Do ( D )s sell more guns than ( R )s?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a pessimistic summary of the situation even if it's an accurate appraisal of politicians.  Can our gun problem(s) be addressed by law(s).  Yes.  

Will we ever get around to crafting legislation that could work?  IDK, not looking great at present.

When has it ever looked good? The most popular wave of gun control legislation of the 20th century was a response to black people toting guns in public.

We already have alot of gun legislation.  I'd say it looked good as we crafted it, less so as we systematically de-fund enforcement and simply opt not to enforce.  I tend to view our current position more as a product of laziness and political grandstanding than anything else.  We don't really know what our gun problem would look like if we actually enforced what laws we have..but it stands to reason that it wouldn't look quite the same.   I'd wager that it would look better, more solvable than it already does.

There are issues not directly related to guns that might also improve (or worsen) the situation, as well. These things (both direct and indirect) don't escape our notice, they simply escape us politically, which is what I'm referring to when I say that it doesn't look good at present.

[onlinebiker]

That's a pessimistic summary of the situation even if it's an accurate appraisal of politicians.  Can our gun problem(s) be addressed by law(s).  Yes.  

Will we ever get around to crafting legislation that could work?  IDK, not looking great at present.

Thats because too many people have come to believe we have a " gun problem".

We don' t. The guns are just fine.

We have a " people problem" - and that' s much harder to fix.

[The Grand Nudger]

Insomuch as all of people's problems are "people problems" sure.  I'd say that we have a political problem, which is a "people problem" in much the same way.  

We don't have the will or the inclination (or both) to do anything that would solve the problems that we have, and set aside that we have a powerful incentive -not- to solve them. I use the term "we" in the grandest sense, lol.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's a pessimistic summary of the situation even if it's an accurate appraisal of politicians.  Can our gun problem(s) be addressed by law(s).  Yes.  

Will we ever get around to crafting legislation that could work?  IDK, not looking great at present.

Thats because too many people have come to believe we have a " gun problem".

We don' t. The guns are just fine.

We have a " people problem" - and that' s much harder to fix.

Yep, irresponsible gun owners.

[onlinebiker]

Thats because too many people have come to believe we have a " gun problem".

We don' t. The guns are just fine.

We have a " people problem" - and that' s much harder to fix.

Yep, irresponsible gun owners.

Which you' ve made clear is everyone who isn' t you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yep, irresponsible gun owners.

Which you' ve made clear is everyone who isn' t you.

LOL

[Jackalope]

I usually don't get involved in gun politics anymore, however...

I'm an ex gun nut, the kind that felt that any gun control was unconstitutional. Ex military, ex NRA life, belonged to a number of other progun and competitive shooting organizations (GOA, JPFP, GSSF, IDPA, etc). Ex concealed carry permit holder. I carried a 1911 for years. Ex military weapon and handgun owner, and highly trained. I sold my collection several years ago and now only own a couple of .22s and two handguns that I gave my father and wanted back when he died. In safes, ammunition stored seperately. I see no reason to need to carry or even keep a gun at home for self defense. That is a personal choice.

IMO what is necessary is to reduce the number of guns in circulation amongst outlaws. That means enhancing NICS to prevent new sales to prohibited persons, mandating safe storage to reduce theft, and confiscation of guns used in a crime or possessed by prohibited persons. I was straw sales and other gun laws vigorously enforced.

I also don't really a bunch of inadequately trained yahoos running around with a pistol. I'd prefer it if people who are going to carry get trained in both combat firearms as well as the legal ramifications of carrying and the use of deadly force.

I would do more but in light of the Heller decision there are limits on what can be done at this time.

Yeah, such measures aren't going to prevent all gun crime, but it will over time reduce it. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Frankly, IMO, if you're not willing to do anything about the status quo, you are part of the problem.

[Yonadav]

I usually don't get involved in gun politics anymore, however...

I'm an ex gun nut, the kind that felt that any gun control was unconstitutional.  Ex military, ex NRA life, belonged to a number of other progun and competitive shooting organizations (GOA, JPFP, GSSF, IDPA, etc).  Ex concealed carry permit holder.  I carried a 1911 for years.  Ex military weapon and handgun owner, and highly trained.  I sold my collection several years ago and now only own a couple of .22s and two handguns that I gave my father and wanted back when he died.  In safes, ammunition stored seperately.  I see no reason to need to carry or even keep a gun at home for self defense.  That is a personal choice.

IMO what is necessary is to reduce the number of guns in circulation amongst outlaws.  That means enhancing NICS to prevent new sales to prohibited persons, mandating safe storage to reduce theft, and confiscation of guns used in a crime or possessed by prohibited persons.  I was straw sales and other gun laws vigorously enforced.

I also don't really a bunch of inadequately trained yahoos running around with a pistol.  I'd prefer it if people who are going to carry get trained in both combat firearms as well as the legal ramifications of carrying and the use of deadly force.

I would do more but in light of the Heller decision there are limits on what can be done at this time.

Yeah, such measures aren't going to prevent all gun crime, but it will over time reduce it.  Perfect is the enemy of the good.  Frankly, IMO, if you're not willing to do anything about the status quo, you are part of the problem.

I consider guys who proclaim themselves to be highly trained to be suspect. The stupidest things that I have ever seen people do with guns were done by guys who said they were highly trained. And when people were bitching at them about what they had done, they would grin condescendingly and talk about how highly trained and experienced they were. And then they sometimes received a face punching. Example: My niece's little punk of a husband. He's a veteran of Afghanistan. He was showing off his AR to my youngest nieces and nephew. He did it by coming into the room and pointing it at my nieces and nephew. I went ballistic, and he said "I was clearing the room!". I kept bitching at him, and he kept grinning at me and telling me how much experience he has. I cracked him in the jaw. Turns out that Mr Expert Warrior is a little fucking pussy who keeps whining about me punching him. You know, because he went from war hero to little bitch in about half a second. I hate that guy.

[Jackalope]

I don't mean imagary training. Covering someone with the muzzle of a gun except in a bona fide self defense situation is negligent. Pointing one at children ought to be criminal if it's not already.

Yout example is one of yahoos i was talking about. He's a menace.

[Dr H]

---

Flawed analogy.

The purpose of a car is to provide transportation.
The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Deaths result from the use of both, but only in the second case
are the deaths the result of the object being used for its intended purpose.

You've been arguing eristic nonsense with people in internet forums for too long. I didn't make an analogy. That really clearly wasn't an analogy.

If it wasn't an analogy, then it's a non-sequitur, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Your choice, I guess.

---

The number of things that kill people and the number they kill is aside the fact . Stopping something bad isn't a numbers game .

I agree that it is not a 'game'. But numbers matter. We should obviously devote most of our attention to life saving strategies that will save the most lives and do the most good. Gun deaths are bad. Car deaths are bad. Opioid deaths are bad. Environmental damage done by cars is bad. So if you want to prioritize strategy to save the most lives and do the most good, and that means that numbers so totally matter. If you have a raging fixation on one bad thing at the expense of priorities that would save more lives and do more good, that's a bad thing that should perhaps be stopped.

Fair enough.  But then you have to look at the whole picture.  
It's not enough to look at how many lives are lost due to guns, cars, or opioids.
You also have to look at how many lives have been saved by each of them, and
how many lives would likely be lost as a result of each of them going away.

That is, in fact, the big problem with popular "risk/benefit" calculations":
they fail to take all the relevant parameters into account.

Now, maybe you can craft a good data-supported argument to show that taking away guns would cause more deaths than taking away cars (which, don't forget, transport everything from food for the hungry to the ill/injured to hospitals).

It will be interesting to see what you come up with.



Oh, and just for the record:  nowhere in this discussion have I advocated for taking guns away.
I don't, in fact, believe that it's possible.

---

There are videos online showing how to beat at least one major brand of gun safes (with fingerprint ID system) with the foil from a stick of gum. Guns in the home are never safe.

Actually, that's kind of a weak argument.

Someone looking to steal a gun isn't going to fuck around with trying to break into a gun safe -- in someone's home, where he might get shot if he's discovered -- when there are plenty of guns lying around in glove compartments, desk, and dresser drawers,  and other easy to access places.

It's like burglary.  A deadbolt on your front door isn't going to atop someone from breaking in if they really want to.  But 99.9% of housebreakers, if they can't get through the door in 20 seconds or less, are going to move on to the next house, where you neighbor forgot to lock the door, or left the key in the lock.

So yeah, a gun in the home in a safe is a lot safer than a gun in the home in a kitchen drawer next to the ice cream scoop.

---

Ultimately no they are not. Like I said in a prior post, it is far more likely that one is going go get injured or injure, or die or harm someone else in the home by accident than successfully defending oneself from a complete stranger. 

That's a very popular meme. But it is almost certainly not true. In most situations where an aggressor was stopped by a gun, the incident was never reported. An aggressor almost always retreats when confronted with a gun, and that's the end of the incident. No one bothers to report it.  I had 8 young men attempt to assault me in Portland OR while I was waiting for a bus at 1 AM. They were gay bashers. They were like, "You're going to die, faggot". I am not a gay man, but they thought that I was. They surrounded me and I pulled out my gun. They mouthed off for awhile, and then went away. I didn't fire a shot. They never landed a blow. There wasn't much to report. If I did report it, the cops might look for a reason to hassle me. But I probably would have had the crap stomped out of me that night if I hadn't had a gun. I might have been killed. Guns resolve situations frequently, and those situations don't get reported.

Um... Brian did say "in the home".  Your incident was not in the home.

If someone defended themselves with a gun against a stranger in their home, I'll wager that it's going to be reported most times, even if they didn't fire a shot -- because WTF was a stranger doing in their home ?   How did he get in?  What did he want?  Is he going to come back with friends or a gun of his own?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that incidents involving break-ins or home invasion are going to get reported, regardless.

---

But remember, criminals don't follow the law and will obtain guns even if they are banned. The left promoting gun control is and always will be a losing issue and something that turns me away.

Well, that's kind of a weak argument, too.

Basically it boils down to "criminals don't obey the law, so therefore we don't need the law."

OK.  Burglars don't obey the laws against breaking into houses, so we don't need any laws against breaking into houses.  Rapists don't obey the laws against rape, so we don't need any laws against rape.  Murderers don't obey the laws against murder, so we don't need any laws against murder.

See where this is going?

Hey, maybe you're an anarchist, and didn't realize it?

Greetings, comrade!