What it's like to live in America where everybody can buy guns?

[Kong Soo Do]

I agree with your points, however there is a bit of apples-to-oranges comparison going on.

It lies in what the item was designed and intended to do.

A car was never designed to be a weapon meant for killing people. While it can be mis-used as one, the vast majority of car related deaths are accidents, even if those involved might not have been driving in a fully responsible way. Add to that the fact that many many more people are driving, often multiple times every single day, and car use is much much greater than gun use.

I understand your point. My comparison is more towards looking at both as tools. As such, they are both tools that can be misused. A vehicle is truly an exceptional invention. But in the hands of someone under the influence or impaired or simply distracted it can be a truly dangerous thing. Whether or not it was designed as such, it still deals far greater harm than firearms ever could except in the advent of war.

Some firearms are designed to 'kill' such as in hunting. This is humane. Other weapons are designed to stop the threat. There is a difference. The military for example isn't as interested in killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield as they are wounding them. From a logistical perspective it takes a far greater toll in finances as well as manpower to wound the enemy than it does killing them. From a L.E. perspective, police don't 'shoot to kill' despite those that claim otherwise. They (we) shoot to stop the threat. As a result the bad guy may die, but that isn't the intent. They (we) shoot for center mass because that is the biggest part of the anatomy that has the least amount of movement. Safer for bystanders.

Others are designed for the military and are meant specifically for killing humans. While regulations make it impractical for the average civilian to own a true military weapon, the civilian version of many of these weapons are really a very small step down from the military version. The real difference lies in burst and full automatic capabilities, which are not found in the civilian versions. That is really it. However, the large capacity magazines, coupled with semi-automatic capability, makes these civilian versions very very close in performance, to the true military versions. And the civilian versions are deliberately designed to look indistinguishable from the military version, at least to someone who is not very intimately familiar with some very minor differences.

Agreed. I would argue that civilians should have weapons on par with the military and not just 'close to' what the military has. And the reason is because of the very existence of the 2A. It wasn't for duck hunting. And self defense was a byproduct of the main reason which is for the populace to be able to overthrow the government should it ever become a tyranny. When one examines the climate in which our founding fathers lived, their reasoning in COTUS as well as individual quotes and writings it is clear they wanted a strongly armed populace. I have no issues with law abiding private citizens owning such weapons. Because they're law abiding private citizens. I don't fear a law abiding private citizen owning an AR-15 or an M-16 or an AK-47. Just as I don't fear the person in the next lane waiting for the light to turn green so they can run to the store for milk and eggs. I do fear a bad guy or terrorist with such weapons just as I fear a drunk driver or some idiot texting while driving. But to restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons due to the actions of a few would be no different from restricting people from owning automobiles due to the actions of a few. Particularly since owning a weapon is a right and driving is not a right.

So, when someone shows up at a night club or a school with a weapon that is designed specifically for killing large numbers of people, and he then proceeds to kill a large number of people, well I'm sorry but that is a very different thing from deaths due to automobile accidents

I'm more upset about law abiding private citizens being denied the right to defend themselves because of a sign that uses flawed assumptions (i.e. that criminals and terrorists obey gun laws or posted signs). And since FBI and other studies definitively demonstrate that armed citizens means fewer casualties in active shooter situations, denying private citizens their rights doesn't make sense. Like I mentioned earlier, just as well have 'designated drivers' you could also have 'designated CCW'. Armed citizens can make a difference and have made a difference.

And many Sheriff's and Chiefs have called on their citizens to carry a firearm and if they don't yet, call them for training.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

saturation makes a big difference, and if we consider how often people who see guns are injured or killed, the stats become quite a bit more alarming. In my opinion.

I can't agree with your statement here Steve (again with respect). There are over 80 million gun owners in the U.S. with nearly half a billion weapons. Incidents with firearms are small in comparison, particularly when we consider range shooting, hunting, competitions and lawful shootings by police and civilians. Media coverage can be, and is, very biased and saturated in comparison. Tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people see a gun every day and the experience is rather uninteresting.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sure, I understand this point of view and some of it I can find some agreement with and some of it I do not. I personally do not feel that civilians need to have ready access to military grade weaponry. The notion that the civilians will someday need to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government in that fashion is something that I find completely uncompelling for a number of reasons. But neither do I feel that civilians need to be completely and categorically disarmed.

The fact that the military, after doing research, chose a cartridge for its standard issue rifle that CAN be less than lethal, as part of a battlefield strategy of clogging the enemies resources with the needs of their own wounded soldiers, does not diminish the underlying lethality of the weapon and what it was designed for.

Same thing with law enforcement. I understand that firing at center of mass provides for the largest target. However, as we all know, a number of essential bodily organs are located there, and a shot to the torso can very easily be lethal. Redefining the intent as "stopping the threat" does not change that fact. I would wager that if an officer chooses to fire his weapon at a suspect, death is the assumed outcome. If the suspect survives, that is seen as a turn of luck. This is not meant as a criticism of law enforcement. I understand the job is tremendously stressful, and life-and-death decisions can be demanded in the blink of an eye. I briefly considered a career in law enforcement, and decided against it because I realized I did not want to have to deal with those issues.

At any rate, the needs and intentions of military and law enforcement are not at issue here. That is, and should be, something else altogether. The issue is civilians killing civilians, and what tools are or ought to be available to them and under what circumstances, with which to do so.

But my main point to make there is that comparing deaths in car accidents with gun deaths, especially deliberate mass shootings, is not a comparison that makes any sense. I actually feel that in many cases it is a deliberate distraction designed to take attention off the real issue: that tools designed specifically for killing many people are being used by civilians to kill many people, and that cannot be considered acceptable in our society.

That issue is a real problem, and sooner or later it will be dealt with in some manner.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Totally agree, FC. And there's also the issue of saturation. I see hundreds of cars every day. I ride in a car several times per day, and have direct contact with cars, either avoiding them, riding in them etc every day.

I see a firearm in real life, outside of LeO, maybe once a month, and have seen one fired once in the last 5 years, and that was when my brother took me to the range.

saturation makes a big difference, and if we consider how often people who see guns are injured or killed, the stats become quite a bit more alarming. In my opinion.

Because some guns are concealed, we'd have to count the number of times people are in the immediate vicinity of a gun (which is probably unknowable, due to concealed carry). You can't hide a car like a gun. When a gun is deployed, it is nearly always visible, so counting only when they are visible skews the statistics radically.

Still, the comparison (as FC said) is apples to oranges.

 

[Steve]

Because some guns are concealed, we'd have to count the number of times people are in the immediate vicinity of a gun (which is probably unknowable, due to concealed carry). You can't hide a car like a gun. When a gun is deployed, it is nearly always visible, so counting only when they are visible skews the statistics radically.

Still, the comparison (as FC said) is apples to oranges.

I disagree. cars are actively being used for their intended purpose. and through this use, sometimes people are injured or killed. gun use is very rare. But as a percentage of times people are exposed to guns being used, the Tate of injury or death is pretty high. and this is being generous.

more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all US wars since the revolutionary war.

 

[Flying Crane]

I disagree. cars are actively being used for their intended purpose. and through this use, sometimes people are injured or killed. gun use is very rare. But as a percentage of times people are exposed to guns being used, the Tate of injury or death is pretty high. and this is being generous.

more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all US wars since the revolutionary war.

And I just want to emphasize, the intended purpose of a car is benign. It is not deliberately designed to kill. In fact they are being designed to be as safe as possible. If they kill, it is an accident, or someone is making a deliberate decision to use it in a way that it was not designed or intended.

Guns are designed and meant to kill. That is their purpose.

Car use is heavily regulated. We have speed limits, seat belt requirements, financial responsibility/insurance requirements, mandatory training and licensing, etc. and that licensing can be revoked.

With guns, regulation varies tremendously from state to state, and in some areas it barely exists at all. The most vocal gun-rights advocates demand zero regulation.

I believe that some amount of regulation will be necessary, and some reasonable ground can be found. If that is refused then eventually there will be draconian restrictions.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Sure, I understand this point of view and some of it I can find some agreement with and some of it I do not. I personally do not feel that civilians need to have ready access to military grade weaponry. The notion that the civilians will someday need to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government in that fashion is something that I find completely uncompelling for a number of reasons. But neither do I feel that civilians need to be completely and categorically disarmed.

This is how the United States began. That was mainly why they were of a mind to ensure it could be done again and placed that as an inalienable right that cannot be infringed.

The fact that the military, after doing research, chose a cartridge for its standard issue rifle that CAN be less than lethal, as part of a battlefield strategy of clogging the enemies resources with the needs of their own wounded soldiers, does not diminish the underlying lethality of the weapon and what it was designed for.

Same thing with law enforcement. I understand that firing at center of mass provides for the largest target. However, as we all know, a number of essential bodily organs are located there, and a shot to the torso can very easily be lethal. Redefining the intent as "stopping the threat" does not change that fact. I would wager that if an officer chooses to fire his weapon at a suspect, death is the assumed outcome. If the suspect survives, that is seen as a turn of luck.

This may be 'rabbit-trailing' the thread, but I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion. Having been in the military and used an M16 I can attest that yes, it can be lethal. But the overall intent is to wound and thereby using up the enemies resources. This is why we changed from .45 ACP and .308 (among other calibers) from WWII to .223 in today's modern military. In truth, the .223/5.56 is seen as inferior from a lethal perspective from a 7.63x39 or 2.63x54R as used by other military's around the world. It is puffed up a bit by an uneducated media.

In terms of L.E. I would say that no, death is not the assumed and/or desired outcome for any officer firing their weapon. Terminal ballistics is an odd and endlessly debated subject. In short, a .22 LR could stop a 350lbs biker on meth in his tracks while multiple shotgun blasts fail to stop a small framed person. Case in point that I've talked about before; SSgt Carlos Hathcock (one of our best snipers ever) shot a small framed VC (IIRC) seven times in the upper torso with a Winchester Model 70 .308 sniper rifle. The man was not only not stopped but charged Hathcock's position. Only a head shot with that .308 in the head at close range stopped the VC. People have been shot through the heart and not only lived but fought back (case in point the female LAPD officer shot through the heart with a .357 magnum and lived to return fire killing her attacker with three COM 9mm shots.

The COM (center of mass) does have vital organs but hitting a vital organ isn't the most reliable means of an instant stop. The CNS (central nervous system) is more reliable. But vital organs are the next best thing. But the COM is the best/safest/thickest place to shoot someone from the perspective of hitting them and thereby reducing the risk of hitting bystanders or having a shoot-through. Most people that get shot don't die. They may be incapacitated (maybe), they may be maimed or they may be relatively unaffected. Again, terminal ballistics is a rather odd duck to say the least. But something like an AR15 has no special lethal properties to it above other rifles and as I've mentioned, is actually somewhat inferior to something like an AK-47 round (7.62x39) in some ways. In other words, it is not the 'killer death ray' the media portrays it to be.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I believe that some amount of regulation will be necessary, and some reasonable ground can be found. If that is refused then eventually there will be draconian restrictions.

More than enough regulation already exists. The answer has never been to restrict law abiding citizens. Depriving law abiding citizens of the means of defense AND the means to overthrow a tyrannical government is not the answer. The answer has been with dealing harshly with criminals. Three times as many bad guys are shot annually by law abiding armed citizens as are shot by police (FBI statistics).

If truly draconian laws are ever attempted then you will see the second revolutionary war.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I can't believe car deaths are being compared to gun deaths. no one makes the argument to hop in a car when they want to kill someone. with guns there is an intent to injure or kills with the exception of target practice and accidental shootings. If I pull my gun out my intent is to hit what I'm pointing at. When I get in my car the goal is to travel without getting hit. Might as well compare health diseases as well. if some wants to kill some else, a car is the last choice for a weapon

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I can't believe car deaths are being compared to gun deaths. no one makes the argument to hop in a car when they want to kill someone. with guns there is an intent to injure or kills with the exception of target practice and accidental shootings. If I pull my gun out my intent is to hit what I'm pointing at. When I get in my car the goal is to travel without getting hit. Might as well compare health diseases as well. if some wants to kill some else, a car is the last choice for a weapon

Your missing the point(s) that have been offered. A tool is a tool. The tool isn't to blame, the person misusing the tool is to blame. Is a firearm designed to be a weapon? Yes. Is it to be feared in the hands of a law abiding citizen? No. Does violent crime go down in places where private citizens are routinely armed? Yes. Does crime go up with private citizen's (law abiding) Constitutional rights are infringed? Yes.

So again, the tool isn't the issue, it's the person using or misusing the tool that is the issue. Attempting to take away the tool from law abiding citizens isn't the answer.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is how the United States began. That was mainly why they were of a mind to ensure it could be done again and placed that as an inalienable right that cannot be infringed.



This may be 'rabbit-trailing' the thread, but I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion. Having been in the military and used an M16 I can attest that yes, it can be lethal. But the overall intent is to wound and thereby using up the enemies resources. This is why we changed from .45 ACP and .308 (among other calibers) from WWII to .223 in today's modern military. In truth, the .223/5.56 is seen as inferior from a lethal perspective from a 7.63x39 or 2.63x54R as used by other military's around the world. It is puffed up a bit by an uneducated media.

In terms of L.E. I would say that no, death is not the assumed and/or desired outcome for any officer firing their weapon. Terminal ballistics is an odd and endlessly debated subject. In short, a .22 LR could stop a 350lbs biker on meth in his tracks while multiple shotgun blasts fail to stop a small framed person. Case in point that I've talked about before; SSgt Carlos Hathcock (one of our best snipers ever) shot a small framed VC (IIRC) seven times in the upper torso with a Winchester Model 70 .308 sniper rifle. The man was not only not stopped but charged Hathcock's position. Only a head shot with that .308 in the head at close range stopped the VC. People have been shot through the heart and not only lived but fought back (case in point the female LAPD officer shot through the heart with a .357 magnum and lived to return fire killing her attacker with three COM 9mm shots.

The COM (center of mass) does have vital organs but hitting a vital organ isn't the most reliable means of an instant stop. The CNS (central nervous system) is more reliable. But vital organs are the next best thing. But the COM is the best/safest/thickest place to shoot someone from the perspective of hitting them and thereby reducing the risk of hitting bystanders or having a shoot-through. Most people that get shot don't die. They may be incapacitated (maybe), they may be maimed or they may be relatively unaffected. Again, terminal ballistics is a rather odd duck to say the least. But something like an AR15 has no special lethal properties to it above other rifles and as I've mentioned, is actually somewhat inferior to something like an AK-47 round (7.62x39) in some ways. In other words, it is not the 'killer death ray' the media portrays it to be.

Reality was very very different in the 1700s, from what it is today. Our founding fathers could never have predicted or even dreamed of the weaponry we have now.

But that, and the ballistics discussion are still beside the point. That point being, civilians are taking weapons designed to kill many people, and are using them to kill many people. That is unacceptable. I'd say there is still time to negotiate reasonable limits and regulations. If nobody is willing to come to the table and have discussions in good faith, then the restrictions that come later will be much much stronger.

 

[Flying Crane]

If truly draconian laws are ever attempted then you will see the second revolutionary war.

no, we won't.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

no, we won't.

Yes, we will.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Your missing the point(s) that have been offered. A tool is a tool. The tool isn't to blame, the person misusing the tool is to blame. Is a firearm designed to be a weapon? Yes. Is it to be feared in the hands of a law abiding citizen? No. Does violent crime go down in places where private citizens are routinely armed? Yes. Does crime go up with private citizen's (law abiding) Constitutional rights are infringed? Yes.

So again, the tool isn't the issue, it's the person using or misusing the tool that is the issue. Attempting to take away the tool from law abiding citizens isn't the answer.

what you say makes no sense. Everyone keeps talking about someone taking your guns and year after year more guns are sold. People have been using that excuse since Bill Clinton and nothing has happened.
You can't control what people do but you can control what they get their hands on considerably better than the person. You can't stop car wrecks from happening but you make laws that determines what type of vehicles can be on the road.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, we will.

Oh I realize the fantasy exists. Some people believe they are going to lead a popular uprising and the masses of downtrodden oppressed gun owners will step up behind them and "take back" whatever America they think has been taken from them.

But they will be sorely disappointed when it doesn't happen, and it's just them and a dozen buddies with their AR15s in their cinder block and tractor tire bunker, out on the prairie, and they look around and see nobody there to back them.

So then it becomes a standoff with government agents, until everyone gets hungry or bored or both and they all go home. Unless someone gets REALLY stupid and opens fire on the agents. Then they will all be mowed down, and the rest of us will watch it on the evening news as entertainment, and we will all shake our heads at the stupidity of it all. And then we will all carry on with our lives and not even remember the names of the people involved. It'll get a footnote in a history book somewhere.

That is what will happen.

Dump the fantasy.

 

[Tgace]

Instead of regurgitating what someone else wrote...

Why I “Need” an AR-15

What he said....

 

[Tgace]

what you say makes no sense. Everyone keeps talking about someone taking your guns and year after year more guns are sold. People have been using that excuse since Bill Clinton and nothing has happened.
You can't control what people do but you can control what they get their hands on considerably better than the person. You can't stop car wrecks from happening but you make laws that determines what type of vehicles can be on the road.

Sorry...but after more than a decade and a half of LE work I disagree. Legislating "things" only restricts people who obey the rules. And this is from a Narcotics cop.

Laws work only when people are afraid of breaking them or are locked away from society after breaking them so they can't break them again.

If we want to keep bad things from happening with guns we need to look at the PERSON trying to buy the gun...not the slippery slope of gun banning. After semi-autos are outlawed and the next mass killing happens with a pump action shotgun I doubt everyone is going to say "well at least as wasn't as bad as if he had an AR". Hell the Virginia Tech shooter only had small caliber handguns...

 

[Tgace]

Reality was very very different in the 1700s, from what it is today. Our founding fathers could never have predicted or even dreamed of the weaponry we have now.

But that, and the ballistics discussion are still beside the point. That point being, civilians are taking weapons designed to kill many people, and are using them to kill many people. That is unacceptable. I'd say there is still time to negotiate reasonable limits and regulations. If nobody is willing to come to the table and have discussions in good faith, then the restrictions that come later will be much much stronger.

The only functional difference between this hunting rifle and the "OMG DESIGNED TO KILL MANY PEOPLE" rifle is the magazine capacity of the mags most commonly used....

All the other stuff (pistol grips, collapsing stocks, bayonet lugs...seriously?) is just cosmetics that scare the ignorant.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree. cars are actively being used for their intended purpose. and through this use, sometimes people are injured or killed. gun use is very rare. But as a percentage of times people are exposed to guns being used, the Tate of injury or death is pretty high. and this is being generous.

more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all US wars since the revolutionary war.

That has nothing to do with my assertion about the statistical validity of your statement. We have no accurate statistics about the rate of injury/death related to exposure, since we have no accurate statistics about actual exposure.

 

[Tgace]

Any discussion about the rate of "gun violence" coupled to "Assault Weapons" is a non-starter from the start.

Long guns of any sort are seldom used in "US Gun Crimes"...."Assault Weapons" dramatically less than that.

Ya'll are falling victim to the "If it saves ONE life" mentality linked to media saturation of tragedies that are statistically minuscule. Handguns BY FAR do most of the killing in the USA. This hoopla over assault weapons is a side-show that allows politicians to bathe in the spot light.