0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

[The Rube]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

I thought I remember hearing once that guns are one of the top targets in robberies. It’s one of many reasons insurance companies ask if firearms are present in the home.

Depends on location/skill of robber. My brother was robbed. They didn't even attempt to touch the gun safe. Serial numbers. Also, didn't touch computers. Went for untraceable stuff. Money, TVs (he had 4), stuff like that. Easily pawnable stuff.

[5mn_Major]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Guns make households more dangerous for everyone esp the gun owner themselves...let me know if you need yet another 20 studies on this. The following study points out other related mental issues:

Fear of Other People Is Now the Primary Motivation for American Gun Ownership, a Landmark Survey Finds

“When I look at our survey, what I see is a population that is living in fear,” says Deb Azrael, a researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health and one of the lead authors of the study. “They are buying handguns to protect themselves against bad guys, they store their guns ready-to-use because of bad guys, and they believe that their guns make them safer.”

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/har...-self-defense/

But in both 1994 and 2015, roughly 75 percent of handgun-only owners reported that they kept a gun primarily for self protection. In comparison, only 31 percent of long gun-only owners cite protection against strangers as a primary reason for owning a gun.
____

Gun control actions should target handguns...but what do we do if mental issues are a much bigger part of gun owners?

[alfablue]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Say I'm a burglar. I come up to a residence, and then I hear the sound of a shotgun getting c0cked. I may just turn around and run away.

A gun has that purpose, also, without killing. Intimidation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCEjVC3Dtn8

Now, this is not the best example, as this shows irresponsibly gun ownership, but it does prove a point.

The only reason a gun is intimidating is that it pure intention as an object is to kill whatever you are shooting at.

That's it.

The only mistaken death from guns is when some person finds one, and it accidentally goes off and harms something else. Otherwise, when a person intentionally pulls the trigger, their entire goal is to harm whatever they are shooting at- a deer, a robber, a person they don't like, etc. Target shooting is a side thing, just like car racing is to auto's- the point of the car is to move a person from A to B. The point of a gun is to hurt whatever you are shooting at. There's no mistake in that.

You all keep dancing around what a gun is supposed to do, and not recognizing why it was invented in the first place. And why all of the improvements made since then JUST go to making it a more effective weapon to harm whatever you are shooting at.

Which is why it just makes sense to dial back the high end capability of weapons- limit magazine size and limit fire rate.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Yeah, you never see any "This home protected by S&W" stickers on windows...

And that's the dumbest thing in the world to put on your window.

It's an invitation to a thief; it's a reason for a DA to dig deep should any event ever involve that person (predisposition).

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

And that's the dumbest thing in the world to put on your window.

It's an invitation to a thief; it's a reason for a DA to dig deep should any event ever involve that person (predisposition).

And yet, an overwhelming majority of the shootings being advertised on here happen in "gun free zones"...

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

... limit magazine size and limit fire rate.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal (save for some of the most stringent permitting in very few exceptions). There's your limited fire rate.

California limits to a 10 round magazine. The Parkland moron had 10 round magazines. There's the magazine size limit.

[burd]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

And yet, an overwhelming majority of the shootings being advertised on here happen in "gun free zones"...

Cite?

[jerphisch]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

And that's the dumbest thing in the world to put on your window.

It's an invitation to a thief; it's a reason for a DA to dig deep should any event ever involve that person (predisposition).

Those, bumper stickers on cars left outside, flying a Gadsden, putting up a MAGA sign. All pretty good clues and extremely common. You could almost say that a lot of gun owners demonstrate a penchant for poor judgement.

[SJHovey]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Guns make households more dangerous for everyone esp the gun owner themselves...let me know if you need yet another 20 studies on this.

You've posted this statement before, probably multiple times. And, of course, it is obviously correct. If there is no gun in a household, the likelihood of an accidental shooting, the likelihood of a shooting in response to a fight or violence, etc..., almost disappears. Someone would have to bring a gun to that household if any of those were to occur, obviously.

I personally have not one, but many guns in my household, and I certainly don't want my household to be unsafe. However, here is why your statement/statistic doesn't frighten me, doesn't worry me, and doesn't cause me to remove the guns from my household. There has never been anything remotely close to an unsafe event in my home. There have been no accidental discharges of firearms, and my practice of keeping the guns unloaded, checking them immediately when they are picked up or before they are set down, storing them in a safe location, keeping them away from where the ammo is stored, etc..., basically removes all risk. I've never been frightened enough to load my weapon in the house. I've never even dreamed of loading my guns in anger in the house, or anywhere else.

I'm not unusual in this regard. I dare say that a majority, if not a super-majority, if not like 95% or more of all gun owners have had the exact same experience as me. Which means we view the increased danger as being no greater than the increased danger of having a can full of lawnmower gas in my garage. Yes, conceivably that product could cause great harm to me and my family. But only if I'm an idiot. I'm not an idiot.

[Drew S.]

Depends on location/skill of robber. My brother was robbed. They didn't even attempt to touch the gun safe. Serial numbers. Also, didn't touch computers. Went for untraceable stuff. Money, TVs (he had 4), stuff like that. Easily pawnable stuff.

I have family that had a similar experience. My impression is most robberies nowadays are people looking to get enough cash to get high.

They say that a lot of illegal guns are stolen but I never really read about any of these robberies in the news. More research should be done on them.

[alfablue]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Fully automatic weapons are illegal (save for some of the most stringent permitting in very few exceptions). There's your limited fire rate.

California limits to a 10 round magazine. The Parkland moron had 10 round magazines. There's the magazine size limit.

No, you can fire as fast as your finger pulls. And that can be reflected in the Nevada shooting. There EASILY can be a fire rate limiter on guns.

And 5 is more than enough to do every single legal shooting job out there. And it's also possible to make it more complicated to change a magazine.

All you seem to want to do is allow mass shooters to keep happening so that you can have fun. Is your fun really worth the many deaths out there? Is it really relaxing to understand that your fun has so many graves behind it- not of the people who were defending your rights, but the ones that were killed because the mechanism allows them do to as such? It's your justification that allows this to go on, afterall.

BTW, it's funny that you go after drunk driver deaths, and there are many, many, many laws that go after that- including some states that put responsibility on the bartenders. But we have nothing that's really effective on guns. Funny how that works out.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

No, you can fire as fast as your finger pulls. And that can be reflected in the Nevada shooting. There EASILY can be a fire rate limiter on guns.

And 5 is more than enough to do every single legal shooting job out there. And it's also possible to make it more complicated to change a magazine.

As a practical matter, how would you propose to implement your ideas? Obviously restrictions could be placed on newly manufactured guns by some sort of change in the laws. But how do you propose to address the millions of existing guns in private hands that don't meet your criteria?

[burd]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

You've posted this statement before, probably multiple times. And, of course, it is obviously correct. If there is no gun in a household, the likelihood of an accidental shooting, the likelihood of a shooting in response to a fight or violence, etc..., almost disappears. Someone would have to bring a gun to that household if any of those were to occur, obviously.

I personally have not one, but many guns in my household, and I certainly don't want my household to be unsafe. However, here is why your statement/statistic doesn't frighten me, doesn't worry me, and doesn't cause me to remove the guns from my household. There has never been anything remotely close to an unsafe event in my home. There have been no accidental discharges of firearms, and my practice of keeping the guns unloaded, checking them immediately when they are picked up or before they are set down, storing them in a safe location, keeping them away from where the ammo is stored, etc..., basically removes all risk. I've never been frightened enough to load my weapon in the house. I've never even dreamed of loading my guns in anger in the house, or anywhere else.

I'm not unusual in this regard. I dare say that a majority, if not a super-majority, if not like 95% or more of all gun owners have had the exact same experience as me. Which means we view the increased danger as being no greater than the increased danger of having a can full of lawnmower gas in my garage. Yes, conceivably that product could cause great harm to me and my family. But only if I'm an idiot. I'm not an idiot.

Sounds to me like you've not had gopher fans in your house.

[joecct]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

@FoxNews: Maryland fisherman in critical condition after accidentally shooting self in head with spear gun https://fxn.ws/2oG6mr7

[5mn_Major]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

You've posted this statement before, probably multiple times. And, of course, it is obviously correct. If there is no gun in a household, the likelihood of an accidental shooting, the likelihood of a shooting in response to a fight or violence, etc..., almost disappears. Someone would have to bring a gun to that household if any of those were to occur, obviously.

I'm not unusual in this regard. I dare say that a majority, if not a super-majority, if not like 95% or more of all gun owners have had the exact same experience as me. Which means we view the increased danger as being no greater than the increased danger of having a can full of lawnmower gas in my garage. Yes, conceivably that product could cause great harm to me and my family. But only if I'm an idiot. I'm not an idiot.

Couple of things:

1) Guns in the home - Fatalities appear to be about 5x higher in homes with guns (11x higher for children). If as you say 80ish% of gun owners have super awesome approaches to storage, then that would mean that the danger of fatalities could be not better than 3x in 'safe' gun households with the other households being much greater.

So no offense, but I'm not concerned with your welfare - you know the risks. Its unfortunate for other adults living there. But the real injustice is for any children or guests. They don't have the knowledge of the dangers or the ability to affect them. In the end, youre desire for household security is increasing the danger for everyone that walks through your doorway.

2) Outside of the home - 'C&C' makes all those super safe storage steps impossible. It also puts guns in direct contact of innocents and masses of them in public spaces where they would expect to be safe. The risk danger from gun accidents or misunderstandings goes through the roof.

As you can see, my top concern is the risk posed to innocents. They didn't do anything to deserve this...and innocents are the largest gun casualties based on statistics - regardless of whether in the home or in public. But I would reluctantly support you putting all your house guests and children at risk...if we could stop putting the masses of innocents at risk due to c&c who didn't agree to be near you.