I'm going to put my head through a wall...

DrillSergeantCat

Also...as to the AR-15 debate. What makes the AR-15 so much worse than a .223 rifle? Is it the fact that it can hold more rounds of ammunition? Serious question, not snark. 

Also #2...someone said something about handguns not being needed while hunting. That's incorrect. While out duck hunting in the wee hours, my ex was surprised by a coyote. He had to use his sidearm because it was readily available rather than his rifle/shotgun which would have taken several seconds to load.

ShesSoCold

DrillSergeantCat said:

Also...as to the AR-15 debate. What makes the AR-15 so much worse than a .223 rifle? Is it the fact that it can hold more rounds of ammunition? Serious question, not snark. 

Also #2...someone said something about handguns not being needed while hunting. That's incorrect. While out duck hunting in the wee hours, my ex was surprised by a coyote. He had to use his sidearm because it was readily available rather than his rifle/shotgun which would have taken several seconds to load.

Because people think AR means "assault rifle".

DrillSergeantCat

ShesSoCold said:

DrillSergeantCat said:

Also...as to the AR-15 debate. What makes the AR-15 so much worse than a .223 rifle? Is it the fact that it can hold more rounds of ammunition? Serious question, not snark. 

Also #2...someone said something about handguns not being needed while hunting. That's incorrect. While out duck hunting in the wee hours, my ex was surprised by a coyote. He had to use his sidearm because it was readily available rather than his rifle/shotgun which would have taken several seconds to load.

Because people think AR means "assault rifle".

LOL, Right. It doesn't, though. That's my point. People think it means assault when it means ArmaLite which is the original company that manufactured it. When you think about it, any weapon is an assault weapon if the use is to assault someone. My favorite kitchen knife turns into an assault weapon, if I stab someone with it, right?

emmaaa

DrillSergeantCat said:

Also...as to the AR-15 debate. What makes the AR-15 so much worse than a .223 rifle? Is it the fact that it can hold more rounds of ammunition? Serious question, not snark. 

Also #2...someone said something about handguns not being needed while hunting. That's incorrect. While out duck hunting in the wee hours, my ex was surprised by a coyote. He had to use his sidearm because it was readily available rather than his rifle/shotgun which would have taken several seconds to load.

This. My husband's 30-06 rifle could do a lot more damage than our Ar-15 that shoots .556/.223

I really despise the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon." Any weapon (rifle, handgun, knife, sword) or non-weapon (bat, frying pan, crow bar) can be used for "assault."

thisismynickname2

I think overall this is an interesting conversation. There are clearly those of us who are gun owners / engaged or married to gun owners, and there are clearly those of us who hate guns. 

I don't think any of us users/owners are the "crazies" you see spouting off on TV or on your Facebook feeds. I am all for meaningful and effective legislation at the federal level, but it's going to be hard to come by with our crackpot politicians who are lobbied, bought and sold to special interest groups. I'll repeat myself that I'm the skeptical one that anything's going to really work and reduce violence, and I'm simply going to stand by my right to defend myself. And yes, I was asked if that right extends beyond the home and it sure does. I think having the ability to conceal-carry is a deterrent to random street crime. When it was illegal in IL every one of us was a sitting duck (and there were rashes of flash mobs- teens attacking and mugging random pedestrians). Now, any of us could be carrying. I want to look up the statistics and see if that kind of crime- the random street crime- has gone down, because at least the media reports of it are far less than a few years ago here. 

FWIW I haven't gone through the appropriate training yet, and DH's guns are locked in a gun safe at his parents' house. But I do want to get around to getting the training and getting something small of my own that I'll be comfortable with.

"Lock your door"- I haven't heard anything more ludicrous in my life. Sorry SM but that's the most naive thing I've ever heard. On your next vacation why don't you come to Chicago? I'll host you in my spare bedroom.

kylexo

DrillSergeantCat said:

ShesSoCold said:

DrillSergeantCat said:

Also...as to the AR-15 debate. What makes the AR-15 so much worse than a .223 rifle? Is it the fact that it can hold more rounds of ammunition? Serious question, not snark. 

Also #2...someone said something about handguns not being needed while hunting. That's incorrect. While out duck hunting in the wee hours, my ex was surprised by a coyote. He had to use his sidearm because it was readily available rather than his rifle/shotgun which would have taken several seconds to load.

Because people think AR means "assault rifle".

LOL, Right. It doesn't, though. That's my point. People think it means assault when it means ArmaLite which is the original company that manufactured it. When you think about it, any weapon is an assault weapon if the use is to assault someone. My favorite kitchen knife turns into an assault weapon, if I stab someone with it, right?

This attitude is a huge part of the problem in the debate (and it does happen on both sides) but assuming that your ideological opposition on the issue isn't educated (again, some aren't on both sides) and dismissing their opinions because YOU feel they aren't educated on the topic does nothing for your argument, cause the soonest way to make people not give a shit about what you think is to act as if you think they're idiots for their beliefs.

most people don't like the AR-15specifically because it does seem to be the #1 choice for these mass shootings. High magazines aren't necessary in civilian life. the AR-15 does not have a real use in civilian life outside of being a killing machine. Arguments can be made for handguns or hunting rifles.

eta: typo! Stupid fat fingers on mobile!!

emmaaa

kylexo said:

DrillSergeantCat said:

ShesSoCold said:

DrillSergeantCat said:

Also...as to the AR-15 debate. What makes the AR-15 so much worse than a .223 rifle? Is it the fact that it can hold more rounds of ammunition? Serious question, not snark. 

Also #2...someone said something about handguns not being needed while hunting. That's incorrect. While out duck hunting in the wee hours, my ex was surprised by a coyote. He had to use his sidearm because it was readily available rather than his rifle/shotgun which would have taken several seconds to load.

Because people think AR means "assault rifle".

LOL, Right. It doesn't, though. That's my point. People think it means assault when it means ArmaLite which is the original company that manufactured it. When you think about it, any weapon is an assault weapon if the use is to assault someone. My favorite kitchen knife turns into an assault weapon, if I stab someone with it, right?

This attitude is a huge part of the problem in the debate (and it does happen on both sides) but assuming that your ideological opposition on the issue isn't educated (again, some aren't on both sides) and dismissing their opinions because YOU feel they aren't educated on the topic does nothing for your argument, cause the soonest way to make people not give a shit about what you think is to act as if you think they're idiots for their beliefs.

most people don't like the AR-15specifically because it does seem to be the #1 choice for these mass shootings. High magazines aren't necessary in civilian life. the AR-15 does not have a real use in civilian life outside of being a killing machine. Arguments can be made for handguns or hunting rifles.

eta: typo! Stupid fat fingers on mobile!!

We use our AR on a regular basis for predator hunting (coyotes) to protect farm animals at my family's farm. 

monkeysip

The issue comes down to 

A) how much ammunition the mags can hold
B ) the rate of fire
C) the caliber it can fire

All those have to be taken into consideration, and I think by assault rifle, people are referring to guns with high cap. mags, high caliber, and a high rate of fire.  

BUT I'm not at all a gun expert, so I have no idea whether an AR-15 is better or worse than other guns in that respect.  I'd love to read some kind of "Gun types for dummies" book to educate myself on the differences.  And I agree, "assault rifle" is kind of a weird, vague term.  I think that's part of the reason why legislation can be tricky because it can be hard to determine which guns are more dangerous than others.

The point though is that there are some guns and/or gun accessories that have very little practical purpose beyond killing large amounts of people.  In fact, those who I've talked to who support these more dangerous weapons do so because they specifically say they want them to fight a terrorist threat or tyrannical government.  NOT because they're for "hunting" or even normal home defense (unless a whole gang comes to invade your home).  

And that I think is a fundamental philosophical divide in the gun debate.  Do non-military, non-police citizens have a right to very dangerous weapons in order to defend themselves against terrorism or tyranny?  I don't really think so, but a lot of people remain convinced that they do, and that the 2nd amendment supports that right.

kylexo

emmaaa said:

kylexo said:

DrillSergeantCat said:

ShesSoCold said:

DrillSergeantCat said:

Also...as to the AR-15 debate. What makes the AR-15 so much worse than a .223 rifle? Is it the fact that it can hold more rounds of ammunition? Serious question, not snark. 

Also #2...someone said something about handguns not being needed while hunting. That's incorrect. While out duck hunting in the wee hours, my ex was surprised by a coyote. He had to use his sidearm because it was readily available rather than his rifle/shotgun which would have taken several seconds to load.

Because people think AR means "assault rifle".

LOL, Right. It doesn't, though. That's my point. People think it means assault when it means ArmaLite which is the original company that manufactured it. When you think about it, any weapon is an assault weapon if the use is to assault someone. My favorite kitchen knife turns into an assault weapon, if I stab someone with it, right?

This attitude is a huge part of the problem in the debate (and it does happen on both sides) but assuming that your ideological opposition on the issue isn't educated (again, some aren't on both sides) and dismissing their opinions because YOU feel they aren't educated on the topic does nothing for your argument, cause the soonest way to make people not give a shit about what you think is to act as if you think they're idiots for their beliefs.

most people don't like the AR-15specifically because it does seem to be the #1 choice for these mass shootings. High magazines aren't necessary in civilian life. the AR-15 does not have a real use in civilian life outside of being a killing machine. Arguments can be made for handguns or hunting rifles.

eta: typo! Stupid fat fingers on mobile!!

We use our AR on a regular basis for predator hunting (coyotes) to protect farm animals at my family's farm. 

Cool! I live in an area full of farms and coyotes (foxes too, they are awful if you forget to lock up your chickens) too. There are other options for killing nuisance species. 

Eta: failing at mobile typing right now 

DrillSergeantCat

kylexo said:

This attitude is a huge part of the problem in the debate (and it does happen on both sides) but assuming that your ideological opposition on the issue isn't educated (again, some aren't on both sides) and dismissing their opinions because YOU feel they aren't educated on the topic does nothing for your argument, cause the soonest way to make people not give a shit about what you think is to act as if you think they're idiots for their beliefs.

most people don't like the AR-15specifically because it does seem to be the #1 choice for these mass shootings. High magazines aren't necessary in civilian life. the AR-15 does not have a real use in civilian life outside of being a killing machine. Arguments can be made for handguns or hunting rifles.

eta: typo! Stupid fat fingers on mobile!!

You answered my original question of why people think an AR-15 is worse than a .223 when they shoot the same size round. I appreciate that. I'm just pointing out that there's ignorance on both sides. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who think an AR-15 is an assault rifle think that's true because they believe it's right there in the name. 

My ex used his AR-15 as a "critter gitter" btw. He'd use it to hunt gophers. A neighbor used his to hunt turtles. Ex's friend used it to shoot rabbits. There are uses for it outside of killing humans. Granted, any other rifle would have worked, but that's what these guys used it for. And really...all guns are "killing machines."

banana468

But a mag can be used in a pistol with a decently high caliber and the mag can be high capacity.

This is where the slope gets slippery.   How do you regulate every little nuance when there are similarities between pistols and rifles?   And how do you do this in FOUR DAYS when the laws proposed are being written by people with lack of gun knowledge?

As for locking doors @STARMOON44, why don't you tell that to Dr. Petit?   I wonder if he felt that he was just fine and safe in his home back in July 2007.  

kylexo

DrillSergeantCat said:

kylexo said:

This attitude is a huge part of the problem in the debate (and it does happen on both sides) but assuming that your ideological opposition on the issue isn't educated (again, some aren't on both sides) and dismissing their opinions because YOU feel they aren't educated on the topic does nothing for your argument, cause the soonest way to make people not give a shit about what you think is to act as if you think they're idiots for their beliefs.

most people don't like the AR-15specifically because it does seem to be the #1 choice for these mass shootings. High magazines aren't necessary in civilian life. the AR-15 does not have a real use in civilian life outside of being a killing machine. Arguments can be made for handguns or hunting rifles.

eta: typo! Stupid fat fingers on mobile!!

You answered my original question of why people think an AR-15 is worse than a .223 when they shoot the same size round. I appreciate that. I'm just pointing out that there's ignorance on both sides. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who think an AR-15 is an assault rifle think that's true because they believe it's right there in the name. 

My ex used his AR-15 as a "critter gitter" btw. He'd use it to hunt gophers. A neighbor used his to hunt turtles. Ex's friend used it to shoot rabbits. There are uses for it outside of killing humans. Granted, any other rifle would have worked, but that's what these guys used it for. And really...all guns are "killing machines."

So the large magazine thing is, at the moment the biggest issue for me, outside of the Dickie amendment. A gun that holds that many rounds is a killing machine in that you can do so much so quickly vs a hunting rifle. I understand killing nuisance species, I live in a rural area. I don't personally have use for a gun but I get it. If you re shooting up a school or mall or movie theatre or gay club or whatever, if you have to stop and reload, that's an opportunity for you to be stopped that doesn't exist if you're able to mow down everyone surrounding you without reloading. That is not something a civilian needs, and if you think you need it for hunting, you're bad at hunting.

monkeysip

banana468 said:

But a mag can be used in a pistol with a decently high caliber and the mag can be high capacity.

This is where the slope gets slippery.   How do you regulate every little nuance when there are similarities between pistols and rifles?   And how do you do this in FOUR DAYS when the laws proposed are being written by people with lack of gun knowledge?

As for locking doors @STARMOON44, why don't you tell that to Dr. Petit?   I wonder if he felt that he was just fine and safe in his home back in July 2007.  

But -- and PLEASE someone correct me if I'm wrong-- wouldn't the rate of fire be much slower in a pistol?  Even with a high cap mag, you still wouldn't be able to shoot as many people as fast as with a rifle like an AR15.  

But again, I'm really not expert, so maybe I'm wrong about that.

DrillSergeantCat

monkeysip said:

The issue comes down to 

A) how much ammunition the mags can hold My Walther PK380 handgun holds 9 rounds. There are magazines for an AR-15 that hold anywhere from 5-30, but I can buy an extended clip for my PK that holds more. There's also a Keltec PMR30 that holds 30 .22 caliber rounds - it's a handgun. The size of the ammunition between a .223 and a .22 is not that different in circumference. 
B ) the rate of fire - All semi-automatic handguns are only as fast as you can pull the trigger. You have to have a federal stamp to own a fully automatic (machine) gun and they are very hard to get.
C) the caliber it can fire - A .223 is much smaller in circumference than a .380 or a .40 which are both common handgun calibers. 

All those have to be taken into consideration, and I think by assault rifle, people are referring to guns with high cap. mags, high caliber, and a high rate of fire.  

BUT I'm not at all a gun expert, so I have no idea whether an AR-15 is better or worse than other guns in that respect.  I'd love to read some kind of "Gun types for dummies" book to educate myself on the differences.  And I agree, "assault rifle" is kind of a weird, vague term.  I think that's part of the reason why legislation can be tricky because it can be hard to determine which guns are more dangerous than others.

The point though is that there are some guns and/or gun accessories that have very little practical purpose beyond killing large amounts of people.  In fact, those who I've talked to who support these more dangerous weapons do so because they specifically say they want them to fight a terrorist threat or tyrannical government.  NOT because they're for "hunting" or even normal home defense (unless a whole gang comes to invade your home).  

And that I think is a fundamental philosophical divide in the gun debate.  Do non-military, non-police citizens have a right to very dangerous weapons in order to defend themselves against terrorism or tyranny?  I don't really think so, but a lot of people remain convinced that they do, and that the 2nd amendment supports that right.

DrillSergeantCat

monkeysip said:

banana468 said:

But a mag can be used in a pistol with a decently high caliber and the mag can be high capacity.

This is where the slope gets slippery.   How do you regulate every little nuance when there are similarities between pistols and rifles?   And how do you do this in FOUR DAYS when the laws proposed are being written by people with lack of gun knowledge?

As for locking doors @STARMOON44, why don't you tell that to Dr. Petit?   I wonder if he felt that he was just fine and safe in his home back in July 2007.  

But -- and PLEASE someone correct me if I'm wrong-- wouldn't the rate of fire be much slower in a pistol?  Even with a high cap mag, you still wouldn't be able to shoot as many people as fast as with a rifle like an AR15.  

But again, I'm really not expert, so maybe I'm wrong about that.

Nope. An Ar-15 is a semi-automatic meaning it will only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger same as any other semi-automatic handgun. Look up the Keltec PMR30. It's a .22 handgun that holds 30 rounds. Many handguns have extended magazines available for purchase to be able to hold more rounds.

monkeysip

DrillSergeantCat

Thanks for the info on the AR-15!  

DrillSergeantCat

@monkeysip sure thing! 

monkeysip

Maybe this is a dumb question--but why would shooters choose something like an AR-15 (or other rifles) over a handgun then?  Clearly there must be SOME advantage to a rifle.  And it's obviously not stealth.  Seems easier to bring a handgun.  Is it just accessibility?  Or something else?

scrunchythief

So, what I really want is for the Dickie amendment to be repealed so we can do what with did with auto deaths.  I don't know enough about particular guns to know exactly what nuances would make a difference.  Though with mass shootings, I know that magazine size matters, because some shootings have been stopped by people tackling the shooter while he was reloading.  But I think it'd be more effective to make getting a gun, of any kind, more difficult in the first place, and have periodic license renewals that include a physical and mental health check up.  And increase the difficulty to get kinds of guns based on what they're used for, kind of like we do with knives and swords.  Anyone can buy a kitchen knife, but you have to be 18 to buy a sword, even a blunted one (not a perfect analogy of what I think we should do, just an example).

@DrillSergeantCat, in my area, it's common for drunk college students to accidentally walk into someone's home.  They have no violent intent and I've never heard of one of them becoming violent (though I admit it's a possibility).  I guess that's what I think of when I hear people say if someone enters their house they'd shoot first, basically on sight.  And asking about using deadly force in public-I guess I was asking where the line is.  How do you know in enough time for the weapon to be effective if someone is actually going to attack you?

Also, what about people like me who can't (although legally I could own a gun, which is crazy) be around guns because of mental health problems?  How do we defend ourselves?  Especially since we are statistically way more likely to be victims of violence.  

kimmiinthemitten

So what's the purpose of extended magazines in everyday life?

For what it's worth, I'm not a gun hater. I fully support ones right to defend themselves. I just feel very strongly about never owning a gun or living with one in my home. I enjoy learning from gun rights advocates because I don't know much about them. I just know we can and must do better. It won't be easy, but retreating to our side when the going gets rough will never solve anything. 

DrillSergeantCat

kimmiinthemitten said:

So what's the purpose of extended magazines in everyday life?

For what it's worth, I'm not a gun hater. I fully support ones right to defend themselves. I just feel very strongly about never owning a gun or living with one in my home. I enjoy learning from gun rights advocates because I don't know much about them. I just know we can and must do better. It won't be easy, but retreating to our side when the going gets rough will never solve anything. 

Honestly? There's really not a purpose other than to not have to reload as often. 

banana468

monkeysip said:

Maybe this is a dumb question--but why would shooters choose something like an AR-15 (or other rifles) over a handgun then?  Clearly there must be SOME advantage to a rifle.  And it's obviously not stealth.  Seems easier to bring a handgun.  Is it just accessibility?  Or something else?

My understanding is that you have an easier time aiming.   It's much harder to be a good shot with a pistol vs. a rifle.  

kylexo

DrillSergeantCat said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

So what's the purpose of extended magazines in everyday life?

For what it's worth, I'm not a gun hater. I fully support ones right to defend themselves. I just feel very strongly about never owning a gun or living with one in my home. I enjoy learning from gun rights advocates because I don't know much about them. I just know we can and must do better. It won't be easy, but retreating to our side when the going gets rough will never solve anything. 

Honestly? There's really not a purpose other than to not have to reload as often. 

So the only purpose is to make it a more efficient killing machine. That's unacceptable to me. 

DrillSergeantCat

scrunchythief said:

So, what I really want is for the Dickie amendment to be repealed so we can do what with did with auto deaths.  I don't know enough about particular guns to know exactly what nuances would make a difference.  Though with mass shootings, I know that magazine size matters, because some shootings have been stopped by people tackling the shooter while he was reloading.  But I think it'd be more effective to make getting a gun, of any kind, more difficult in the first place, and have periodic license renewals that include a physical and mental health check up.  And increase the difficulty to get kinds of guns based on what they're used for, kind of like we do with knives and swords.  Anyone can buy a kitchen knife, but you have to be 18 to buy a sword, even a blunted one (not a perfect analogy of what I think we should do, just an example).

@DrillSergeantCat, in my area, it's common for drunk college students to accidentally walk into someone's home.  They have no violent intent and I've never heard of one of them becoming violent (though I admit it's a possibility).  I guess that's what I think of when I hear people say if someone enters their house they'd shoot first, basically on sight.  And asking about using deadly force in public-I guess I was asking where the line is.  How do you know in enough time for the weapon to be effective if someone is actually going to attack you?

Also, what about people like me who can't (although legally I could own a gun, which is crazy) be around guns because of mental health problems?  How do we defend ourselves?  Especially since we are statistically way more likely to be victims of violence.  

Just to reiterate...I agree with everything you're saying in your first paragraph. I think the HIPAA laws need to be relaxed so that a physician can notify someone of the fact that his/her patient has a mental illness and should not own a gun. There are age limits as to who can purchase a gun in place already. I believe it's 18 for a shotgun/rifle and 21 for handguns (in my state at least).

Paragraph 2...I can understand why you see someone walking into your home as less of a threat that I would. This is not a common thing in my area. If someone is coming into my home without my consent, it's probably not an accident. If I'm sitting in my car at an intersection and someone tries to get in with me, they're up to no good and I will assume their intent is malicious and it will be met with force from me.

I don't have an answer for your last paragraph. I can say, though, that removing guns from the hands of law abiding, mentally-stable (not schizophrenic, bipolar, or some other mental illness that would make you a danger to yourself or others) would put all of us in the same place you currently are...unable to defend ourselves against those who don't give a rat's ass about the law.

DrillSergeantCat

kylexo said:So the only purpose is to make it a more efficient killing machine. That's unacceptable to me. 

It really doesn't make sense to me either. So maybe the first step to common sense gun control is reducing the amount of ammunition a gun can carry at once. 

Now that I think about it, in my state, when hunting certain species, you have to have a plug in your shotgun/rifle so that you can only have (I think) 2 rounds at a time. 

scrunchythief

DrillSergeantCat said:

scrunchythief said:

So, what I really want is for the Dickie amendment to be repealed so we can do what with did with auto deaths.  I don't know enough about particular guns to know exactly what nuances would make a difference.  Though with mass shootings, I know that magazine size matters, because some shootings have been stopped by people tackling the shooter while he was reloading.  But I think it'd be more effective to make getting a gun, of any kind, more difficult in the first place, and have periodic license renewals that include a physical and mental health check up.  And increase the difficulty to get kinds of guns based on what they're used for, kind of like we do with knives and swords.  Anyone can buy a kitchen knife, but you have to be 18 to buy a sword, even a blunted one (not a perfect analogy of what I think we should do, just an example).

@DrillSergeantCat, in my area, it's common for drunk college students to accidentally walk into someone's home.  They have no violent intent and I've never heard of one of them becoming violent (though I admit it's a possibility).  I guess that's what I think of when I hear people say if someone enters their house they'd shoot first, basically on sight.  And asking about using deadly force in public-I guess I was asking where the line is.  How do you know in enough time for the weapon to be effective if someone is actually going to attack you?

Also, what about people like me who can't (although legally I could own a gun, which is crazy) be around guns because of mental health problems?  How do we defend ourselves?  Especially since we are statistically way more likely to be victims of violence.  

Just to reiterate...I agree with everything you're saying in your first paragraph. I think the HIPAA laws need to be relaxed so that a physician can notify someone of the fact that his/her patient has a mental illness and should not own a gun. There are age limits as to who can purchase a gun in place already. I believe it's 18 for a shotgun/rifle and 21 for handguns (in my state at least).

Paragraph 2...I can understand why you see someone walking into your home as less of a threat that I would. This is not a common thing in my area. If someone is coming into my home without my consent, it's probably not an accident. If I'm sitting in my car at an intersection and someone tries to get in with me, they're up to no good and I will assume their intent is malicious and it will be met with force from me.

I don't have an answer for your last paragraph. I can say, though, that removing guns from the hands of law abiding, mentally-stable (not schizophrenic, bipolar, or some other mental illness that would make you a danger to yourself or others) would put all of us in the same place you currently are...unable to defend ourselves against those who don't give a rat's ass about the law.

With your first paragraph, I'd go farther and say that you have to see a doctor who at least understands mental health before buying a gun, and have to periodically see one to maintain ownership.  And I do know there are age restriction on guns.  I think I meant my example more to show that we can treat different levels of weapons or potential weapons differently.

Your car example makes sense.

And with the last paragraph, I think that's why we need a big reform all at once.  With the way the laws are now, it's way too easy for guns to get into the wrong hands.  If we make it more difficult for guns to be obtained legally, then there will be fewer guns available to criminals.

And I'm really not personally worried about being violently attacked.  I'm terrified that someone who doesn't know me super well is going to come around me with a gun.  I have compulsive suicidal ideation, so while I'm normally pretty ok and functional and hold down a job and pretty much no one would know I have a problem if I didn't tell them.  People saying that they'll bring a gun anywhere they please is very scary to me.  I know that if I saw a gun, I'd have an extremely hard time not trying to grab it.  I do my best to avoid them, I can't go to the mall anymore, but there's only so much I can do.  It really makes me sad.  I've stopped inviting people over for dinner if I don't know them well enough to tell them the details of my medical history. 

DrillSergeantCat

scrunchythief said:

With your first paragraph, I'd go farther and say that you have to see a doctor who at least understands mental health before buying a gun, and have to periodically see one to maintain ownership.  And I do know there are age restriction on guns.  I think I meant my example more to show that we can treat different levels of weapons or potential weapons differently.

Your car example makes sense.

And with the last paragraph, I think that's why we need a big reform all at once.  With the way the laws are now, it's way too easy for guns to get into the wrong hands.  If we make it more difficult for guns to be obtained legally, then there will be fewer guns available to criminals.

And I'm really not personally worried about being violently attacked.  I'm terrified that someone who doesn't know me super well is going to come around me with a gun.  I have compulsive suicidal ideation, so while I'm normally pretty ok and functional and hold down a job and pretty much no one would know I have a problem if I didn't tell them.  People saying that they'll bring a gun anywhere they please is very scary to me.  I know that if I saw a gun, I'd have an extremely hard time not trying to grab it.  I do my best to avoid them, I can't go to the mall anymore, but there's only so much I can do.  It really makes me sad.  I've stopped inviting people over for dinner if I don't know them well enough to tell them the details of my medical history. 

I think you and I are on the same page. We both agree that several things need to be done. I hope people like starmoon see that even though I love my guns, I'm far from a nut and I don't have a problem with extra measures being put in place. I think a huge part of the problem is that the media doesn't show moderate people, because that doesn't sell. They only show the extremists from both sides when I'd venture that there are more people like me than there are extremists. At least I hope that's true!

I'd never heard of compulsive suicidal ideations. That's very interesting to me. Thank you for sharing that. Curious about why you can't go to the mall, though. Does your state allow open carry?

scrunchythief

DrillSergeantCat said:

scrunchythief said:

With your first paragraph, I'd go farther and say that you have to see a doctor who at least understands mental health before buying a gun, and have to periodically see one to maintain ownership.  And I do know there are age restriction on guns.  I think I meant my example more to show that we can treat different levels of weapons or potential weapons differently.

Your car example makes sense.

And with the last paragraph, I think that's why we need a big reform all at once.  With the way the laws are now, it's way too easy for guns to get into the wrong hands.  If we make it more difficult for guns to be obtained legally, then there will be fewer guns available to criminals.

And I'm really not personally worried about being violently attacked.  I'm terrified that someone who doesn't know me super well is going to come around me with a gun.  I have compulsive suicidal ideation, so while I'm normally pretty ok and functional and hold down a job and pretty much no one would know I have a problem if I didn't tell them.  People saying that they'll bring a gun anywhere they please is very scary to me.  I know that if I saw a gun, I'd have an extremely hard time not trying to grab it.  I do my best to avoid them, I can't go to the mall anymore, but there's only so much I can do.  It really makes me sad.  I've stopped inviting people over for dinner if I don't know them well enough to tell them the details of my medical history. 

I think you and I are on the same page. We both agree that several things need to be done. I hope people like starmoon see that even though I love my guns, I'm far from a nut and I don't have a problem with extra measures being put in place. I think a huge part of the problem is that the media doesn't show moderate people, because that doesn't sell. They only show the extremists from both sides when I'd venture that there are more people like me than there are extremists. At least I hope that's true!

I'd never heard of compulsive suicidal ideations. That's very interesting to me. Thank you for sharing that. Curious about why you can't go to the mall, though. Does your state allow open carry?

Yes.  And the mall sells guns.  Thankfully my Walmart doesn't.

DrillSergeantCat

scrunchythief said:

Yes.  And the mall sells guns.  Thankfully my Walmart doesn't.

Oh wow. The mall? Not Walmart? So backwards. My state allows open carry also if you have a concealed carry permit. I haven't seen anyone carrying though. I used to carry concealed, but I am a student and can't take my firearm on campus so I leave it at home. 

flantastic

Okay, I couldn't get through quite all of that. But really, I think a lot of it comes down to ignorance.

DH, a hunter, thinks the best strategy is to regulate magazine size and the size magazine that guns can accept - because yes, a lot of the difference between a "hunting" rifle and what people consider to be an "assault" rifle is the number of bullets it can shoot without needing to reload... a rifle is a rifle is a rifle. He's deeply concerned about the gun violence in the country, and if we somehow needed to take the step where the general public couldn't buy or use hunting rifles any more in order to prevent people from turning them into illegal killing machines, he might support it. However, he wants people to recognize that that would require a massive overhaul of the culture on which this country was founded (including distrust of the government having your best interests at heart), not to mention major overhauls of the conservation strategies of big game in each state (and who does get the hunting rifles to take care of this? How do you decide?). It'll be hard work to have meaningful, useful gun reform, and will take thought and sustained effort, and my hunting, gun owning husband is not against it.

Then people like Starmoon come in and say "I don't know anything about guns or how they're used lawfully, but I'm not using those rights and I don't think you should either, and if you disagree then fuck you"... why should he listen to that perspective?

etf words