Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

I really don't care to give up any personal freedom, potentially dangerous or not, when the institutions that are created by the state to protect people from the potential harm fail to do so (as they have failed to do many other things that's in their job description). After George Floyd, I don't want to give the police, the federal government, or my fellow US citizen any more control of my personal protection. 

You could get anti-tank rifles shipped to your door from Sears in the 50's. Did school shootings happen then? What about the 20's? 

I don't want to live in a world where what responsible adults are "allowed to" do is dictated by the absolute worse elements of society. I'll take being responsible and doing mostly what I want over let's bubble wrap everything because our human social network is falling apart. I'm responsible and conscientious, I'll teach my kids to be the same, and I'm keeping them off social media. As far as I'm concerned, my obligation to society is then met.

The US has major systemic problems that cause things like this and then make corrective action almost impossible. Nevermind the way we teach (or don't teach) kids and teenagers to behave towards one another. Firearm prohibitions are closing the barn door well after the horse has left. 

I see people mentioning assault rifles - and someone asked on p3 for a definition...it's a valid question.

What makes a rifle an 'assault' rifle?

If we're going to have a discussion I do feel like all people need to be under the same understanding and basic knowledge of what is being discussed.

I am a teacher, I am a gun owner. These events crush me, I dont want anyone injured, especially kids.

I am also a coach - tennis, soccer, and the scholastic target team - we have a shooting team at my school (shotgun).

As far as mass shootings go, I dont know if I completely agree with the definition. It's 4 or more shot at once, yes? How many are like the Uvalde situation and how many are gang related? I think it's a valid question. Do we have a lot of gang violence that gets lumped in with the stats to drive them up yet gets almost zero news coverage to hide the crime information?

I view guns as a tool, just like a car. And we've seen both used to harm.  I, personally, feel that the issue in America is dealing with mental illness (sometimes that involves parents not locking up their guns as well as they should have, like in Sandy Hook), and also crime - there HAS to be harsher punishments for criminals. We are developing a society with fewer and fewer rules being enforced...at least when it comes to 'real' crimes, not just traffic stops.

I own two guns. One rifle, a .22 inherited from my grandfather. The other is a 9mm Glock pistol I bought a few years ago. So, I'm a gun owner but not a gun 'enthusiast'.  I have a carry permit but rarely ever do.

Every time one of these tragic school shootings occurs most of the reaction is hysteria. And I understand that, to a degree. But it seems to remove rational thought from the equation.

My analytical INT-J brain ponders it, and then asks this question:  guns were even more accessible when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. School shootings are mostly a 'recent' phenomenon. What has changed?

I think two things. One, social media has exponentially added to the teen angst that affects some of these mentally fragile kids.  Two, the explosion of single parent households.

I really don't think the guns are the problem. They are just a symptom, and a (possibly) too easily accessed tool to facilitate what these broken kids want to accomplish. Take away the guns and you maybe decrease the frequency. Maybe. Nothing stopping them from Googling "How to make a bomb" and doing that instead. 

On the subject of the 2a and "...a well regulated militia..."

The idea was to decentralize military power, but was not for the general populace to be able to rise up against the government. "Well regulated" meant that all members of the militia would be "regulars". It meant that all militia would be trained in the same manner, to follow the same orders the same way regardless of where they were from or who was leading them to be able to act as a "regular" fighting force. We would probably use the term "uniform" today to describe the same thing.

Keep in mind, that at the founding of this country, the United States was more like the EU than the single nation-state we think of today.

The idea was that each state would keep its own militia. The federal government would have the power to activate all the state militias for the communal protection of everyone. To act as an effective fighting force, all soldiers would need to be trained the same way so it didn't matter who was in charge of who. Orders would be given and followed the same way by everyone.

Most similar to the Swiss model, but on a much larger scale.

Part of the thinking was to take this power out of the hands of the president to keep from having a dictator who enforced their will with military rule.

Pretty quickly, this nation figured out that it needed a standing federal army, so that went out the window.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't really know. Except that it definitely doesn't mean the intention was for regular citizens to grab up rifles and be able to resist the Federal government, because they always knew that wasn't feasible.

On the subject of crafting laws:

I also think something needs to change. I think there need to be some effective laws. That means they need to be defined properly. I'm frustrated because I think the people who have the will to come up with restrictions that would keep people safe don't actually understand guns enough to craft legislation that is actually effective.

Someone brought up the question of "how do you define an assault rifle?" How do you allow people who live on ranches and farms the ability to have brush guns and varmint rifles to deal with pests, but minimize the ability of people to take powerful rifles into a school and murder people?

People focus on terms like "semi automatic", but that doesn't narrow things down. That just means that you can pull a trigger and fire a bullet without any intervening steps. Pretty much all modern revolvers are semi-automatic. But we're not worried that those are the guns that need to be regulated.

I'm not sure that focusing on definitions of the weapon are the right answer. I suspect regulating the people and situations that these weapons are available might be what is required.

On the subject of how many guns are already in circulation:

Maybe this isn't a problem that can be solved today. Maybe we need to put things in place so the problem is solved in 20 years. Maybe we can't fix everything in one big sweep today, but maybe we can make a huge dent and then see gradual change over time. If we did a buy-back on guns and put restrictions that require people to register and get licensed, that would take a lot of guns out of circulation. It would also cap more guns coming into markets. Yeah, lots of people would "lose all their guns in a boating incident", but they'd also keep those guns tightly secured. Over time, illegally held guns would surface and get destroyed.

Just because we can't solve a problem 100%, doesn't mean we can't take steps to mitigate how big of a problem it is.

ddavidv said:

I really don't think the guns are the problem. They are just a symptom, and a (possibly) too easily accessed tool to facilitate what these broken kids want to accomplish. Take away the guns and you maybe decrease the frequency. Maybe. Nothing stopping them from Googling "How to make a bomb" and doing that instead. 

This is a common argument.

True, guns don't make these things happen. There are other ways to kill people, but they make it easier. When you put up even small barriers in the way of an unwanted behavior, you can get a very marked decrease.

This effect has been studied with common ways people have committed suicide. Jumping off bridges and sticking your head in a gas over were both really easy ways to kill yourself. Putting up simple chain-link barriers to prevent people from jumping off bridges and making it so ovens wouldn't just vent gas both created significant declines in suicide rates.

Yes, a truly determined person will always find a way. You will never be able to stop everyone. But putting simple barriers in the way of the easiest methods effectively discourages the majority of people and will significantly decrease incidence rates.

Beer Baron said:

On the subject of the 2a and "...a well regulated militia..."

The idea was to decentralize military power, but was not for the general populace to be able to rise up against the government. "Well regulated" meant that all members of the militia would be "regulars". It meant that all militia would be trained in the same manner, to follow the same orders the same way regardless of where they were from or who was leading them to be able to act as a "regular" fighting force. We would probably use the term "uniform" today to describe the same thing.

Keep in mind, that at the founding of this country, the United States was more like the EU than the single nation-state we think of today.

The idea was that each state would keep its own militia. The federal government would have the power to activate all the state militias for the communal protection of everyone. To act as an effective fighting force, all soldiers would need to be trained the same way so it didn't matter who was in charge of who. Orders would be given and followed the same way by everyone.

Most similar to the Swiss model, but on a much larger scale.

Part of the thinking was to take this power out of the hands of the president to keep from having a dictator who enforced their will with military rule.

Pretty quickly, this nation figured out that it needed a standing federal army, so that went out the window.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't really know. Except that it definitely doesn't mean the intention was for regular citizens to grab up rifles and be able to resist the Federal government, because they always knew that wasn't feasible.

This reading of history is somewhat controversial, and at odds with the reading of the majority in Heller. From the summary posted on Oyez that I linked earlier:

The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.

The US under the Articles of Confederation resembled the EU to a degree, but once the Constitution was ratified, the established federal republic is significantly different from the EU, specifically in the power of the federal government. The triad of federalism - federal government, state governments, and the people themselves - was established in no small part as a means to limit the power of the national government. While this balance has remained fluid, the fact remains that the Anti-Federalists, the people responsible for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, were most concerned with the dangers of governmental power.

More generally, and in response to some other posts, it is important to note that no one feared the imposition of tyranny at the hands of the British with the end of the French & Indian War in 1763, yet twelve years later the Revolution began. By the time there is a perceived need for resistance to governmental power, it may be too late to establish it; the existence of conditions of resistance was deemed important by Federalist and Anti-Federalist alike. The developing technology question only applies if one is willing to dismiss this concern entirely, as otherwise the natural requirement of an effective armed citizenry is, in fact, possession of individual weapons similar to those held by the standing military.

SV reX said:

 

The definition of "well armed militia" has failed to be defined for a long time because the political will didn't exist. Too many people didn't want to give up their guns. 
 

It doesn't say "well armed militia" it says "well regulated militia" 

Guns will never go away, but it needs to be easier take guns away. The uvalde shooter had said he was going to shoot up a school, many mass shooters had presented red flags that were recognized, take away their guns. That's not so tough is it? 

I'm in favor of a license to buy guns which is revocable. Take some classes and pass a test to get it. If you commit a violent crime or whatever it gets taken away. If I sell a gun to a person without the license its mandatory jail time.

I will ask also why the type of weapon is relevant to a discussion about Uvalde. Yes, he used semi-automatic rifles, but he was also in that school for a long time. Over 40 minutes from when police were called (which was after the first shots were fired) to when any enforcement entered the building. He could have caused as much damage with the muskets that were invented before the 2a was written. 

Again, I am not saying that there aren't issues that can be corrected, but to call this an issue about weapons is either ignorant, lazy, or plain dishonest. 

I think(?) I can safely say, at this point, at least in this discussion, that specific gun restrictions, although they may have some merit, will not stop shootings or mass killings.  If you consider what would probably the most extreme (and certainly highly unlikely) restrictions, only bolt action and pump riles and shotguns, that would still allow a lot of killing.

So, we are left with other means, and what possibility there is that those could reasonably be enacted.

In reply to ddavidv :

Those are some assumptions that aren't true. Columbine predated social media and kicked off the modern epidemic of school shootings with mass casualties. There were literally hundreds of school shootings, all the way back to the the 1800's, before that but they were usually a single dispute and had few casualties both because the shooter had just a specific target in mind and the route of weapon used. Columbine was the first assault rifle / indiscriminate targets combo that let the genie out of the bottle. 

Secondly, single parent households have almost zero correlation to mass shootings. I'm not sure where you picked that up, but look at the perpetrators of these shootings and you will find a percentage of dual parent shooters that match the percentage of dual parent households overall. It's simply not an indicator. 

barefootcyborg5000 said:

I will ask also why the type of weapon is relevant to a discussion about Uvalde. Yes, he used semi-automatic rifles, but he was also in that school for a long time. Over 40 minutes from when police were called (which was after the first shots were fired) to when any enforcement entered the building. He could have caused as much damage with the muskets that were invented before the 2a was written. 

Again, I am not saying that there aren't issues that can be corrected, but to call this an issue about weapons is either ignorant, lazy, or plain dishonest. 

That's one data point out of literally hundreds, which is ignorant, lazy, or just plain dishonest. The Uvalde shooter clearly had mental health issues and was terrorizing, not looking for maximum casualties in the shortest time or he wouldn't have spent 12-14 minutes outside of the school shooting at nothing before going in. Your post speaks much more of the pathetic law enforcement response than the effectiveness of the shooters weapon, which he bought legally 2 days before with no background check, training, or license required at age 18 with known metal health disorders. 

Javelin said:

Columbine predated social media

 It didn't predate the internet or proto 4chans where people could radicalize.

My only contribution to this thread: Chicago is not a good example of gun laws not working. At least 40% of the firearms involved in shootings come from other states (Indiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Texas being the big ones). If you're bringing up Chicago as a datapoint for gun control, also bring up Morton Grove, IL which has historically had as strict of not stricter gun laws. 
 

Chicago is also not the hotbed of gun violence that many think it is. On a per capita basis, it is safer than 25 other cities - including St. Louis, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Philly, Kansas City, and Wilmington DE, for example. 
 

In reply to Javelin :

In general, I think, it would be better not to call peoples posts or thoughts "ignorant, lazy, or just plain dishonest".  

There is probably a less aggressive way to state what you mean.  Maybe base it on your disagreement, rather than an assumed flaw in the other person?

aircooled said:

I think(?) I can safely say, at this point, at least in this discussion, that specific gun restrictions, although they may have some merit, will not stop shootings or mass killings.  If you consider what would probably the most extreme (and certainly highly unlikely) restrictions, only bolt action and pump riles and shotguns, that would still allow a lot of killing.

So, we are left with other means, and what possibility there is that those could reasonably be enacted.

Just because a solution is imperfect doesn't make it not worth doing. Does everyone wear seatbelts while driving? Well no, of course not, but the deaths per capita due to not having our wearing them is a fraction of a percent of what they were beforehand. Why not craft laws that make the likelihood of this happening significantly less?

If the age to buy a firearm was raised to 21, and required a universal background check, and required a state license with minimum training, that would have been 3 steps of deterrent to the 18 year Uvalde gunman. If the law was 0 compromise on being charged with the crime committed by your unsecured weapon, that might have prevented Sandy Hook. If guns were only legal as single pull / single round (no burst mode) and with low capacity magazines, that would have been another barrier to the Las Vegas shooter.

Why should we not enact those laws? Nobody argued that the 2A enacts the right to shoulder fired rockets, mortars, or hand grenades, so why do assault rifles get a pass? They are all weapons of war used by military infantry (a well regulated militia).

We take away the right to vote from felons and the mentally ill, why not guns? We restrict free speech (can't tell fire in a theater falsely) so why not guns? Rights are not, and have never been, wholesale freedoms without restriction or consequence so we need to stop acting like this one is. 

In reply to aircooled :

I was repeating his words, read the quote. 

red_stapler said:

Javelin said:

Columbine predated social media

 It didn't predate the internet or proto 4chans where people could radicalize.

It also didn't predate easy civilian access to assault rifles. So the answer is regulate both.

Haven't gotten to read through the thread, but here's my .02

1. Firearms had a branch evolution after the time of the framers. In their time, a weapon for hunting was fairly indistinguishable from a weapon of war. At least not to the degree We see today, the primary difference may have been a bayonet. We have a reality that simply wasn't a concept of consideration at that time. 
2. I'm among those that dismiss the utility of large capacity magazines and fast reloading via clips as not really having a sporting or practical civilian use. What situation are you seeing for yourself outside of a red dawn or ruby ridge fantasy you need a 30 round magazine for?  I strongly suspect a study of reasonable usage scenarios would hold out that a few rounds will get the job done. If we address this, at least we can mitigate mass casualty events. 

I think the assault weapons ban needs to come back. Treat them like we did machine guns when they were banned. 

Yeah, lots of people will disagree with me. Just my opinion 

barefootcyborg5000 said:

I will ask also why the type of weapon is relevant to a discussion about Uvalde. Yes, he used semi-automatic rifles, but he was also in that school for a long time. Over 40 minutes from when police were called (which was after the first shots were fired) to when any enforcement entered the building. He could have caused as much damage with the muskets that were invented before the 2a was written. 

Again, I am not saying that there aren't issues that can be corrected, but to call this an issue about weapons is either ignorant, lazy, or plain dishonest. 

The time spent in this case is due to a police force doing the wrong thing.  If the police had followed procedure the outcome would still be terrible but not as many would have died.

Look at the mass killings committed with similar weapons and the age of the shooter.  This just seems too easy, it won't fix all the problems but every life saved matters.  

I became a gun owner in the last 6 years because I no longer feel the government can protect me from misguided people carrying too many weapons.  The process of buying a gun is a joke, there should be mandatory instruction and range time, IMHO.  

There are things that could be done to make us all safer, but the money behind this industry is influencing the situation.  I truly do not know what will be the catalyst to initiate change but I do pray it comes soon.

In reply to Javelin :

You are correct. It is one data point. Similar to the type of weapon used. One data point, and less relevant than most. 
If he bought the weapons from a dealer, he did have a background check, and passed. If he got them in a private sale that is a different issue, and still irrelevant to the type of weapon used. 
It does demonstrate as you say flaws in law enforcement. But, as we know, police have no legal obligation to intervene in such a situation. 
Still, we have some facts that are clear. The type of weapon is irrelevant in this situation. Bad guys pick on those who cannot defend themselves. 

Javelin said:

red_stapler said:

Javelin said:

Columbine predated social media

 It didn't predate the internet or proto 4chans where people could radicalize.

It also didn't predate easy civilian access to assault rifles. So the answer is regulate both.

Again, please define that term. An Ar15 is not the military weapon you trained with. Not to pick on Ruger, but their "ranch rifle" is identical in function and ability. 

In reply to Javelin :

It happened during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that passed in 1994.

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

Given that the police have no duty to protect you, does that change anybody's position about keeping a gun for self-protection?

Literally why I have a CCW.

Guy I went to school with from 2nd grade through graduation (was in a k-12 school) was shot dead by someone robbing the convenience store he worked at.  
Earlier that day the guy was planning to rob the Wendy's across the street, his friend or family member talked him out of it and he didn't.  About eight hours later he robbed the store my friend worked in and shot him.  Been a while since I looked at specifics, but I remember just being astounded that there were so many failures of the justice department in that guy being out.  Figured if they weren't going to do their job, I'd do it for them.

I haven't thought of Foy Boy in a long damn time...

SV reX said:

In reply to Antihero :

I'm not sure where you live. Sounds like a place like Uvalde. 
 

I'm not trying to be dramatic. But I have a friend who lived there. It was a simple, rural place where people felt safe. 
 

It could have happened anywhere. A false sense of security didn't prevent anything. 
 

So what are some of the things we can do to prevent something like this in the future?  It's not a theoretical question. It's a specific question about a specific action that has happened too many times with very similar details. 

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not a false sense of security but rather a societal difference. I'd also argue that having the means to defend yourself instantly makes a difference too. Better writers than I have said " an armed society is a polite society"

Im not sure if this model would work everywhere but it is fairly impressive IMO. 

Police inaction played a huge part in how terrible Uvalde was, something desperately needs to be done there. There has been a lot of argument about "a good guy with a gun" since the shooting but I'm not sure more guns in schools is a great answer either. The " good guy" part is more of what society needs.

I don't really have specific answers except to point out other viewpoints and experiences I have

I think we are rapidly approaching the line of just talking in circles at each other and repeating the same old-hat arguments.