I promise not to debate you…

[thinkorswim]

yeah....

and handy in a zombie apocalypse too...

A gun is probably the last weapon I’d want in a zombie apocalypse. An axe or sword are better options!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NITRAS]

A gun is probably the last weapon I’d want in a zombie apocalypse. An axe or sword are better options!

Really depends on which version of zombie apocalypse. I would be much more concerned with getting thick plastic body armor/helmet.

Maybe I should look into getting a broadsword, just in case. Maybe a 3D printer with the plans for stormtrooper armor.

 

[coffeebythelake]

A gun is probably the last weapon I’d want in a zombie apocalypse. An axe or sword are better options!

If it is the running, super aggressive, super powerful zombies I would want a high caliber high capacity gun

 

[DocVapor]

If it is the running, super aggressive, super powerful zombies I would want a high caliber high capacity gun

Even if it's still the slow, lumbering type a high powered high capacity rifle is still the best option as it gives you the best chance for a headshot from a distance with minimal energy expenditure.

Anyone that says they want a sword or an axe instead of a gun makes me wonder if they have ever actually picked one of those weapons up and tried to swing them. Especially in armor. There's a reason medieval knights trained constantly.

 

[Matty44]

Restrict sales of AR15 guns. Get rid of high capacity rounds.

Yeah, ideas like this get stated, but never the specifics and how they will actually have the desired result, which I harped on earlier. And yeah you can argue that if there are less ARs shootings would naturally go down, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I’d argue that even if there were only 10% of the existing amount in the US people that wanted to commit evil acts would still be just as able to get them. How much do you have to reduce the supply to stop a crazy person from getting one? And do you think you can actually get the amount of guns in the US under that magical number?

Think about it, and I stated something like this before already. If there are 5-10 horrible mass shootings with AR 15s each year, and you reduce the number of ARs in the country from 15 million down all the way to 1 million let’s say. You don’t think those 5-10 people couldn’t find a gun out of 1,000,000?

Or do you think it’s actually feasible to remove every AR15 style gun from society?

 

[secretasianman]

Why not katana and aim for the head ?

Even if it's still the slow, lumbering type a high powered high capacity rifle is still the best option as it gives you the best chance for a headshot from a distance with minimal energy expenditure.

Anyone that says they want a sword or an axe instead of a gun makes me wonder if they have ever actually picked one of those weapons up and tried to swing them. Especially in armor. There's a reason medieval knights trained constantly.

 

[Matty44]

I think it is. Norway too. Copycats? Bad ideas spread fast.

Yeah, maybe we should make a law stop the media from ever naming the shooter, showing a picture, or delving into their manifestos/twitter history/etc. perhaps that might reduce the number of copycats? Maybe it’s too late for this though…

 

[Gern Blansten]

If it is the running, super aggressive, super powerful zombies I would want a high caliber high capacity gun

What if it was a bear zombie?

 

[DocVapor]

Why not katana and aim for the head ?

Distance. I want to do everything I can to keep them as far away as possible. Plus it expends a lot of energy to swing swords/axes no matter how light they are, and this is complicated by the likely famine situation.

Now if I have run out of ammo/gun jammed or whatever and they're on top of me then yeah, next best thing is a long sword. The more I think about it the more I'd like a double-edged weapon as well so if I miss with the forward swing the back swing will be easier and quicker than a single edged weapon.

As the distance closes to hand to hand range I might prefer a rock over a knife.

 

[thinkorswim]

If it is the running, super aggressive, super powerful zombies I would want a high caliber high capacity gun

A gun is heavy, loud, requires ammo, and may fail to fire. How good is your aim going to be against a zombie running erratically? If you fire and your hiding spot is compromised, how are you going to move all that ammo? How good will a gun be if there’s a large swarm around you?

A light sword/axe/machete and a flamethrower for hairy situations is an ideal combination for a zombie apocalypse in my opinion.

 

[DocVapor]

A gun is heavy, loud, requires ammo, and may fail to fire. How good is your aim going to be against a zombie running erratically? If you fire and your hiding spot is compromised, how are you going to move all that ammo? How good will a gun be if there’s a large swarm around you?

A light sword/axe/machete and a flamethrower for hairy situations is an ideal combination for a zombie apocalypse in my opinion.

Flamethrowers work on zombies? Serious question.

 

[secretasianman]

I think fire is effective against the undead and white walkers. Not sure about zombies as that’s a different mythology ?

Flamethrowers work on zombies? Serious question.

 

[DocVapor]

I think fire is effective against the undead and white walkers. Not sure about zombies as that’s a different mythology ?

White walkers for sure. Zombies though... I think they'd have to be effectively incinerated. I dunno if a flamethrower could do that.

 

[chocomorsel]

There were three separate mass shootings in South Africa taverns over the weekend killing around 25 or more people and injuring many more. Two weeks prior to that, 21 young people died in mysterious circumstances (not sure what that means? Poisoning?) at a tavern in South Africa. Is this issue spreading to other countries?

So this was not a response to any of @secretasianman’s comments about the gun massacres being so commonplace now in the US and killing kids being a never issue?

 

[Gern Blansten]

So this was not a response to any of @secretasianman’s comments about the gun massacres being so commonplace now in the US and killing kids being a never issue?

Why would you think that? I never mentioned that poster or the subject that you mentioned. I reported the news of more issues related to gun violence, which many others here have been doing here for the past almost 1200 posts.

 

[deleted875186]

Yeah, ideas like this get stated, but never the specifics and how they will actually have the desired result, which I harped on earlier. And yeah you can argue that if there are less ARs shootings would naturally go down, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I’d argue that even if there were only 10% of the existing amount in the US people that wanted to commit evil acts would still be just as able to get them. How much do you have to reduce the supply to stop a crazy person from getting one? And do you think you can actually get the amount of guns in the US under that magical number?

Think about it, and I stated something like this before already. If there are 5-10 horrible mass shootings with AR 15s each year, and you reduce the number of ARs in the country from 15 million down all the way to 1 million let’s say. You don’t think those 5-10 people couldn’t find a gun out of 1,000,000?

Or do you think it’s actually feasible to remove every AR15 style gun from society?

This arguement is ridiculous. Just because you think the action is futile doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. We could say the same about climate change, why make an individual choice to have a smaller carbon footprint? Yet I would argue that policy aimed at reducing climate change is still worth it.

And you have zero evidence that AR15 style guns are safe and haven’t contributed to mass shootings …. On the contrary we have an assault weapon ban that was let lapse many years ago and have had more mass shootibgs as a result.

 

[chocomorsel]

Why would you think that? I never mentioned that poster or the subject that you mentioned. I reported the news of more issues related to gun violence, which many others here have been doing here for the past almost 1200 posts.

Ohh, I don’t know. Because your response was literally two or three posts behind his.
You don’t have to quote people directly in order to respond to them. However, if I misunderstood you, my apologies.

 

[doctalaughs]

Yeah, ideas like this get stated, but never the specifics and how they will actually have the desired result, which I harped on earlier. And yeah you can argue that if there are less ARs shootings would naturally go down, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I’d argue that even if there were only 10% of the existing amount in the US people that wanted to commit evil acts would still be just as able to get them. How much do you have to reduce the supply to stop a crazy person from getting one? And do you think you can actually get the amount of guns in the US under that magical number?

Think about it, and I stated something like this before already. If there are 5-10 horrible mass shootings with AR 15s each year, and you reduce the number of ARs in the country from 15 million down all the way to 1 million let’s say. You don’t think those 5-10 people couldn’t find a gun out of 1,000,000?

Or do you think it’s actually feasible to remove every AR15 style gun from society?

In this I do largely agree with you. The problem is so large and the number of weapons flooded in the market so massive that all our efforts will likely take decades to make a big difference. And we likely don’t have the political will to do the things necessary for even that anyway.

Sad. We are stuck with watching many more classrooms of small kids with their bodies ripped apart by madmen with easy access to weapons of war. But that’s different than arguing against what the actual problem is (the easy gun access itself) when comparing to other industrialized countries who had the wisdom not to get themselves so deep into the mess to start with….

 

[Matty44]

This arguement is ridiculous. Just because you think the action is futile doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. We could say the same about climate change, why make an individual choice to have a smaller carbon footprint? Yet I would argue that policy aimed at reducing climate change is still worth it.

And you have zero evidence that AR15 style guns are safe and haven’t contributed to mass shootings …. On the contrary we have an assault weapon ban that was let lapse many years ago and have had more mass shootibgs as a result.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on a second.

Just because the action is futile, aka pointless or incapable of producing any meaningful results, doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing?????

Did you really just say that?

By definition it’s not worth doing, simply on the basis that it’s a waste of time if it’s futile. Not to mention if the action is reducing someone else’s rights/privileges/etc, you better have a darn good reason to do it.

Same with climate change. If you’re gonna hurt developing countries who need access to cheap coal and oil for energy, and if you’re gonna cause gas prices to sky rocket, then you better have darn good evidence that what you’re doing isn’t futile.

This is the exact logic that clouds the mind of so many on the left. “Who cares if we know if it’s actually gonna make a positive difference, we just gotta do SOMETHING!”

 

[Matty44]

In this I do largely agree with you. The problem is so large and the number of weapons flooded in the market so massive that all our efforts will likely take decades to make a big difference. And we likely don’t have the political will to do the things necessary for even that anyway.

Sad. We are stuck with watching many more classrooms of small kids with their bodies ripped apart by madmen with easy access to weapons of war. But that’s different than arguing against what the actual problem is (the easy gun access itself) when comparing to other industrialized countries who had the wisdom not to get themselves so deep into the mess to start with….

So if you agree, shouldn’t we focus on change we can actually effect? Shouldn’t the focus be on better security in schools? On better police response (Uvalde police response was a travesty)? On better media coverage as to lessen the twisted glorification future shooters see in how the shootings are covered? On trying to weed out the psychopaths before they get a chance to do something heinous?

To be honest, I don’t know how to do the last one, but the first three should be fairly straightforward.

 

[doctalaughs]

So if you agree, shouldn’t we focus on change we can actually effect? Shouldn’t the focus be on better security in schools? On better police response (Uvalde police response was a travesty)? On better media coverage as to lessen the twisted glorification future shooters see in how the shootings are covered? On trying to weed out the psychopaths before they get a chance to do something heinous?

To be honest, I don’t know how to do the last one, but the first three should be fairly straightforward.

I have no qualms and agree with doing all of the above. Even further - we should hold social media companies liable if they do not properly monitor/report violent threats.

Despite my agreement, this does not mean we shouldn’t continue to address the actual root cause, even if it takes decades and shifting of political winds to do so…. I believe the measures above will help only a little (10%?) — and not with the LA/rooftop/mass casualty shooters who indisputably would not have been able to kill so many with less powerful weapons.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I have no qualms and agree with doing all of the above. Even further - we should hold social media companies liable if they do not properly monitor/report violent threats.

Despite my agreement, this does not mean we shouldn’t continue to address the actual root cause, even if it takes decades and shifting of political winds to do so…. I believe the measures above will help only a little (10%?) — and not with the LA/rooftop/mass casualty shooters who indisputably would not have been able to kill so many with less powerful weapons.

I think you will find huge variations in opinions on what the "actual root cause" is. Some would say it is the prevalence of high powered weapons, while others would say it is the diminution of the value of human life. Some would argue that violent video games have jaded our society to the horrors of mass shootings, while others would say the twisted media reporting and the glorification of mass murderers have led to more people wishing to leave this Earth with a notorious legacy. It likely is a combination of all of these and others factors not mentioned.
So, addressing the "actual root cause" is not as easy as you have implied because society cannot even have consensus as to what that root cause is.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I think you will find huge variations in opinions on what the "actual root cause" is. Some would say it is the prevalence of high powered weapons, while others would say it is the diminution of the value of human life. Some would argue that violent video games have jaded our society to the horrors of mass shootings, while others would say the twisted media reporting and the glorification of mass murderers have led to more people wishing to leave this Earth with a notorious legacy. It likely is a combination of all of these and others factors not mentioned.
So, addressing the "actual root cause" is not as easy as you have implied because society cannot even have consensus as to what that root cause is.

I would start out with the easy access to high powered rifles and go from there.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Just because the action is futile, aka pointless or incapable of producing any meaningful results, doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing?????

They likely meant that just because YOU think it is futile does not mean that THEY think it is futile.
Your point is valid though. If you are going to take random drastic measures that have huge downstream implications, there should be some strong evidence that it is the correct and effective action. With regards to COVID and global warming issues, I don't think we have had that consensus. People have strong OPINIONS on the topics, but that is mostly what they are, opinions.

 

[Matty44]

I think you will find huge variations in opinions on what the "actual root cause" is. Some would say it is the prevalence of high powered weapons, while others would say it is the diminution of the value of human life. Some would argue that violent video games have jaded our society to the horrors of mass shootings, while others would say the twisted media reporting and the glorification of mass murderers have led to more people wishing to leave this Earth with a notorious legacy. It likely is a combination of all of these and others factors not mentioned.
So, addressing the "actual root cause" is not as easy as you have implied because society cannot even have consensus as to what that root cause is.

And as I pointed out earlier, “assault rifles” were easily available for decades before the assault weapons ban, even so much as being in the sears catalog. Something else has changed to account for the increased number of these tragic events, and it’s not just that “assault rifles” all of a sudden became easily accessible.

 

[deleted875186]

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on a second.

Just because the action is futile, aka pointless or incapable of producing any meaningful results, doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing?????

Did you really just say that?

By definition it’s not worth doing, simply on the basis that it’s a waste of time if it’s futile. Not to mention if the action is reducing someone else’s rights/privileges/etc, you better have a darn good reason to do it.

Same with climate change. If you’re gonna hurt developing countries who need access to cheap coal and oil for energy, and if you’re gonna cause gas prices to sky rocket, then you better have darn good evidence that what you’re doing isn’t futile.

This is the exact logic that clouds the mind of so many on the left. “Who cares if we know if it’s actually gonna make a positive difference, we just gotta do SOMETHING!”

You act like we have 100% solid evidence for any policy decision in our country. By your same logic, we shouldn’t pass any new policy decisions in this country because we will never have conclusive evidence it’s for the greater good. Utilitarianism isn’t a great way to base policy decisions because the world is so complex.

 

[Matty44]

You act like we have 100% solid evidence for any policy decision in our country. By your same logic, we shouldn’t pass any new policy decisions in this country because we will never have conclusive evidence it’s for the greater good. Utilitarianism isn’t a great way to base policy decisions because the world is so complex.

No, but you should have more than speculation. It’s pure speculation to say that if we reduce the amount of ARs in this country than we will have less school/mass shootings. Do you not agree with that? And if not, what proof if any is there that if you decrease the amount of scary rifles to 50% or 25% or even 10% that it would prevent the handful of people who commit those crimes from doing so?

 

[deleted875186]

No, but you should have more than speculation. It’s pure speculation to say that if we reduce the amount of ARs in this country than we will have less school/mass shootings. Do you not agree with that? And if not, what proof if any is there that if you decrease the amount of scary rifles to 50% or 25% or even 10% that it would prevent the handful of people who commit those crimes from doing so?

Logic would reason that if an assault rifle style gun is used in the majority of mass shootings, than mass shootings involving those assault rifles would be less common if we limit assault rifles. As stated above, we could never be 100% sure, but that arguement is pretty good. The counter argument is “those crazy shooters will just use handguns, or a bomb, or something else”, which is a different argument. Get rid of assault rifles, find gun buy back programs.

I could ask the same about abortion. What makes people think banning abortion will help save unborn fetuses? I think the logic of “banning abortion will stop a lot of abortions” is logical, but I acknowledge women will get illegal abortions anyway, etc.

 

[Matty44]

Logic would reason that if an assault rifle style gun is used in the majority of mass shootings, than mass shootings involving those assault rifles would be less common if we limit assault rifles. As stated above, we could never be 100% sure, but that arguement is pretty good. The counter argument is “those crazy shooters will just use handguns, or a bomb, or something else”, which is a different argument. Get rid of assault rifles, find gun buy back programs.

I could ask the same about abortion. What makes people think banning abortion will help save unborn fetuses? I think the logic of “banning abortion will stop a lot of abortions” is logical, but I acknowledge women will get illegal abortions anyway, etc.

You’re missing the point and ignoring the math my friend. And you’re giving an example that just helps to prove my point. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are something like 900,000+ abortions each year, so if roughly 1 out of every 65 women are getting an abortion each year (with about 58 million women of child bearing age in the US) then making changes to the law will definitely lower that rate. When you start with a very large number of events, and you make broad sweeping changes that disincentivize those events from occurring, then yeah you’re gonna see some effect from those changes…logically.

However, when your N of random mass shootings with an assault rifle is like 5-10, and you reduce the amount of ARs to only a million or two (which would be an insanely huge decrease), you still allow ample opportunity for one of those 5-10 people to acquire an AR that it’s faulty to assume the decrease in total number of ARs will actually decrease these events. It’s not a random interaction kind of problem where decreasing the opportunity for an interaction will lower the rate.

Think of it this way. Dumb analogy, but let’s say there were 1,000,000 Blockbuster locations in America that sold horror movies. And everyone in America hated horror movies and didn’t want anyone watching them. But there were 10 people that were ABSOLUTELY dead set on watching horror movies. So we pass a law that reduced the amount of blockbuster locations to 10,000, a 99% reduction! Do you think that would stop any of those 10 people from renting a horror movie?

Unless you can close down every single Blockbuster, you probably aren’t gonna stop them. And it’s the same way with ARs, unless you can get rid of 99% of the ARs, you’re probably not gonna stop the crazy person dead set on shooting up a school.

Then the question becomes, do you think we can confiscate every ‘assault rifle in America? And because the obvious answer is no, what percent of them do you think we could realistically get rid of? And how do you do it? And then look at the number of ARs you’re left with and try and decide if you think that the handful of psycho shooters could still find an AR out of that remaining number of guns.

It’s naive thinking to argue that it’s simply logical that if you reduce the number of ARs the amount of mass shootings with ARs will decrease.

 

[deleted875186]

You’re missing the point and ignoring the math my friend. And you’re giving an example that just helps to prove my point. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are something like 900,000+ abortions each year, so if roughly 1 out of every 65 women are getting an abortion each year (with about 58 million women of child bearing age in the US) then making changes to the law will definitely lower that rate. When you start with a very large number of events, and you make broad sweeping changes that disincentivize those events from occurring, then yeah you’re gonna see some effect from those changes…logically.

However, when your N of random mass shootings with an assault rifle is like 5-10, and you reduce the amount of ARs to only a million or two (which would be an insanely huge decrease), you still allow ample opportunity for one of those 5-10 people to acquire an AR that it’s faulty to assume the decrease in total number of ARs will actually decrease these events. It’s not a random interaction kind of problem where decreasing the opportunity for an interaction will lower the rate.

Think of it this way. Dumb analogy, but let’s say there were 1,000,000 Blockbuster locations in America that sold horror movies. And everyone in America hated horror movies and didn’t want anyone watching them. But there were 10 people that were ABSOLUTELY dead set on watching horror movies. So we pass a law that reduced the amount of blockbuster locations to 10,000, a 99% reduction! Do you think that would stop any of those 10 people from renting a horror movie?

Unless you can close down every single Blockbuster, you probably aren’t gonna stop them. And it’s the same way with ARs, unless you can get rid of 99% of the ARs, you’re probably not gonna stop the crazy person dead set on shooting up a school.

Then the question becomes, do you think we can confiscate every ‘assault rifle in America? And because the obvious answer is no, what percent of them do you think we could realistically get rid of? And how do you do it? And then look at the number of ARs you’re left with and try and decide if you think that the handful of psycho shooters could still find an AR out of that remaining number of guns.

It’s naive thinking to argue that it’s simply logical that if you reduce the number of ARs the amount of mass shootings with ARs will decrease.

I understand your arguement, just disagree with your conclusion, and I don’t think it follows that based off your premise of mass shootings being rare and there being a lot of guns in America that we should just do nothing to limit the amount of assault rifles in America.

 

[Matty44]

I understand your arguement, just disagree with your conclusion, and I don’t think it follows that based off your premise of mass shootings being rare and there being a lot of guns in America that we should just do nothing to limit the amount of assault rifles in America.

I get that you wanna do something to make things better, I just disagree that we should do something that logically will have no impact except to affect law abiding citizens. And unless you can explain reasonably how reducing the amount of ARs will affect the amount of mass shootings, it’s just a hollow plea for action just for the sake of action, not that intended result will be what you hope for.

And you keep avoiding my questions about how much you actually think you can reduce the total amount of ARs in the US…

 

[deleted875186]

I get that you wanna do something to make things better, I just disagree that we should do something that logically will have no impact except to affect law abiding citizens. And unless you can explain reasonably how reducing the amount of ARs will affect the amount of mass shootings, it’s just a hollow plea for action just for the sake of action, not that intended result will be what you hope for.

And you keep avoiding my questions about how much you actually think you can reduce the total amount of ARs in the US…

Other people have pointed out the difference between America and other developed countries and mass shootings. The rest of the planet knows what the issue is. Just because I can’t show proof that an intervention will work in America does mean it is futile. I’m going to leave this discussion.

 

[pgg]

Ok, disagree with you here. Dude can def be a jerk, extremely demeaning, disrespectful, rude, condescending, down right nasty and irrational, but please, carry on.

Heh

In this thread, which has thus far spanned about 6 weeks and well over 1000 posts, I have consistently and repeatedly looked for common ground between us, discussed my concerns about pending gun control legislation and the balance between its efficacy and potential for abuse, offered up areas I'd concede ground and compromise, asked where you'd be willing to concede ground, tried to discuss the details of the recent Supreme Court decision and its implications for past and future gun control laws at the state and federal level.

And your response has consistently been to misrepresent everything I write and post dismissive paternalistic tripe like "we just need to take away your toys" - yeah, I guess I'm running thin on respect for your manner of discussion.

Contrast with vector2 who vehemently disagrees with me about this and some related subjects, but always posts in a rational data-driven way that has, believe it or not, led me to modify my views and rethink what I actually believe.


I've been away from this thread for a few days, and was just about to post a question for you concerning what you thought of the pending New York CCW legislation in the wake of NYSRPA v Bruen and the ways it flagrantly ignores various bits of the ruling. Briefly, an incredibly extensive list of prohibited "sensitive places" even though the ruling explicitly states "expanding the category of 'sensitive places' simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of 'sensitive places' far too broadly" ... again NY is obviously passing laws contrary to SCOTUS ruling. Also the very interesting new requirement that CCW applicants provide "a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years" ... which smells quite a bit too much like China's social credit for my taste. There's more, a by-default ban in all privately owned locations unless landowners explicitly opt-in; a vague "good moral character" requirement that's really just discretionary issue under a new label; an interview process that leaves implementation details (cost, time, criteria) unwritten and potentially in conflict with the ruling (which prohibits "lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry").

But obviously if you guys have proven anything in the last 20+ pages of this thread it's that you aren't really interested in discussing those kind of details. Because guns are just toys (hoya somehow thinks they're not property, whatever that means) and what's really needed are the adults in the room to take them away from the irresponsible kids like me.

I think I'm done. Once again, I guess there's really nothing left to talk about. You've convinced me - we don't really have any common ground. My side will keep fighting your side in court. In a sense I'm glad to see the above overreach from NY in response to NYSRPA v Bruen, because it ups the odds that we'll get another Thomas-authored majority opinion on the matter.

 

[Matty44]

Other people have pointed out the difference between America and other developed countries and mass shootings. The rest of the planet knows what the issue is. Just because I can’t show proof that an intervention will work in America does mean it is futile. I’m going to leave this discussion.

 

[doctalaughs]

I get that you wanna do something to make things better, I just disagree that we should do something that logically will have no impact except to affect law abiding citizens. And unless you can explain reasonably how reducing the amount of ARs will affect the amount of mass shootings, it’s just a hollow plea for action just for the sake of action, not that intended result will be what you hope for.

And you keep avoiding my questions about how much you actually think you can reduce the total amount of ARs in the US…

Many/most of the mass shooters were law abiding citizens before they massacred kids or innocent crowds…. And most of them bought their guns legally. Just saying.

 

[doctalaughs]

For those that feel that high powered rifles or unlimited numbers / arsenals of weapons should be freely and largely available to the population—

Do you feel that it would materially alter the course of your life if gun rights were “severely” restricted in the USA? For example, if we magically had laws that said:

1) 1 or 2 guns per citizen
2) only handguns; rifle types restricted (no semi-automatic rifles and magazines limited)
3) extensive background checks and training requirements to buy and own.

I realize that is unlikely politically - but would it really change day to day life for many Americans? Pretty sure that it would have changed the lives for families of Uvalde and many others.

 

[Matty44]

Many/most of the mass shooters were law abiding citizens before they massacred kids or innocent crowds…. And most of them bought their guns legally. Just saying.

I don’t understand your point here…

 

[vector2]

.

Contrast with vector2 who vehemently disagrees with me about this and some related subjects, but always posts in a rational data-driven way that has, believe it or not, led me to modify my views and rethink what I actually believe.
.

I don't vehemently disagree with you here. I own a bushmaster M4 and Romanian AK variant, after all, and I'm not voluntarily turning them in anytime soon. I am however trying to approach the issue from a logical standpoint, which does indeed lead to the conclusion that if hypothetically one could snap his fingers and all the more draconian aspects of already existing gun control like the NFA/Hughes Amendment etc were generalized to all arms, the frequency at which those arms would be used in crimes would approach the rate at which NFA titled arms are used in crimes....which is to say, zero. Like it or not, making weapons expensive, hard to buy, hard to transfer, and covered in layers and layers of bureaucracy works.

But from a logistic and possibly legal standpoint, that kind of gun control isn't happening. It's just not. So until the country's mood has shifted it's a loser issue that distracts from climate, healthcare, abortion, and the economy.

 

[pgg]

I don't vehemently disagree with you here. I own a bushmaster M4 and Romanian AK variant, after all, and I'm not voluntarily turning them in anytime soon. I am however trying to approach the issue from a logical standpoint, which does indeed lead to the conclusion that if hypothetically one could snap his fingers and all the more draconian aspects of already existing gun control like the NFA/Hughes Amendment etc were generalized to all arms, the frequency at which those arms would be used in crimes would approach the rate at which NFA titled arms are used in crimes....which is to say, zero. Like it or not, making weapons expensive, hard to buy, hard to transfer, and covered in layers and layers of bureaucracy works.

But from a logistic and possibly legal standpoint, that kind of gun control isn't happening. It's just not. So until the country's mood has shifted it's a loser issue that distracts from climate, healthcare, abortion, and the economy.

Agree with everything here, though I'd add that in addition to being logistically and legally untenable, it's also morally and ethically wrong to make exercising a Constitutionally enumerated civil right contingent upon an individual being wealthy.

 

[NITRAS]

Flamethrowers work on zombies? Serious question.

Odd thing, I’ve been seeing ads for a flamethrower from a company called exothermic. Sounds like it is hard to carry enough juice to last very long, but . . . . .

 

[xffan624]

I don't vehemently disagree with you here. I own a bushmaster M4 and Romanian AK variant, after all, and I'm not voluntarily turning them in anytime soon. I am however trying to approach the issue from a logical standpoint, which does indeed lead to the conclusion that if hypothetically one could snap his fingers and all the more draconian aspects of already existing gun control like the NFA/Hughes Amendment etc were generalized to all arms, the frequency at which those arms would be used in crimes would approach the rate at which NFA titled arms are used in crimes....which is to say, zero. Like it or not, making weapons expensive, hard to buy, hard to transfer, and covered in layers and layers of bureaucracy works.

But from a logistic and possibly legal standpoint, that kind of gun control isn't happening. It's just not. So until the country's mood has shifted it's a loser issue that distracts from climate, healthcare, abortion, and the economy.

So in essence, "thoughts and prayers". Now let's talk about something else.

 

[vector2]

Agree with everything here, though I'd add that in addition to being logistically and legally untenable, it's also morally and ethically wrong to make exercising a Constitionally enumerated civil right contingent upon an individual being wealthy.

Well, morality is messy and controversial. It may be legally untenable by statute and logistically impossible, but certainly I understand someone's position that the injustice of "only X people can own certain weapons" doesn't even come close to morally outweighing the injustice of 20,000 potentially preventable gun homicides.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

For those that feel that high powered rifles or unlimited numbers / arsenals of weapons should be freely and largely available to the population—

Do you feel that it would materially alter the course of your life if gun rights were “severely” restricted in the USA? For example, if we magically had laws that said:

2) only handguns; rifle types restricted (no semi-automatic rifles and magazines limited)

I realize that is unlikely politically - but would it really change day to day life for many Americans? Pretty sure that it would have changed the lives for families of Uvalde and many others.

As an outdoorsman who has hunted on several continents, I respectfully would like to take a stab at responding to your questions.
1) 1 or 2 guns per citizen.

Guns are tools. I can understand someone who has little or no experience with a tool asking this question. It is my opinion that it is important to have the right tool for the job. You could finish your career only using a MAC 3 to intubate people, or use only a 5 iron to play a round of golf. but would agree it is not the best tool for all situations. I certainly would not want to try and harvest a moose or bison with a .223 caliber rifle, the most common caliber for the so called assault rifle. The bullet is too small and light to provide enough kinetic energy to penetrate thick muscle or bone. It can be done in certain instances, but to ethically harvest a huge animal quickly, a much larger caliber with a heavier bullet would be better because it will have more penetration to provide an ethical harvest. I own several rifles whose purpose is to be used on different sized game.

2) only handguns; rifle types restricted (no semi-automatic rifles and magazines limited)

Semi auto rifles aren't new. Don't use mine much, except for quick follow up shots on predators, coyotes and wild hogs, but I can see why some may feel that they aren't necessary. Having said that, someone could lay down some serious fire with 2 revolvers and 2 speed loaders. That would total 24 shots very quickly. If you dont know what they are, a quick Google will provide images What about lever action? Cowboy guns? They have a tubular magazine and hold 10 rounds, at least mine does. They are the original "Assault" weapon, so to speak. I'm just saying a dedicated criminal will find a way to commit their crime.

3) extensive background checks and training requirements to buy and own.
I don't have great issue with this, as I hunt with suppressors, merely for my and wife's hearing protection. It takes a serious BATF backround check,( like 9 months), and the cost of the Stamp(license), is $200 and the suppressor around $900. I am in favor for basic firearm safety certification. Basic firearm safety, how to understand the safety features related to the firearm, how to load and unload it, what the sight picture looks like and how to hit the target. SWAT certification is unnecessary.

Do you feel that it would materially alter the course of your life if gun rights were “severely” restricted in the USA?

I absolutely do. I have hunted in the UK several time and am familiar with some of their onerous gun restrictions.

1. In the UK, a firearms license is required and must be renewed each year. This can take 6 to 8 months. The local police dept is in charge of issuing these licenses. If you don't apply in time, then you must turn in your firearm to the police until it is. A mental health certification must be assured by your local physician each year. Thes certifications are becoming harder to obtain as the physicians are becoming reluctant to assume that liability. The firearm must be stored in a police approved safe. The police will show up, "unannounced" each year to inspect said safe. Our gamekeeper relayed a story of a person he new that had the police show up when he wasnt home, and demanded to inspect the safe. His wife was quite frightened and produced the key to the safe. The police arrested him when he got home, as he was the only person allowed by law to have access to the firearm. He was levied a stiff fine and now faces a jail sentence.



I hope I was able to add some texture to your questions. You might understand that as a law abiding citizen and outdoorsman who can pass any backround check I might be subjected to, I have a problem with anyone attempting to diminish or remove certain rights articulated specifically in the constitution.

 

[deleted875186]

Agree with everything here, though I'd add that in addition to being logistically and legally untenable, it's also morally and ethically wrong to make exercising a Constitutionally enumerated civil right contingent upon an individual being wealthy.

Let’s reflect on this point. What is in the constitution has nothing to do with ethics or morality, despite what gun advocates believe. It happened to be included in the constitution from its inception, and our country has historically been wrong on a number of things.

Reminds me of euthyphro dilemma. Things are not right or wrong because a all mighty figure says so, they must right in and of themselves.

 

[chocomorsel]

So in essence, "thoughts and prayers". Now let's talk about something else.

I have to say. I did not see that one coming. At least one of those is a semi automatic military style rifle. Very surprising response from him indeed.
Yup, nothing to see here. Just more dead bodies blown up by guns. Thoughts and prayers.

 

[chocomorsel]

Let’s reflect on this point. What is in the constitution has nothing to do with ethics or morality, despite what gun advocates believe. It happened to be included in the constitution from its inception, and our country has historically been wrong on a number of things.

Reminds me of euthyphro dilemma. Things are not right or wrong because a all mighty figure says so, they must right in and of themselves.

Like seriously. The constitution did not acknowledge black peoples as a whole human. And did not allow women to vote. And I am sure a host of other BS.
But people oh here constantly want to quote it. Makes me wonder about certain things.
400 years later, and things have immensely changed and people want to continue using those rules and laws.
Such BS.

 

[doctalaughs]

As an outdoorsman who has hunted on several continents, I respectfully would like to take a stab at responding to your questions.
1) 1 or 2 guns per citizen.

Guns are tools. I can understand someone who has little or no experience with a tool asking this question. It is my opinion that it is important to have the right tool for the job. You could finish your career only using a MAC 3 to intubate people, or use only a 5 iron to play a round of golf. but would agree it is not the best tool for all situations. I certainly would not want to try and harvest a moose or bison with a .223 caliber rifle, the most common caliber for the so called assault rifle. The bullet is too small and light to provide enough kinetic energy to penetrate thick muscle or bone. It can be done in certain instances, but to ethically harvest a huge animal quickly, a much larger caliber with a heavier bullet would be better because it will have more penetration to provide an ethical harvest. I own several rifles whose purpose is to be used on different sized game.

2) only handguns; rifle types restricted (no semi-automatic rifles and magazines limited)

Semi auto rifles aren't new. Don't use mine much, except for quick follow up shots on predators, coyotes and wild hogs, but I can see why some may feel that they aren't necessary. Having said that, someone could lay down some serious fire with 2 revolvers and 2 speed loaders. That would total 24 shots very quickly. If you dont know what they are, a quick Google will provide images What about lever action? Cowboy guns? They have a tubular magazine and hold 10 rounds, at least mine does. They are the original "Assault" weapon, so to speak. I'm just saying a dedicated criminal will find a way to commit their crime.

3) extensive background checks and training requirements to buy and own.
I don't have great issue with this, as I hunt with suppressors, merely for my and wife's hearing protection. It takes a serious BATF backround check,( like 9 months), and the cost of the Stamp(license), is $200 and the suppressor around $900. I am in favor for basic firearm safety certification. Basic firearm safety, how to understand the safety features related to the firearm, how to load and unload it, what the sight picture looks like and how to hit the target. SWAT certification is unnecessary.

Do you feel that it would materially alter the course of your life if gun rights were “severely” restricted in the USA?

I absolutely do. I have hunted in the UK several time and am familiar with some of their onerous gun restrictions.

1. In the UK, a firearms license is required and must be renewed each year. This can take 6 to 8 months. The local police dept is in charge of issuing these licenses. If you don't apply in time, then you must turn in your firearm to the police until it is. A mental health certification must be assured by your local physician each year. Thes certifications are becoming harder to obtain as the physicians are becoming reluctant to assume that liability. The firearm must be stored in a police approved safe. The police will show up, "unannounced" each year to inspect said safe. Our gamekeeper relayed a story of a person he new that had the police show up when he wasnt home, and demanded to inspect the safe. His wife was quite frightened and produced the key to the safe. The police arrested him when he got home, as he was the only person allowed by law to have access to the firearm. He was levied a stiff fine and now faces a jail sentence.



I hope I was able to add some texture to your questions. You might understand that as a law abiding citizen and outdoorsman who can pass any backround check I might be subjected to, I have a problem with anyone attempting to diminish or remove certain rights articulated specifically in the constitution.

I hear you —and certainly you are more knowledgeable and more of a gun enthusiast than I am (I own a handgun for home defense and that’s it, never been a hunter etc). I wouldn’t try to argue what tool you need for what while hunting different animals.

That said, use of a wide range of guns for hunting, shooting at the range, outdoor activities etc are still HOBBIES. The “wide selection” isn’t completely “essential for your livelihood” or your day-to-day survival like a soldier or hunter-gatherer subsiding on the land (at least for 99.99999% of private citizens in this country).

I’m not sure your right to a “better toolbox” for a hobby (even if it’s your “passion”) outweighs the greater good of those who are murdered and their families.

 

[doctalaughs]

I don’t understand your point here…

My point is that there is probably no reliable way to distinguish “law abiding citizens” from “law abiding citizens who will eventually use their incredibly overpowered weapons to mass murder a school full of kids.”

So unless said powerful weapons are providing a large measurable benefit to society, we should probably not allow them altogether.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I hear you —and certainly you are more knowledgeable and more of a gun enthusiast than I am (I own a handgun for home defense and that’s it, never been a hunter etc). I wouldn’t try to argue what tool you need for what while hunting different animals.

That said, use of a wide range of guns for hunting, shooting at the range, outdoor activities etc are still HOBBIES. The “wide selection” isn’t completely “essential for your livelihood” or your day-to-day survival like a soldier or hunter-gatherer subsiding on the land (at least for 99.99999% of private citizens in this country).

I’m not sure your right to a “better toolbox” for a hobby (even if it’s your “passion”) outweighs the greater good of those who are murdered and their families.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. We will just disagree on the contents of my toolbox and my hobbies for now. One of the reasons I hunt is that it manages a resource that is free ranging, and sustainable. It provides ultra lean antibiotic and hormone free protein. I believe currently, my rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, outweigh those who would remove them. Having said that, times change and this too can change. There was " Reefer Madness from the 1950s, now cannabis is legal. Look at Roe. I believe society has the right, and duty to determine what behavior it will endorse or condemn. We tolerate an open southern border which imports tons of drugs. Those overdose deaths are not more dead nor their families less devastated than a school shooting. Yet we do little to stop it. Should we tolerate extinguishing life for recreational sex? Or for gender? How about if we discovered the Gay or Trans gene? Would aborting that fetus be a hate crime? Please, I don't expect an answer to these questions. This was my long-winded example of how society has, imo, the right and obligation to condemn or endorse behavior, gun ownership included. There are ways to make the changes as @pgg has pointed out. Our Founders recognized we could not have a policeman on every street corner, which is why our constitution and bill of rights were based on Judeo Christian principles. Maybe we should focus on changing to a kinder society, being more inclusive of others thoughts and beliefs? Our local school district, interestingly, is adding "Kindness" into their curriculum. Look at the progress we have made, Gay Marriage, cannabis use, public health, etc.. Culture can change. Our culture is rather coarse right now. Maybe we should focus on that too? Thanks again for the polite exchange.

 

[Matty44]

My point is that there is probably no reliable way to distinguish “law abiding citizens” from “law abiding citizens who will eventually use their incredibly overpowered weapons to mass murder a school full of kids.”

So unless said powerful weapons are providing a large measurable benefit to society, we should probably not allow them altogether.

Well yeah, and I said as much in my post a bit back about things we actually can do, I concur that trying to prevent the psychos from going psycho is a hard task. I just don't think that you can make any law that will actually reduce the handful of random mass shootings every year unless that law requires the confiscation of every non-handgun gun in the country. I concede, that if there were only handguns out there that these incidents would be less devastating. They'd still happen with handguns, but there would be less deaths probably. But since were never gonna get anywhere close to eliminating all AR-like rifles from the US, you're not gonna be able to keep em out of the hands of the 5-10 people a year who want to use them to shoot up a school, and therefore, negatively impacting a bunch of law abiding citizens by taking their guns, when it won't really effect change at all seems pointless and just likely to make people angry. And I've never shot anything other than a shotgun at a few clay pigeons. Never owned a gun personally.

The focus should be on school security, perhaps increased scrutiny on background checks (though I think they're probably sufficient now), and maybe adjusting red flag laws. Other than that, I don't see what's really practical to do that will actually have the effect you're looking for.