageddon. The more discrete gun nuts don't post, they keep their position quiet - because the Feds are reading this board right now and planning to come take their collection away! etc. etc. Some powerful and insidious forces have convinced a lot of people that their PERCEIVED 2A right is worth an awful lot.

Looking forward, if we can unbundle the knee-jerk reaction to background checks and some very limited restrictions on new purchases, we can make an incremental change for the better in this country. A majority of gun owners agree with this position. I also like the tax on ammo idea, too - use it to create a fund to deal with the liability. Run it like the Truth campaign after the big tobacco settlement.

Glad to say, I also have friends and acquaintances, who I have accompanied to the range or the rifle club, who have turned a page and started to downsize. "I really didn't need the 1917. I never shoot it, it's no use around the house, I don't want it around my kids - It was interesting to own, but now I want it gone..." etc. etc. Exactly like some guys we know who achieve peak bike ownership... the personal pendulum swings both ways, especially for those who can take a long look in the mirror every now and then.

In closing... Dear gun friends: No one is coming for your guns. Chill on the rhetoric. Take a long look in the mirror. Do the patriotic thing and take a leadership position in your community toward responsible gun ownership. The NRA could have been unstoppable if they had adopted this stance in the first place. But instead the NRA took the unsustainable, indefensible position of "guns for anyone and everyone without limit" - and it is rapidly becoming obvious to nation at large that this is folly.

[dgaddis]

In closing... Dear gun friends: No one is coming for your guns. Chill on the rhetoric.

The leading Democratic Presidential Candidate wants to outlaw the ownership of 'assault weapons'...however that's defined.



He also seems to want to require fingerprint scan technology on all new guns, which many people don't want.

[TTX1]

The leading Democratic Presidential Candidate wants to outlaw the ownership of 'assault weapons'...however that's defined.



He also seems to want to require fingerprint scan technology on all new guns, which many people don't want.

Respectfully, "whataboutism" isn't a useful position.

It's a lot easier for all of us to say what we don't agree with than to prescribe what should be done.

Care to take a shot at the latter option?

In regard to Biden. He's a politician. He's happy to test this position at this point in the campaign and adapt later. In any case - What does his position have to do with what I posted?

[e-RICHIE]

The comparisons and veers to other things (my bicycles, meals at The French Laundry, a shirt from Jermyn Street,) are fine. At this point I expect them as a counterpoint. So my question for these people with the antique firearms all the way up to those who collect WMD's might be better phrased by asking, why do you need the bullets?

Here's what I've observed.

I attended a small liberal arts college in VT. Students were largely elite, in one way or another. Meanwhile, the people in town largely ate what they could kill, in one way or another. The two groups coexisted in close proximity and some degree of interdependency, like most small college towns.

As a kid in Central MA, I grew up near firearms, so guns were not unfamiliar to me upon arrival at school. As a financial aid student, one of my jobs was working the graveyard shift in the campus security booth, so more proximity to guns and familiarity with people who carry every day, etc.

This is just context.

To your question...

I knew a guy at school who had an extraordinary collection of vintage rifles. One-of-a-kind Civil War era black powder stuff. He invited me to the hills to fire off these noise makers and put holes in coffee cans, and I came away feeling lucky I didn't lose a finger, hand, or arm. Why did he need any of these old rifles? I guess it's the same question for a guy who has a Sachs, a Weigle, a Bayliss, etc. It simply becomes an interest, a fascination, a hobby, a compulsion. It seems harmless enough, but does anyone really *NEED* any of these bikes in the first place? Granted, the bikes are unlikely weapons, but the impulse to collect is similar.

I knew another guy who transferred to my school from UVM where he had been president of the Young Republicans. He was a great wit, and more of an adult than a lot of others on campus. I enjoyed his company, and our girlfriends were friends. He invited me to the range when his new handgun arrived. Nothing fancy, might have been a Glock? Had a magazine. In any case, after taking my turn I asked him - "Is it legal to keep this on campus" and he gave me the old raised eyebrow. "Dude, I've got like 10 of these in my room. Don't tell anyone, ok?" Fabulous. If this guy was a cyclist, he wasn't collecting esoteric steel frames - he was stockpiling Taiwanese plastic. It was like he had a Trek, Specialized, Giant, Cannondale... maybe a Diamondback and a Raleigh for good measure. Just a whole collection of contemporary handguns. "Why so many?" A: "How many wrenches are in your dad's toolbox?" I won't go into details here, but suffice to say a new policy was quickly formalized re: on-campus registration and storage of pew-pew devices and no one was injured or insulted or exposed in the process...

So why does anyone need an AR? Why does anyone *need* a Bruce Gordon frame? To the person who wants one, it's just a bit nicer, or better, or different, than whatever they have now. They envision that it will work just right at some time and place they hope to visit. "I need to fit 32s" = "I need semi auto" in the mind of a gun lover. Every one else is running 32s, I want to try it too. Everyone else is just a little bit more comfy on the downhill, I want that too. My current ride won't fit 32s, so I need a new frame that will... The other guy at the range can land a nice cluster at 100 yards, I need that too. Never mind putting in more miles, more practice, I want to buy satisfaction now. You know this guy. Slippery slope, next thing you know the spare bedroom is full of bikes. Or guns. Including ARs.

And the opportunity to customize guns is even greater than it is with bikes. Handles, sights, endless mods, on and on and on...

ARs are like snow bikes with, like 4" tires. They do something that other bikes don't do. So of course, some people want them.

Now if someone posted that Chuck and Nancy were seriously advancing legislation to limit the number of bikes one person can own, or the tire capacity of a frame, we'd all say "that's preposterous - I can do whatever I want! I can own as many bikes as I want! This is America, and you cannot infringe on my god-given right to happiness. And bikes are happiness, dammit!"

And that's pretty much where we are at with automatic and semi-automatic guns and firearms in general. The N+1 mindset may actually be stronger for gun types...

Happiness, for a lot of folks, is a warm gun. Bang bang, shoot shoot.

The moral of the story: this has nothing to do with rational behavior.

As Ronnie and others have rightly, rationally, fairly stated: No one really needs an AR, or whatever.

Gun nuts will make a range of arguments, from personal safety to preparing for Armageddon. The more discrete gun nuts don't post, they keep their position quiet - because the Feds are reading this board right now and planning to come take their collection away! etc. etc. Some powerful and insidious forces have convinced a lot of people that their PERCEIVED 2A right is worth an awful lot.

Looking forward, if we can unbundle the knee-jerk reaction to background checks and some very limited restrictions on new purchases, we can make an incremental change for the better in this country. A majority of gun owners agree with this position. I also like the tax on ammo idea, too - use it to create a fund to deal with the liability. Run it like the Truth campaign after the big tobacco settlement.

Glad to say, I also have friends and acquaintances, who I have accompanied to the range or the rifle club, who have turned a page and started to downsize. "I really didn't need the 1917. I never shoot it, it's no use around the house, I don't want it around my kids - It was interesting to own, but now I want it gone..." etc. etc. Exactly like some guys we know who achieve peak bike ownership... the personal pendulum swings both ways, especially for those who can take a long look in the mirror every now and then.

In closing... Dear gun friends: No one is coming for your guns. Chill on the rhetoric. Take a long look in the mirror. Do the patriotic thing and take a leadership position in your community toward responsible gun ownership. The NRA could have been unstoppable if they had adopted this stance in the first place. But instead the NRA took the unsustainable, indefensible position of "guns for anyone and everyone without limit" - and it is rapidly becoming obvious to nation at large that this is folly.

[Corso]

I agree, no one needs assault type weapons except the military and police. I've fired them at ranges, and enjoyed it, but for the sake of the public, no, we don't need them.

Why do some collect firearms? Why do some collect knifes, stamps, dead butterflies or dolls?

Who knows?

But to the point: Don't blame a particular party, the President of the NRA. It's the politicians we elect to the House & Senate who make the laws.
The President doesn't, the NRA doesn't.

And NRA DOES NOT REPRESENT the average gun owner.

But If the NRA has influence via lobbying, it's our damn elected officials who take the money or are swayed.

But bottom line: voting Americans (all parties, I repeat ALL PARTIES) want them, and the politicians who want to keep their jobs follow what their voters want.

Everything else is the blame game and finger pointing.

Why aren't cigarettes banned? Same reason.

[dgaddis]

The comparisons and veers to other things (my bicycles, meals at The French Laundry, a shirt from Jermyn Street,) are fine. At this point I expect them as a counterpoint. So my question for these people with the antique firearms all the way up to those who collect WMD's might be better phrased by asking, why do you need the bullets?

Why do you need tires for your bikes?

[e-RICHIE]

Why do you need tires for your bikes?

Enjoy your firearms.
Go make noise and play pretend.
Cowboys and indians.
Or some war reenactment stuff.
I'm out of this thread.