We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[colker]

I just don't understand this madness. We have drug problems in Australia and home invasions, but the average punter doesn't have a 50 calibre machine gun under his or her bed to guard against all possibilities ("Sorry your honour, he asked for my wallet, so I gave him 25 rounds with the old peacemaker. He won't be making that mistake again. The Mrs was very grumpy at the damage to the house. That's punishment enough I submit"). To the extent they did have a gun it would be locked in a gun safe. If everyone is armed to the teeth, then you will just end up with more and more gun related deaths. I think the statistics support this view.

And, to get back to the point of the right to bear arms, it wasn't - ever - about being prepared to defend against crackheads - it was about something more substantial. The rational or reason supporting the right, as I'm sure you will appreciate, has since evaporated.

Our new president wants to pass legislation making it as easy to buy guns and also easy to carry them around. Congress stopped him: It will be legal to have guns only at home in a safe but illegal to carry them around in major cities. Otoh when in remote rural areas you will be able to carry around your property and shoot trespassers.. such legislation will turn land dispute into legalized bloodshed. There is a lot of land dispute in Brasil. The new legislation will amplify the violence.

[thollandpe]

Couldn’t agree with you more.
Couldn’t agree with you less.

Is this just a post where you weigh in thumbs up or thumbs down, or are you all in on personal armament for defense against a tyrannical government?

[BBB]

Couldn’t agree with you less.

Really? How so?

There isn't a well-regulated militia. There's lots of people with guns. And lots of opposing views. And the ones with guns aren't about to storm the bastille so to speak (which would be treason - see the law abiding, non-law abiding bit discussed earlier).

But if there was a well-regulated militia, how would it go against an all powerful Federal Government? The sophisticated survelliance employed by the Federal Government has already tagged that Dallas Tex guy as a trouble maker and the laser guided smart bomb has already been sent on its way and you're history. For example.

It's 2019 and the justification for the right has vanished. In my opinion.

[colker]

Really? How so?

There isn't a well-regulated militia. There's lots of people with guns. And lots of opposing views. And the ones with guns aren't about to storm the bastille so to speak (which would be treason - see the law abiding, non-law abiding bit discussed earlier).

But if there was a well-regulated militia, how would it go against an all powerful Federal Government? The sophisticated survelliance employed by the Federal Government has already tagged that Dallas Tex guy as a trouble maker and the laser guided smart bomb has already been sent on its way and you're history. For example.

It's 2019 and the justification for the right has vanished. In my opinion.

It´s called domestic terrorism.

[Colinmclelland]

The person that uses a gun to defend himself or his family from someone trying to do them harm

I’ve got a wife and family and i can see how you might go that route if you knew you had the only gun in the country.

But in a country where they are common place? The odds are you are levelling the playing field at best.

Expecting the best hasn’t worked out that well for me! I’ll think I’ll keep protecting my wife and family by keeping distance between them and a gun.

[Rich Beaudoin]

...the crack head that breaks into my house in the middle of the night...

With all due respect, this is a dubious stereotype like the ‘welfare queen’ - an urban legend that 99.999% of us will never experience. My brother uses the same exact reasoning for his concealed carry.
Many more people are in danger from lightning strikes, but no one carries a lightning rod.
We are also more likely to die from a head injury while walking but I don’t know anyone who walks with a helmet.
Lots of people die in fires from smoke inhalation, but no one carries small oxygen supplies.
What other things could you do to protect you & your family from foreseeable dangers?
So essentially I am calling bullshit on the ‘protection’ argument (unless you are addressing the higher probability dangers already).

[Dallas Tex]

With all due respect, this is a dubious stereotype like the ‘welfare queen’ - an urban legend that 99.999% of us will never experience. My brother uses the same exact reasoning for his concealed carry.
Many more people are in danger from lightning strikes, but no one carries a lightning rod.
We are also more likely to die from a head injury while walking but I don’t know anyone who walks with a helmet.
Lots of people die in fires from smoke inhalation, but no one carries small oxygen supplies.
What other things could you do to protect you & your family from foreseeable dangers?
So essentially I am calling bullshit on the ‘protection’ argument (unless you are addressing the higher probability dangers already).

Forgive me, but your post seems like nothing more than blather. Flawed logic. I’ve never had a car accident but I always wear a seatbelt. I’ve never crashed on a road bike, but I always wear a helmet. I don’t expect to have a house fire, but I have smoke alarms to wake me up in case of a house fire. Though it’s unlikely these things will happen, you’d have to be a fool to not prepare for them.

I’m simply not will to sacrifice preparedness & safety at the alter of virtue signaling.

[Blue Jays]

"...this is a dubious stereotype - an urban legend that 99.999% of us will never experience..."

Allow me to introduce you to my 23 y.o. family member who was attacked in her own apartment while eating breakfast on February 23, 1993 prior to work. She was raped, hacked to death, and dismembered by a total stranger.

[Rich Beaudoin]

Allow me to introduce you to my 23 y.o. family member who was attacked in her own apartment while eating breakfast on February 23, 1993 prior to work. She was raped, hacked to death, and dismembered by a total stranger.

I’m sorry for you and your family and for all of us since we are all human.
But again it’s extremely rare vs many other likely and known causes of death and there is no evidence to support that a gun would have saved the overwhelming majority of murders victims.
Ted Bundy killed a lot of women and owning guns would have saved none. He wasn’t a crackhead. He was charming - as psychopaths often are.
I choose to enjoy life without fearing a random and extremely unlikely tragedy. Your chances of winning the lottery are nearly the same if you play or not and I apply the same reasoning to owning/not owning a gun. Of course I can’t be killed with my own lottery ticket...

[Blue Jays]

"...I’m sorry for you and your family and for all of us since we are all human.
But again it’s extremely rare vs many other likely and known causes of death and there is no evidence to support that a gun would have saved the overwhelming majority of murders victims..."

Her firearm was out getting reblued at the gunsmith.
My family and investigators are certain she would have lived had it been there.

"...I choose to enjoy life without fearing a random and extremely unlikely tragedy..."

As does my family.

[Colinmclelland]

This morning there was a shooting on the group ride I regularly do on Wednesdays. I'm coming down with a cold so I decided to do an easy spin this morning instead, but when I got down to Key Biscayne the roads were shut down.

Miami Herald Article

Details are still unclear, but an altercation between a guy who often rides his motorcycle alongside the group taking photos and videos and one of the cyclists led to the cyclist being shot and in critical condition and the motorcyclist being detained. The fact that one of them was carrying while going out to enjoy a summer morning and that the altercation escalated to a shooting says a lot about our dysfunctional relationship with guns.

First, sorry Matthew. That is a shit experience to be even tangentially connected too, let alone close.

Second, I'm amazed that something like this just gets absorbed. It's like it's "oh that a shame, but let's keep doing what we are doing".

I'm going on a group ride in the morning. I can't even imagine that happening. It would be a serious WTAF? moment here.

[Colinmclelland]

There are times (commuting before daybreak or after sunset, or riding in isolated areas of some local parks) when I prefer to carry. I choose to live in a state that allows (and in fact licenses) that option. I don't feel as if I'm only one step from being a criminal, but I respect your right to think I am. There are people in this world who have noticed the five-figure price tags of modern high-end cycles, and don't mind engaging in violent behavior to acquire one (ostensibly to sell, as I don't see a lot of meth addicts on Effbuilder creations). I've had good luck with the Silca Impero regarding angry canines, but it seems feeble against full size humans with felonious intentions.

I'm another person that would choose not to be on that ride, but leaving that aside...

How in god's name do you do that? I find carrying my phone annoying. And surely if you are going to carry the weight of a gun you could be riding a heavier bike that was cheap enough that you wouldn't feel the need to ride with a gun, or are there special Weight Weenie guns? I realize you've left the building so to speak, so i'm not hanging for an instant reply. I'll never understand why, but i would like to understand how.

[sk_tle]

The person that uses a gun to harm you or your family: non-law abiding. The person that uses a gun to defend himself or his family from someone trying to do them harm: law-abiding.

Were you trying to be funny, or did you sincerely need that explained to you ?

History and experience has shown that many people bought guns in the first place for the first reason, only to commit crime later in their life.

So many men have killed their own partner/ex-partners, kids and sometime even more family members. Are these "law abiding" people in your perspective?

Same with people fired or feeling humiliated in their profesional environment and end up drawing plans to kill their whole company from the lowest to highest level of hieratchy.

So many people become nutters when faced with familial, societal or job related difficulties and frustrations.

You could probably have mental health problems and become that nutter too.

[sk_tle]

My family and investigators are certain she would have lived had it been there.

Gun advocates always tend to ignore the element of surprise in their assumptions. Unless your family member used to take breakfast with a loaded gun right on the kitchen table nobody can be sure.

Studies have shown that at less than 10m of distance any motivated and trained knife user will have the edge compared to most gun owners if they don't have it in their hand already prior to that.

My ex-boss and two former colleagues are gun owners, feel the need to protect their family (against whom, I don't know), yet also practice krav maga and put some "tactical knifes" in every room because they are aware guns can be used in a very limited number of situations.

[Matthew Strongin]

Mr. Strongin I didn't mean to leave without answering your question. You deserve better than that, so y'all forgive me one more post in this thread:

I don't wish to have a battle of the experts with anyone. Given some of the issues in this thread with sources, and the agendas that are behind sources, and junk science, and all of that, I tried to find something that at least appears to be trying to be fair and objective. At the very least, the link seems to suggest both Senator Dianne Feinstein and Wayne LaPierre are full of shit - and I don't want to waste time discussing anything with anyone who can't take those two conclusions as given.

If someone points out the Annenberg Public Policy Center is an arm of the Trilateral Commission or the International Socialist Organization, I disclaim any affiliation, this is not an endorsement, close cover before striking, and Your Mileage May Vary: Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

What I take from the factcheck.org link is that restricting magazine capacity would be far more effective than worrying about the instrument into which the magazine is inserted; a semi-auto is a semi-auto, whether it's a deer rifle or an AR-15. I believe, but have zero non-anecdotal proof to cite, that many people who own guns but not "assault rifles" oppose banning "assault rifles" because, if one were to conclude (correctly) that the only meaningful difference between an AR-15 and a semi-automatic deer rifle is that one's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of black plastic while the other's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of wood, an otherwise-reasonable-non-AR-15-owning gun owner might conclude that as soon as some kook shoots up a Burger King with a deer rifle, some significant number of public officials will be clamoring to ban deer rifles. Some see it as a slippery slope. When legislators who introduce bills to ban "assault rifles" can't explain what it is about the firearm in question that makes it distinct from others, I think it's fair to wonder if the legislators even understand what they're attempting to regulate. Nah, I'm being too generous...there's no reason to wonder - they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I particularly like the ones who suggest we might ban automatic weapons. My achin' head...

Look, I'm being harsh, but it's because I do not accept the status quo. Loose talk by members of Congress and others is making it harder, not easier, to effect meaningful change on this issue. Not everyone has the luxury of pontificating about the philosophical distinctions as some of us here do, and to be a real asshole, there are at least 150 million people in this country that just aren't very bright. If you give any person who is attempting to defend his/her position an opportunity to take something out of context to their benefit, you can bet they'll do so. Gun control advocates need to be precise in their message and their language, and perhaps work on appearing a little less contemptuous of the people they wish to (nay, need to) convince. They are failing miserably, and the NRA bears absolutely none of the blame for that inconvenient truth.

Jasper, thanks for taking the time for this thoughtful response after bowing out of the thread. While I suspect we don't generally agree on the ultimate solution, I think we do agree on some of the nuanced points. And, at the very least, I can certainly see where you're coming from. I also agree that gun control advocates should be more precise in their language if they hope to make a convincing argument. I'd also like to see gun rights supporters be less pedantic about labels and terms, particularly since finding some common language would be a great starting point for negotiating meaningful and agreeable restrictions. As Todd points out, law abiding, reasonable gun rights advocates could really help themselves and the greater good by using their knowledge to shape laws that preserve the hobby and the rights of gun owners while helping to address this crisis.

The thing is, despite how the two sides end up portrayed as binary, black/white, diametrically opposed perspectives, many (maybe most) people fall somewhere in the middle. As I posted earlier, I grew up shooting and my grandfather was a true enthusiast. Some might even call him a gun nut with his 9 weapons and frequent trips to the range. He grew up poor, was a terrible student despite being quite intelligent, and found riflery as the first thing that gave him focus. He dropped out of high school to join the Army in WWII (a Jewish American from NYC heading off to Europe to fight literal Nazis, but that's a story for another day) and saw the power and destruction of firearms first hand. After the war when he married and they had my father and uncle, he owned a pawnshop where getting held up at gunpoint was a regular occurrence. He got his concealed carry permit and kept a Colt 1911 in his glovebox and Colt .380 on his hip at all times. He was conflicted about the fact that while shooting had been the longest running theme or activity throughout his life and he had a strong urge to do whatever was necessary to make sure he got home at the end of the day, he wasn't sure whether or not the guns made him, and us all, safer. If he was alive today, I'm confident that he would want as many restrictions as possible, even if it meant that the barriers to him getting guns were perceived as unreasonable. He figured that the higher the bar, the fewer the people who shouldn't own guns would have them. I still remember how he wouldn't let me near ammunition until I could disassemble, clean, and reassemble the one I wanted to shoot. And he wouldn't let me near the higher cailbers until I mastered the .22 target pistol and rifle. It took years to work up to shooting the big guns, but by the time I got there I had an enormous respect for the power and danger of the weapon. I'm rambling a bit, but what I'm really getting at is that this issue isn't always black and white. It's not always about people who love guns and people who hate guns. It's, in my opinion, much more about the extent different people are willing to go to preserve the rights and safety of the masses over their real or perceived personal rights. I'm not an ignorant anti-gun nut, but I want as many guns off the street as possible and I think history supports that the current interpretation of the second amendment is farther from the original intent as many would like to believe. And I know from speaking about this with a number of gun owning friends that I'm not alone.

Oh, and not to ignore the specifics of the link you posted, I think it's hard to draw a conclusion without looking at the actual data, but it's pretty easy to agree that politicians on both sides of the issues are cherry picking context and trying to stack the deck in their favor. That's what politicians do (and the NRA's WLP is as much a politician Diane Feinstein, even if he's not running for public office). Personally, my interest in "assault rifle" bans has more to do with taking a step towards stronger regulation (and, of course, better enforcement of laws already on the books). I'd much rather see magazine capacity reductions and limitations on caliber for the public. Or, even better, limits that make it so only revolvers and bolt-action rifles could be purchased by civilians. I could go on, but I think you get the point. We won't all agree on where the line should be drawn, but I hope many could agree that there's a problem and something needs to be done.

[Dallas Tex]

........But again it’s extremely rare vs many other likely and known causes of death.......

Want to know what’s far more rare than that?

Being the victim of a mass shooting.

You’re trying to apply ‘it is statistically rare don’t worry about it’ argument to owning a gun for protection. But you want to apply the exact opposite logic to enact gun control to prevent an even more rare mass shooting event.

[Dallas Tex]

Gun advocates always tend to ignore the element of surprise in their assumptions. Unless your family member used to take breakfast with a loaded gun right on the kitchen table nobody can be sure.

Studies have shown that at less than 10m of distance any motivated and trained knife user will have the edge compared to most gun owners if they don't have it in their hand already prior to that.

My ex-boss and two former colleagues are gun owners, feel the need to protect their family (against whom, I don't know), yet also practice krav maga and put some "tactical knifes" in every room because they are aware guns can be used in a very limited number of situations.

But ask yourself an honest question. It’s 4am two guys are trying to beat down your door. You call the cops. I’ll use my urban neighborhood as the example, the cops are about 20 minutes away, maybe more. As the person tasked with protecting your family, would you honestly rather have Kung-Fu training, a knife, or a gun ?

[Matthew Strongin]

You do realise that's a black and white view. The right of self-defence is not absolute (at least in this and I assume most other countries) and has to have some degree of proportionality to the threat. So, while you may argue that you were protecting from harm, your actions maybe judged by the law in a different way and push you into the non-law abiding category.

Perhaps this was the intention of the post you responded to. Waving a gun around is a sure fire way to cause things to go south pretty quickly and the line between law abiding or otherwise is pretty thin.

Relating this back to the Miami group ride shooting I keep posting about, the shooter is claiming self defense. That the cyclist was the aggressor. The leap from having a someone yell at you to shooting that person "in self defense" despite outweighing them by at least 100 pounds is dubious. I have video that was sent to me from one of the many people there that absolutely shows the cyclist taking steps away from the shooter with his arm raised as if to stay "stop." And yet he was shot. Even if he instigated the altercation, he backed down when the gun was pulled. And yet he was shot. And now he's dead. And it will be a blip on the radar for this epidemic. Not a mass shooting, not high profile, but another data point in the tally of gun related deaths. So, yeah, waving a gun around is a pretty good way to turn things south.

[Dallas Tex]

Relating this back to the Miami group ride shooting I keep posting about, the shooter is claiming self defense. That the cyclist was the aggressor. The leap from having a someone yell at you to shooting that person "in self defense" despite outweighing them by at least 100 pounds is dubious. I have video that was sent to me from one of the many people there that absolutely shows the cyclist taking steps away from the shooter with his arm raised as if to stay "stop." And yet he was shot. Even if he instigated the altercation, he backed down when the gun was pulled. And yet he was shot. And now he's dead. And it will be a blip on the radar for this epidemic. Not a mass shooting, not high profile, but another data point in the tally of gun related deaths. So, yeah, waving a gun around is a pretty good way to turn things south.

That’s absolutely tragic. Here in Texas CCL training is rather specific. If you have the option to retreat and exit the situation, you must. Unless you are in your house, you are obligated to give the attacker an exit path. And most importantly, you never brandish your weapon.

If the situation is as described by you, the shooter will definitely be held accountable unless he was being attacked. Even if the shooter outweighed the guy by 100 pounds, he’s not obligated to take a beating & hope the other isn’t an MMA fighter.

[Matthew Strongin]

If the situation is as described by you, the shooter will definitely be held accountable unless he was being attacked. Even if the shooter outweighed the guy by 100 pounds, he’s not obligated to take a beating & hope the other isn’t an MMA fighter.

Once the gun came out the cyclist backed away. It never should have come to that, but once it did the situation surely should have ended there. It didn't.