We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[Matthew Strongin]

Unsure why you would post that as a response to what I shared moments earlier.

Incorrect quoting due to lack of sleep. Apologies, sir. I'll edit it out above.

[marley]

why did I read this post again - dumpster fire

[Blue Jays]

"...I am just skimming thru but your recent post about your racial background and trying to paint another member as insulting you and now this is an indication that you should sit back and reflect..."

Thank you for your opinion. My sense is that we should embrace a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions in the belief that as a salon we have the right to hear, and to be heard.

[moondog-sparky]

I said I don’t know you so how would I know your ethnicity. And said you weren’t a racist to boot. I said you sounded racist because of your use of a word which has been a racist dog whistle for the n word for a long time.

Sounding racist and being racist are two different things Americans have trouble separating. I advised caution on your language. I stand by it.

IMO, this is a distinction without a difference. if i were to say to my wife, "babe, you're sounding particularly b*tchy tonight...", i'm sure i'd wind up with a black eye. and rightfully so. not trying to snark here...just get very concerned when dialogue goes in this particular direction. it's like a nuclear bomb in today's culture. if the R-word even brushes by someone, that stink can linger forever...even if it simply isn't true about that person.

glad to see this thread re-opened. i rarely engage on the internet because it is generally pointless. the folks who participate here are sharp, knowledgeable, and courteous. thx for allowing me to join in.

[murphy]

IMO, this is a distinction without a difference. if i were to say to my wife, "babe, you're sounding particularly b*tchy tonight...", i'm sure i'd wind up with a black eye. and rightfully so. not trying to snark here...just get very concerned when dialogue goes in this particular direction. it's like a nuclear bomb in today's culture. if the R-word even brushes by someone, that stink can linger forever...even if it simply isn't true about that person.

glad to see this thread re-opened. i rarely engage on the internet because it is generally pointless. the folks who participate here are sharp, knowledgeable, and courteous. thx for allowing me to join in.

I have to disagree with you that it doesn't have a difference. You could say that in our society the statements are taken as if there is no difference, but there is an important distinction there. To learn more about it, I would highly recommend you read White Fragility as it is an eye-opening book that will make you reexamine your entire set of experiences.

Edit:
Also this is not what the thread is about so we should just shut down this tangent.

[moondog-sparky]

I have to disagree with you that it doesn't have a difference. You could say that in our society the statements are taken as if there is no difference, but there is an important distinction there. To learn more about it, I would highly recommend you read White Fragility as it is an eye-opening book that will make you reexamine your entire set of experiences.

Edit:
Also this is not what the thread is about so we should just shut down this tangent.

thx for the link - will review with an open mind. and i agree regarding the tangent. thx...

[Dallas Tex]

Zombie thread........

maxresdefault.jpg

[King Of Dirk]

Here's one take, that we've steadily moved gun laws and regulations in a more lenient direction. "We" meaning our elected representatives, at the behest of the NRA and NAGR.

Frontline: How the Gun-Rights Lobby Won After Newtown

TH

Howdy friend - thanks for the input. I've noted a few points/questions you've shared with me in this thread and was sad it was locked as I hadn't properly thanked/acknowledged that yet. So, y'know, thank you man.

A few pages back you asked me what I'd propose on the regulation side. I'll answer that first and then address the "people" side later. I don't think they're mutually exclusive, as your Frontline link substantiates, but I also don't think we really get much improvement without addressing several prongs of a frustratingly complex problem (I don't mean to imply that you do), so I'm going to try to distinguish facets of the problem into boxes that may not be perfect fits...but I'm trying, and as imperfect as they come.

For the balance of this post, "you" is intended to mean "Dear Reader," not "Tee Aitch."

I think the large-capacity magazines are low-hanging fruit. Full disclosure: I had two 15-round magazines for a 9mm pistol, and I had a 30-round magazine for an AR-15 I no longer own. Here is the exhaustive list of the benefits I received from owning them: I saved about six seconds every month. If I were restricted to, arguendo, seven rounds for pistol calibers and five for rifles, the occasional hour-long visits to the range would take an hour and six seconds, I guess. As I am not in the military or law enforcement, extending time between reloads doesn't confer any benefit at all on me. So I destroyed them. They aren't illegal, but they aren't in keeping with what I believe civilians should have access to. I could have sold them or given them away, but that does nothing to alleviate the problem, in my view, of there being too many of them out there. So there are three less of them now, and I'll never buy/own another. I eventually came to the same conclusion about the AR-15, so I donated it to a law enforcement agency. Thinking about those days is part of the genesis for the question I asked about the human behavior side of the equation - I wasn't required to do any of those things, but over time I came to want to do them. Maybe e-Richie is right, and it's an enlightenment thing, but if so I'm still on the path and nowhere near the destination. And I'm not trying to hold myself out as some kind of model, I'm just telling you what I did and how I feel. I didn't want to be a hypocrite and own something I think others shouldn't own.

So limiting magazine capacity is wise, I think, but two practical problems are (i) the volume of them already out there, and (ii) the lack of serial numbers on them. The 1994 AWB banned the manufacture of any new ones, but the old ones were grandfathered in - not just for possession, but for sale. To be clear, anyone could buy a high-capacity magazine from 1994-2004, so long as it was manufactured before the AWB took effect. So if you produced ninety zillion of them in the months leading up to enactment, your only punishment was making a LOT more money since the price skyrocketed once the ban took effect. I'm sorry, I don't see the point. If the tens or hundreds of millions of these things already in circulation aren't addressed, prohibiting the manufacture of new ones is completely useless. And because they aren't traceable via serial number, tracking sales of them (retail or black market) is completely impossible. They are, to make an inelegant and imperfect analogy, the fuel for the machines. Yes, yes, I know that's better applied to the cartridges themselves, but here's what I mean: if a person is hell bent on committing a heinous act like the shooting in Las Vegas or the El Paso Walmart or Sandy Hook, he (because if there's ever been a time to eschew gender neutral language, it's while discussing this topic, sadly) will select something like an AR-15 because there is an unlimited number of magazines designed to allow that platform to discharge a lot of bullets in a short period of time. But limit the magazine and you neuter the weapon.

The more strident Second Amendment types will point to the text about the right to keep and bear arms. Fine. Keep 'em, and bear 'em. The 2A says nothing about magazines. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Heller that, while the right to bear arms in self defense is guaranteed by the Constitution, the government may regulate the use of said arms. Show me a gun rights advocate who considers Scalia to be an anti-gun raving lefty, and I'll show you someone in need of clozapine. So regulate the use by regulating the feeding mechanism. Put another way, you still get to own a Ford Escort or a Ferrari California (or indeed, a Ferrari F1 car), but it's going to be limited to 85mph. No, it doesn't stop drunk driving or magically make all road cyclists safe, but it sure as hell hinders dumb young men in their quest to act like dumb young men. When allegedly serious people introduce legislation to ban "the shoulder thing that goes up" any credibility the gun control movement had simply evaporates. That's cruel and unfair to those who work for meaningful change, so honor their legitimate and serious work by keeping idiots like that occupied with issues they understand (if any).

This solution is imperfect, y'all. It mitigates, but doesn't eliminate, the problem. I admit that. Now I want someone to admit the problem can't be eliminated. Then we can make some progress.

The gun rights advocates (like me) argue that the proposals from ignorant (on the topic, friends, not "stupid") Senators and Members of Congress would have the unintended(?) consequence of rendering many deer/hunting/sporting/target rifles illegal. By the way, for all my posturing about being a reasonable guy and a fellow solution-seeker, on this point I'd like to state that if you disagree about that, you're either incorrect or dishonest. If it's the former, let's keep talking. If it's the latter, well, don't keep wondering why your proposals keep failing. It's simply because those low-IQ deplorables are smarter than you are, and your clever schemes aren't clever, because you're unable to outwit a deplorable. Soak in that for a while.

Rather than call me names, tell me why this isn't a winning strategy: 1) proclaim, loudly and publicly, that deer rifles are fine, and will always be so; 2) configure regulations to render an AK-47 or an AR-15 functionally equivalent to (i.e. no more lethal than) a deer rifle; 3) stop finding reasons to excuse the use/possession of firearms by criminals, because there is no excuse, and enforce the laws; 4) dare those who have to-date resisted attempts to regulate firearms to defend their positions loudly and publicly; 5) enact legislation that requires an extensive background check to purchase firearms, and alerts law enforcement when a person whose possession of a firearm would be illegal attempts to make such a purchase; 6) enact legislation that requires initial and periodic practical and classroom instruction to obtain/retain possession of a firearm; 7) enact legislation making it a felony for parents to allow a minor access to a firearm which is used in the commission of a felony, and imposing a strict liability standard for civil suits brought by victims; and 8) take a page from President Obama's playbook on the ACA (televised discussion), but take it even further: instead of ill-informed partisans like, well, any network anchor, asking questions of candidates regarding these topics, why don't we have a televised debate (and not C-SPAN, I mean televised) on gun violence and proposed solutions featuring all of the Democratic candidates and some people who know this topic at least better than I do (see Number 4 above) wherein this stuff gets discussed in front of the public. Then let's have one of similar construction with President Trump. Then let's have an extra debate once the Democratic nominee is selected, between President Trump and the nominee, exclusively about this topic.

Let's walk through them, one by one:

1) They just are. And they should be. It's hard to be taken seriously if you can't admit this.
2) Start with restrictions on civilian possession of high-capacity magazines, and holographic sights. The latter because I kinda want them to require some proficiency.
3) This is a personal peeve of mine; I admit reasonable people can differ. But what are the optics of telling tens of millions of people that you'd like to make what they own illegal while telling them some laws shouldn't always be enforced against people who are indisputably guilty of felonies? If you were forced to stand in their shoes, can you at least imagine whey they find you disingenuous? Can you at least imagine why they think that, even if you find a way to pass laws curtailing their rights, you don't have the stones to enforce them? Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
4) Put people like John Lott, Dana Loesch, Grover Norquist, and Chris Cox on stage (preferably in conjunction with Number 8 below) with well-informed gun control advocates, and let's hear everyone out.
5) I have a surprise for you on this one. This was a done deal, until Republicans added a provision that included those in the United States illegally to the list of those whose - illegal - attempt to purchase a firearm would result in an alert to law enforcement. Apparently the Democrats are really serious about curtailing gun crimes committed by American citizens, but that's it. I'd say I don't know why, but c'mon...we all know why: saving human life is a lower priority than playing the race card against Republicans in 2020. Meet new boss, same as old boss.
6) No brainer, in my opinion. Others have noted here the licensing requirements for motor vehicles and other potentially dangerous items. Still others have conveyed concern about the lax attention to inconsiderate shooters at public ranges, and the offending shooter's corresponding lack of concern for the safety of others. Training, training, training... Pay for the licensing agency's creation and operation with a 300% tax on ammunition.
7) Want a gun? Lock the damn thing in a safe. Problem solved. Somehow I think a kid drowning in a backyard pool would result in more severe legal and financial consequences for a parent than if Little Johnny shot Little Stacy with Dad's .38. That seems odd.
8) If this issue is not an epidemic, let's stop talking about it and get back to important things like who got a rose on The Bachelorette. If it is an epidemic, let's allocate a substantial amount of time to forcing those who think they are capable of serving us to discuss the topic at length. Soundbites aren't policy.

It's a start. Just a start.

[murphy]

For the most part I agree with everything you just proposed. I would like to ask how you would feel about limiting muzzle velocity of said rifles (deer, AR15, AK, etc.) through less powerful ammunition since part of the destructive ability of these rifles stems from the speed at which the bullets impact something.

[King Of Dirk]

For the most part I agree with everything you just proposed. I would like to ask how you would feel about limiting muzzle velocity of said rifles (deer, AR15, AK, etc.) through less powerful ammunition since part of the destructive ability of these rifles stems from the speed at which the bullets impact something.

Murphy, I must admit I'd need to learn a lot more to know what I think about it. Though I am not a hunter, I'm aware of a concept that, sadly, has less wholesome applications as well - that of the energy necessary to take an "ethical" shot at game...or sadly, I fear, other organisms too, though the word "ethical" has no application there. A hunter wants to maximize the range at which he/she can fire at a deer/squirrel/turkey/whatever and not simply wound the poor thing. I have to assume muzzle velocity is part of that equation, if it's as simple as F=ma. I don't know. I fear the same calculus makes the same firearm/cartridge less healthy for crime victims too.

My use is limited to targets, both paper and clay. Though it's not always the case, for the former I usually find lighter bullets reduce the effect that wind, gravity, and the earth's rotation have on scores. A large part of that is muzzle velocity, as the faster the projectile flies the less time environmental factors have to induce their effects. So in that realm I can be more useful to you; the lighter bullets may be faster, but with less mass may ultimately transfer less energy into a target. Since mine are paper, I don't much care as long as it punches a hole. If you want to use a heavier bullet you'll lose velocity given the same amount of gunpowder, but the greater mass may outweigh (sorry) the lessened velocity in terms of final energy available. Rate of twist in the barrel's rifling matters, too, as does length of barrel..and a whole lot of other things, but I think your concept makes sense. If I were to "live" with it, I'd say to myself that with a slower, less stable projectile, shooting at 600 yards is now as challenging as 1000 yards was yesterday. I could still enjoy the sport by making the target harder to hit at a shorter distance. When you take the dickwaving out of shooting longer distances, all you're really doing at longer range is introducing difficulty to make the sport more challenging. Maybe it's like competitive driving; on the right course a Mazda Miata is enough to present a driver with real challenges, and a Viper is too powerful and heavy to be any use.

I almost said "this is no different than shortening the Tour de France but requiring 25 pound bicycles." Of course that's not true, since a really ill-tempered cyclist can at worst punch a photographer. Olympic shooting sports are conducted over much closer ranges, and the worst one in the match is light-years better than I'll ever be. So I think I could adjust if it had a positive effect on public health.

I'll ask those who understand the hunting concerns for help here. My use case is so different from theirs as to be irrelevant. Do I mind if they have to get a little bit closer to a buck to make a good shot? Not really I suppose. But I also don't depend on such shots to feed myself or my family, and some do. I'm out of my depth here. It's a weird paradox - I suppose I want hunting applications to be as lethal as possible, but what happens when some asshole starts hunting people? I'm back to lower-capacity magazines mitigating an unacceptable situation. I don't know how to square the competing concepts.

With pistols, those who obsess about the "perfect personal defense cartridge" often argue about .45 ACP vs. 9mm Luger rounds. The former are heavier and slower, but are believed by many to have greater "stopping power," whereas many of those arguing seem to have at least apocryphal data about some poor cop who fired at a bad guy on PCP with a 9mm and met a bad end because the 9 is too "light and fast" and doesn't have "knock down" power. I don't know about any of this stuff, as I'm likely to run from a slingshot if you point it at me, but if these internet legends are true the slower bullet is the more dangerous one in this scenario. I don't have any competence here, either.

I like your idea, but I have a feeling this is a "tweak" kind of thing, after more uniformly-applied measures are implemented. Lots of pieces to this. Thanks for discussing. We've never had an overabundance of good ideas on this topic.

[murphy]

Murphy, I must admit I'd need to learn a lot more to know what I think about it. Though I am not a hunter, I'm aware of a concept that, sadly, has less wholesome applications as well - that of the energy necessary to take an "ethical" shot at game...or sadly, I fear, other organisms too, though the word "ethical" has no application there. A hunter wants to maximize the range at which he/she can fire at a deer/squirrel/turkey/whatever and not simply wound the poor thing. I have to assume muzzle velocity is part of that equation, if it's as simple as F=ma. I don't know. I fear the same calculus makes the same firearm/cartridge less healthy for crime victims too.

My use is limited to targets, both paper and clay. Though it's not always the case, for the former I usually find lighter bullets reduce the effect that wind, gravity, and the earth's rotation have on scores. A large part of that is muzzle velocity, as the faster the projectile flies the less time environmental factors have to induce their effects. So in that realm I can be more useful to you; the lighter bullets may be faster, but with less mass may ultimately transfer less energy into a target. Since mine are paper, I don't much care as long as it punches a hole. If you want to use a heavier bullet you'll lose velocity given the same amount of gunpowder, but the greater mass may outweigh (sorry) the lessened velocity in terms of final energy available. Rate of twist in the barrel's rifling matters, too, as does length of barrel..and a whole lot of other things, but I think your concept makes sense. If I were to "live" with it, I'd say to myself that with a slower, less stable projectile, shooting at 600 yards is now as challenging as 1000 yards was yesterday. I could still enjoy the sport by making the target harder to hit at a shorter distance. When you take the dickwaving out of shooting longer distances, all you're really doing at longer range is introducing difficulty to make the sport more challenging. Maybe it's like competitive driving; on the right course a Mazda Miata is enough to present a driver with real challenges, and a Viper is too powerful and heavy to be any use.

I almost said "this is no different than shortening the Tour de France but requiring 25 pound bicycles." Of course that's not true, since a really ill-tempered cyclist can at worst punch a photographer. Olympic shooting sports are conducted over much closer ranges, and the worst one in the match is light-years better than I'll ever be. So I think I could adjust if it had a positive effect on public health.

I'll ask those who understand the hunting concerns for help here. My use case is so different from theirs as to be irrelevant. Do I mind if they have to get a little bit closer to a buck to make a good shot? Not really I suppose. But I also don't depend on such shots to feed myself or my family, and some do. I'm out of my depth here. It's a weird paradox - I suppose I want hunting applications to be as lethal as possible, but what happens when some asshole starts hunting people? I'm back to lower-capacity magazines mitigating an unacceptable situation. I don't know how to square the competing concepts.

With pistols, those who obsess about the "perfect personal defense cartridge" often argue about .45 ACP vs. 9mm Luger rounds. The former are heavier and slower, but are believed by many to have greater "stopping power," whereas many of those arguing seem to have at least apocryphal data about some poor cop who fired at a bad guy on PCP with a 9mm and met a bad end because the 9 is too "light and fast" and doesn't have "knock down" power. I don't know about any of this stuff, as I'm likely to run from a slingshot if you point it at me, but if these internet legends are true the slower bullet is the more dangerous one in this scenario. I don't have any competence here, either.

I like your idea, but I have a feeling this is a "tweak" kind of thing, after more uniformly-applied measures are implemented. Lots of pieces to this. Thanks for discussing. We've never had an overabundance of good ideas on this topic.

My home state is Illinois so it is interesting when people talk about hunting with rifles; I grew up only ever hearing about shotgun and archery (although apparently muzzleloaders are also an option) since hunting deer with a rifle is against the law.

I would love an ER doc to chime in if one is on the forum as I am sure an ER doc has seen gunshot wounds. My admittedly limited understanding of damage caused by being shot (which comes from reading some med school studies) by a weapon of high muzzle velocity like the rifles we have talked about is that the higher muzzle velocity causes cavitation (a high pressure system which enlarges the cavity caused by the bullet) and shock waves which is why a smaller round with a higher velocity can cause more damage than a larger round traveling slower. That being said, I assume there is a point of diminishing returns which I know nothing about.

I agree it would just be a tweak and wouldn't affect handguns which have lower muzzle velocities, but I was just thinking along the lines of keeping some maimed people from being fatalities.

[Colinmclelland]

Those are great suggestions!

I think the large-capacity magazines are low-hanging fruit...I no longer own.

That’s where a gun amnesty/buy back whatever would work. Anyone who has guns that have just accumulated, or anything else, they have somewhere to send them/ hand them in that gets them out of circulation.

7) Want a gun? Lock the damn thing in a safe. Problem solved. Somehow I think a kid drowning in a backyard pool would result in more severe legal and financial consequences for a parent than if Little Johnny shot Little Stacy with Dad's .38. That seems odd.

Absolutely. But for people who think they want a gun for self - defence, having it locked in a safe makes that “use case” kind of hard. So saying “lock your gun in a safe” is a bit like saying “you can’t have a pistol other than for target shooting”. Which I’m absolutely fine with, but apparently it’s a harder discussion.

[murphy]

Absolutely. But for people who think they want a gun for self - defence, having it locked in a safe makes that “use case” kind of hard. So saying “lock your gun in a safe” is a bit like saying “you can’t have a pistol other than for target shooting”. Which I’m absolutely fine with, but apparently it’s a harder discussion.

I could see that defense getting used, but perhaps a trigger lock could be a middle ground.

[bigbill]

For the most part I agree with everything you just proposed. I would like to ask how you would feel about limiting muzzle velocity of said rifles (deer, AR15, AK, etc.) through less powerful ammunition since part of the destructive ability of these rifles stems from the speed at which the bullets impact something.

Those calibers are used in other rifles. I know of several people who deer hunt with .308 bolt actions. .308 is 7.62mm which is used in AK 47's and AR-10's. .223 is 5.56mm used in Marlin Ranch Rifles and AR-15's. I guess you could legislate ammo and require a permit for high velocity rounds, but that would be hard to enforce and there are already millions of high velocity rounds out there.

Unrelated to your post that I quoted, the military is moving back to .45 cal pistols. When I joined in 1985, the sidearms were 1911's then the military shifted to a more NATO friendly 9mm Beretta that had a larger magazine but less power. Sidearms are for close in use, less than 30 feet. After feedback from the guys fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq who didn't like the 9mm, the move was made. In house to house fighting or defending against a determined enemy, a soldier might get one or two shots off before the enemy is upon them. In those situations, knock down power is more important than the ability to have 14 rounds in a magazine.

[murphy]

Those calibers are used in other rifles. I know of several people who deer hunt with .308 bolt actions. .308 is 7.62mm which is used in AK 47's and AR-10's. .223 is 5.56mm used in Marlin Ranch Rifles and AR-15's. I guess you could legislate ammo and require a permit for high velocity rounds, but that would be hard to enforce and there are already millions of high velocity rounds out there.

Unrelated to your post that I quoted, the military is moving back to .45 cal pistols. When I joined in 1985, the sidearms were 1911's then the military shifted to a more NATO friendly 9mm Beretta that had a larger magazine but less power. Sidearms are for close in use, less than 30 feet. After feedback from the guys fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq who didn't like the 9mm, the move was made. In house to house fighting or defending against a determined enemy, a soldier might get one or two shots off before the enemy is upon them. In those situations, knock down power is more important than the ability to have 14 rounds in a magazine.

I could be wrong, but can't you also change the amount of gun powder used in a specific ammunition type to slow down the round? Stopping further proliferation of high velocity rounds would at least be a good goal since they do more damage. Just because large numbers are already out there doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to stop proliferation.

I can see the logic for armed forces, but I am betting that mass shooters will continue to use 9mm due to those increased mag sizes since generally they are working against unarmed populations and so don't have to worry about only getting one or two shots off before people are on them.

[bigbill]

I could be wrong, but can't you also change the amount of gun powder used in a specific ammunition type to slow down the round? Stopping further proliferation of high velocity rounds would at least be a good goal since they do more damage. Just because large numbers are already out there doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to stop proliferation.

Most avid shooters I know around here do their own reloads. I don't know how you'd handle that situation. Of course, the guys I know around here aren't likely to shoot up a mall or school. Lower velocity rounds won't stop shootings and likely wouldn't prevent deaths since mass shootings tend to be very short range. The shooter at the Navy Yard used a shotgun, the shooter at Ft Hood used a pistol, Giffords was shot with a pistol, most of the deaths in the Aurora theater shootings were attributed to a shotgun, most suicides involving a gun are with a handgun, gang shootings mostly use handguns, I think the data will show most gun deaths are not due to high velocity rounds.

[murphy]

Most avid shooters I know around here do their own reloads. I don't know how you'd handle that situation. Of course, the guys I know around here aren't likely to shoot up a mall or school. Lower velocity rounds won't stop shootings and likely wouldn't prevent deaths since mass shootings tend to be very short range. The shooter at the Navy Yard used a shotgun, the shooter at Ft Hood used a pistol, Giffords was shot with a pistol, most of the deaths in the Aurora theater shootings were attributed to a shotgun, most suicides involving a gun are with a handgun, gang shootings mostly use handguns, I think the data will show most gun deaths are not due to high velocity rounds.

I could trot out a list of long gun shootings, but I'll spare us that. The goal of stopping the proliferation of high velocity rounds wouldn't be to stop shootings obviously but maybe to increase the survivability since those rounds do more damage. This line of thought was in addition to other proposals some of which I gave before and some of which @King Of Dirk gave.

Other than magically having no guns or magically having all human issues disappear, I am sure more gun deaths will occur. My goal through this line of thinking is to decrease shootings and deaths from shootings. Moving the line is an admirable goal at this time since we as a country seem to be stuck in a cycle of shootings with no actions at all to ameliorate things.

tl;dr: Just because it is low-hanging fruit doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

[King Of Dirk]

Those are great suggestions!



That’s where a gun amnesty/buy back whatever would work. Anyone who has guns that have just accumulated, or anything else, they have somewhere to send them/ hand them in that gets them out of circulation.



Absolutely. But for people who think they want a gun for self - defence, having it locked in a safe makes that “use case” kind of hard. So saying “lock your gun in a safe” is a bit like saying “you can’t have a pistol other than for target shooting”. Which I’m absolutely fine with, but apparently it’s a harder discussion.

Well, I'm not saying you have to keep your gun locked in a safe. I'm simply suggesting the legal and financial consequences should be severe if a child - naturally curious and not always mature enough to understand - injures/kills someone with your gun. If I were a parent, I'd treat a firearm in the house a lot like a poisonous, hungry, and very ill-tempered snake. Obviously everyone is going to have to make decisions based on their situation, including presence of kids, proximity to law enforcement (response time), and their own philosophical leanings. Biometric safes can be very useful for those who want to be able to access a firearm in a self-defense situation but still want such devices secured, or so I've been told.

[bigbill]

I could trot out a list of long gun shootings, but I'll spare us that. The goal of stopping the proliferation of high velocity rounds wouldn't be to stop shootings obviously but maybe to increase the survivability since those rounds do more damage. This line of thought was in addition to other proposals some of which I gave before and some of which @King Of Dirk gave.

Other than magically having no guns or magically having all human issues disappear, I am sure more gun deaths will occur. My goal through this line of thinking is to decrease shootings and deaths from shootings. Moving the line is an admirable goal at this time since we as a country seem to be stuck in a cycle of shootings with no actions at all to ameliorate things.

tl;dr: Just because it is low-hanging fruit doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

But do you think any of that low hanging fruit is a root cause of the shootings? Just about everything discussed is about addressing symptoms, not causes. Do we just address mass shootings or do we root cause all shootings not self inflicted?

[murphy]

But do you think any of that low hanging fruit is a root cause of the shootings? Just about everything discussed is about addressing symptoms, not causes. Do we just address mass shootings or do we root cause all shootings not self inflicted?

Why does it have to be one or the other? You seem to assume one root cause when I am betting there would be a multitude; a multitude of complex human problems. If we know or think something may make things better now, why not try it out? It seems like you are discounting the ok in hopes that the perfect will appear. Like I have said multiple times in this thread, I just want to move the bar which is something I have not seen in my entire life (except in the wrong direction).

Just because we don't have a cure for the common cold doesn't mean we don't take cold medicine to make it better.