lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Had any face to face conversations about the violence epidemic? I have, or rather, tried to have such a conversation. A soon as "violence" came up, all the participants went immediately to "gun control", and congregated in their separate corners. There was no conversation, there was only yelling, with each "side" trying to overwhelm the other with sheer volume. It appears that online conversations run along similar lines.

Eventually, order was restored ( sort of ). I have long held the view that gun control is a fools errand, because no matter what ( or how many ) laws are passed, only law abiding citizens pay attention to them. By the same token, having NO laws in this regard, is equally foolish. I asked some questions, such as; who needs a 30 round clip to hunt deer/elk/moose?

There were those who didn't want any kind of gun control, calling it a "slippery slope towards confiscation", a concept that isn't based on reality. To those who were adamant that the 2nd amendment ruled all, I asked for a list of family/friends they were willing to sacrifice to maintain a "hands off my guns" stance. You see, it's one thing to agree that some folks will continue to die at the end of a firearm, and agreeing to give up some of your own kin.

Everyone agreed to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, ignoring the fact that it isn't criminals doing the most damage. What separates a criminal from a non criminal? - committing a crime. For the majority of mass shooting perpetrators, that is their first felony. Unless we hire psychics for some sort of "minority report" BS, we're not going to keep criminals-to-be from killing folks.

I tried to get the conversation to focus on ways to curb the tendency towards violence. Everyone just sort of looked at each other, saying nothing. As long as we jump directly to gun control whenever a massacre happens, we'll repeat the same scenario I described above and get exactly no where. We MUST change the conversation.

moldyoldy

You are great at walking down that center median on the highway. Unfortunately, I completely agree with your premise. But, laws can make a difference, in some cases. There are a lot of guns in states that do not sell guns. How can you cross a state line and buy a gun? When will we integrate data bases with violent behavior shown on gun checks?

Rose42

We should absolutely change it but for it to change people have to see it needs to be changed. I don’t see much budging on that.

With regards to a 30 round magazine when hunting. A former neighbor of mine was an avid hunter. He used to carry a .45 1911 which held 8 rounds in case of a bear or mountain lion. He was attacked by a mountain lion and emptied it while it charged. Each shot hit but the animal didn’t stop until the last. Some encounter bears.

Of course this doesn’t happen to everyone but it sometimes does.

teabag09

In the first place they are magazines not clips. Clips are used to load magazines. I personally use a 5 round magazine for hunting because if I can't hit an animal in the first or second round I shouldn't be shooting at said animal. The other three rounds are either for putting an animal that's wounded down or for my protection from other animals.

I own quite a few 20 and 30 round magazines. Those I use on the range. Sometimes I'm shooting for groups. On occasion I just like to pull the trigger as fast as I can just for the heck of it. I can tell you that doing that is way too inaccurate for a mass shooting but with a steady, measured trigger pull a lot of damage can be done.

I'm a life time NRA member and I have no problem with tightening background checks. I do have a huge problem with registration as with the background check we are already registration in a sense but to take it further we're more heading to confiscation.

In my opinion most of the mass shooter have shown signs of having some sort of mental problems and yet nobody acted to check them out or raise an alarm

In the long run if the Government comes for my guns, I will comply, one bullet at a time. Mike

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Guns are insurance and authoritarians HATE it.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

There are a lot fewer crazy people than there are guns.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

I got rid of my 30 round mags for my SKS. Too hard to load!

rumitoid

Just one comment about your absurd protection of epidemic violence. Yes, epidemic violence and not the right to bear arms.

"No matter what ( or how many ) laws are passed, only law abiding citizens pay attention to them." Absolutely wrong. Pay attention to a thirty day waiting period to be properly vetted for all firearm exchanges. No choice. An agency, properly funded and staffed, directly responsible to collect all data on possible citizen threats, such as restraint orders, terrorist affiliation both domestic and foreign, those convicted of domestic violence, the mentally ill considered violent, hate groups, and so on. Yes, as paranoia serves, such a thing will be used by liberals to disarm all Conservatives as a basic threat to national conformity.

Then this brilliant and dastardly suggestion to allow epidemic gun violence to continue to hold inviolate the love of guns: "we're not going to keep criminals-to-be from killing folks." But we can. Surely not all but many by universal, not state by state, gun laws. If we catch just one in that net it is worth your 30 day wait to go kill something. A wait for a gun is not an infringement of owning a gun: it is simply sound reasoning and decency.

Dan the man

Okay, I may have 10 guns already. So now I wait 30 days to
purchase another. What have you accomplished? What comes
to mind is all the laws to stop drugs, guess what we still have
a huge drug problem. What we need is an intelligent answer.
Political and money driven answers will never accomplish this.
You want to stop something, the punishment has to be so
severe people will fear doing it.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

None of your suggestions would have prevented a single mass shooting this year. That means that laws are useless at curbing violence and it is delusional thinking to believe they can. So, what interventions might have worked? In order to find answers, the right questions have to be asked.

The common denominator for all the slaughter is violence. All humans are capable of violence, it's in every animals DNA, but few non human animals kill for sport, anger, or frustration. Do we need to discuss gun laws? Perhaps, but beginning with that topic is a sure recipe for further division, and an iron clad guarantee that the slaughter will continue.

Rose42

You're confusing your opinion of what is sound reasoning with fact again. Blade_runner is right. You are indeed hysterical about guns all the while ignoring more fundamental issues and problems.

Its hard to have a meaningful conversation with those who are hysterical. We need to address the underlying causes.

JoyV

Why does being able to defend oneself mean giving up lives of one's kin or anyone's kin unless that person is trying to harm you?

For the most part, I agree with your post.

JoyV

Yup. And it can also happen when a human attacker is overloaded with adrenaline or on certain drugs. That is why if you shoot an attacker, you keep shooting until he is down for the count. I was taught to empty my magazine. Some places want a three bullet limit in a magazine. This is not enough for someone crazed!

CodyCoonhound Loc: Redbone Country

Including this guy in TX that just killed a bunch of innocent people. His neighbor had reported him to police just a few weeks ago for pointing a rifle at her for some trash near his property. What kind of sane person does this? No action taken by police. Wow, not in my neighborhood. He would have been in jail.

JoyV