A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

[Doublecluck]

I don’t fall for the rate of fire, this caliber is bigger than, this magazine size, argument, its ridiculous.

My benelli sbe 3 snow goose shotgun

Rate of fire 800-1200 rds per minute,

That’s 135 32 cal pellets @ 1300 FPS in less than 1 second with a 9 shot tube.

Or 75 32 cal pellets in 1/4 of a second with the factory mag tube.

.32 is bigger than .22 right? My benelli is more fasterer and more bigger than a AR. Right?

But you won’t see kids shooting up schools with a hunting shotgun. Why? Because the media, Hollywood, and video games haven’t sensationalized it. The bodies of dead kids lie in their hands.

In a school environment, your 870 pump is just as f’ed up a weapon as a AR.

 

[longbow51]

I'm coming into this thread super late, and didn't read all the posts admittedly. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.

I honestly see no appeal in AR's, or really pistols to some extent. For me rifles/shotguns are tools, and for me there is no problem that an AR can solve that a bolt action can't...

I wouldn't have one ounce of heartache if AR's were no longer legal. Honestly, I'd welcome the change.

Pistols, eh, more on the fence about. I have one but that was for personal protection in the house when I was living with someone thinking of self harm so I couldn't keep a shotgun in a corner. Pistol fits in a quick access lockbox better than my 870.... Now that I live alone, eh, could get rid of the pistol and never think about it again.

My two cents, contrary view to most in the hunting community from what I've seen.

Sniper Rifle FIFY

 

[LWC55]

Leave the problem solving decisions to all the smart people you elect..

Is this real? Can the "leader of the free world" be this ignorant?

 

[SAJ-99]

Murder, Rape, Suicides are at historical levels, per capita. My age group 18-34 leads the way, although men far outpace women in all categories.

Covid, lack of police presence, lack of mental health availability, judges to lenient, no bail, more one parent families.

Violent crime per capita is not at "historical levels" and you are mixing data measurements on a lot of the other comments. For example, One-parent households (per 1000) are not at all-time highs. Are there more of them? Sure, maybe. But there are more of almost everything related to people because there are more people. The bigger question is "Why do we perceive things to be a certain way even if the data says it is not true?" I'm not sure we are angry, or angier, than in the past. We just get to see it more. Maybe social media perpetuates any feelings. A basic problem is that there is so much media we can read 10 different news sources on a single subject or event like this one. It makes the event seem more like it is more common or some new "standard" when in reality it is still an outlier event. Why men vs women? Good question. Testosterone and the cultural way we raise boys vs. girls maybe?

 

[The Hedgehog]

couple oldies but good gun control links..

Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…

[EDIT: After this article was published, the Democratic party officially added support of the assault weapon ban renewal to their party platform and it was reintroduced in the following Senate sess…

kontradictions.wordpress.com

 

[Randi]

Violent crime per capita is not at "historical levels" and you are mixing data measurements on a lot of the other comments. For example, One-parent households (per 1000) are not at all-time highs. Are there more of them? Sure, maybe. But there are more of almost everything related to people because there are more people. The bigger question is "Why do we perceive things to be a certain way even if the data says it is not true?" I'm not sure we are angry, or angier, than in the past. We just get to see it more. Maybe social media perpetuates any feelings. A basic problem is that there is so much media we can read 10 different news sources on a single subject or event like this one. It makes the event seem more like it is more common or some new "standard" when in reality it is still an outlier event. Why men vs women? Good question. Testosterone and the cultural way we raise boys vs. girls maybe?

I disagree but regardless of that I appreciate the response--- Murders rose almost 30% in 2020 compared to 2019. Somebodies angry !

You are correct, I think I said 25% of children live in a single parent home but it is 23%. Regardless of the percentage, the U.S. leads the way on single parent homes.

I am in agreement with you about the 10 different news sources AND the fact that they need to fill up broadcast hours as they are on the air 24/7. I ask people almost immediately from what news outlet they got the information they are giving me. And, if you will reread my post, that you quoted, I opened the post with an example of what you and I are saying. The news, or some version of the news, and/or some version of what that news person thinks is important for us to know and in some cases the news presenter does not even follow the facts of the event, they insert what they want the facts to be.

That alone can make me angry.

I was glad to see, according to the FBI, that forcible rapes decreased in 2020, from 2019. I would like to believe one reason is that women are buying handguns. I hope not to many of them bought 9mm,s

 

[SAJ-99]

I disagree but regardless of that I appreciate the response--- Murders rose almost 30% in 2020 compared to 2019. Somebodies angry !

You are correct, I think I said 25% of children live in a single parent home but it is 23%. Regardless of the percentage, the U.S. leads the way on single parent homes.

I am in agreement with you about the 10 different news sources AND the fact that they need to fill up broadcast hours as they are on the air 24/7. I ask people almost immediately from what news outlet they got the information they are giving me. And, if you will reread my post, that you quoted, I opened the post with an example of what you and I are saying. The news, or some version of the news, and/or some version of what that news person thinks is important for us to know and in some cases the news presenter does not even follow the facts of the event, they insert what they want the facts to be.

That alone can make me angry.

I was glad to see, according to the FBI, that forcible rapes decreased in 2020, from 2019. I would like to believe one reason is that women are buying handguns. I hope not to many of them bought 9mm,s

You can disagree people are angry, but you know I require you show some data to back it up.



I am guessing your got your children in single-parent household from the Pew study (chart below). But I ask you dig deeper and ask more questions before finding causality on something. More parents are not getting married. The positive to that is the divorce rate has dropped sharply. The demographic profile of those single-parent households is also getting worse- fewer college grads, lower incomes, etc. I don't think the solution is to make them marry or stay married.

This also deflects from the discussion on gun regulations. The two are only tangentially related.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

 

[Randi]

You can disagree people are angry, but you know I require you show some data to back it up.

View attachment 224297

I am guessing your got your children in single-parent household from the Pew study (chart below). But I ask you dig deeper and ask more questions before finding causality on something. More parents are not getting married. The positive to that is the divorce rate has dropped sharply. The demographic profile of those single-parent households is also getting worse- fewer college grads, lower incomes, etc. I don't think the solution is to make them marry or stay married.

This also deflects from the discussion on gun regulations. The two are only tangentially related.
View attachment 224298

thank you for posting that, it does show the increase from 2019 I spoke about

But your right, this does deflect from a Gun Regulations discussion, so I will leave that for you gentlemen to figure out. Sorry for the intrusion and diversion.

 

[Doublecluck]

I read this and can’t help but think, how many of these instances could be prevented? All it takes is one teacher, one parent, one family member, one friend.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publications-school-shooter-school-shooter

 

[88man]

I never knew the approach of banning vehicles would be the best way to stop drunk driving or lower the DD death rate.
Never give your right to protect yourself up with the same weapons that are already out there. The current inventory isn't going away ever!!! regardless of 2a changes. People are not trending to be kinder, there is more violent crime of all types.

 

[Irrelevant]

A bit of musing that sort of hearkens back to the beginning of this thread. As I said before, I'm not sure how much I know.

Thinking back a century or little more, sportsmen were facing a crisis. Game animals were rapidly disappearing from the American landscape. Both sport and subsistence hunting were facing the imminent loss of several desired quarry. They had pictures of huge mounds of buffalo skulls, but there weren't many buffalo left on the prairie. They managed to wipe out the passenger pigeons. Deer and elk numbers were low.

Sportsmen now look back with pride at how they responded. There were leading voices like Leopold and Roosevelt. There were hunting clubs formed that were actually conservation organizations. Seasons were closed, and bag limits were imposed. National parks and wildlife refuges were formed. Today we tout many success stories from the work of that era, and rightfully so. But how was that accomplished? Two things stand out to me. First, the sportsmen themselves were the impetus for the change. They recognized the problem and took decisive action. The government got on board with it, but that was largely because sportsmen themselves got them started with a kick in the seat of the pants. Second, the sportsmen recognized that success would require effort and sacrifice on their part. If they wanted more animals, they would have to stop shooting so many. Funding the projects came about by a tax on the very products sportsmen used. Essentially, the problem got fixed because sportsmen figured out how to fix it.

Now fast forward to 2022. We don't have a wildlife crisis; we have a gun crisis. The idealist in me thinks back to the wildlife crisis and wonders if sportsmen today could rise up and find solutions in the same way they did a hundred years ago. Reading this thread and seeing how often we revert only to the "out of my cold, dead hands" mentality makes it obvious that we never will. Could this generation have solved the wildlife crisis of last century? I really doubt that, too. Solutions require creative thinking, strong leadership, and buy-in and dedication from a large number of people. On a large scale, I just don't see that we (sportsmen) are the same quality of people they were a hundred years ago.

I know some will cry apples to oranges or complain about the government. I know I'm a pessimist, a devil's advocate, and a Debbie Downer all rolled into one. I don't know...change my mind, I guess.

QQ

I would imagine we simply got lucky. Lucky that skilled people, influential people, people with money, took up the cause to save wildlife when it wasn't directly in their own best interest or the interest of the majority of citizens. I also think we had less overall "buy-in" back then that we like to tell about. I've heard plenty of stories about poaching in the 20-30's to put meat on tables. I think it was more turning recreation against commercialization. I see more similar parallels in our future for salmon fisheries.

There's no easy parallel to firearms. How do we allow recreationists to continue doing what they want? There's no commercial interests that we can make the scape goats. I could see, as others have pointed out, where hunters sell out the militia/recreational shooters as a sacrifice to maintain some level or firearm ownership, but I think that runs into the idea of too many hunters are also shooters. and you know... hollywood has people convinced they're a badass stuck at a desk job and ARs are the only effective ways to stop government overreach... but I digress.

Not a chance that gun violence decreases in total, at best we might get small incremental per capita decreases, no matter what we do. Heck, it might be more realistic to call "wining" just maintaining the current rate of violence.

 

[LWC55]

There's no easily parallel to firearms. How do we allow recreationists to continue doing what they want? There's no commercial interests that we can make the scape goats. I could see, as others have pointed out, where hunters sell out the militia/recreational shooters as a sacrifice to maintain some level or firearm ownership, but I think that runs into the idea of too many hunters are also shooters, and you know... hollywood has people convinced they're a badass stuck at a desk job and ARs are the only effective ways to stop government overreach... but I digress.

Not a chance that gun violence decreases in total, at best we might get small incremental per capita decreases, no matter what we do. Heck, it might be more realistic to call "wining" just maintaining the current rate of violence.

Historically have governments had more or less overreach after disarming their citizens?

 

[Irrelevant]

Historically have governments had more or less overreach after disarming their citizens?

Who said disarming?

And...
Overreach in my statement was really meant as self determined "over" regulation. Regulations increase as populations increase. It has to to ensure equal freedoms if one is to avoid some form of the tragedy of the commons (if freedom and equality are things of value). If your population is increasing your regulation will increase regardless of the number of scary black guns in your safe. So that's really a moot point.

 

[SAJ-99]

Historically have governments had more or less overreach after disarming their citizens?

I think you misread the post.
Historically, when has a high proportion of heavily armed citizenry led to a higher level of safety for that citizenry?

 

[406dn]

I think you misread the post.
Historically, when has a high proportion of heavily armed citizenry led to a higher level of safety for that citizenry?

Uh, never.

 

[406dn]

Going, back 14 years to when Obama first got elected, gun sales of every type have been robust to say the least. If guns drove safety, the crime rate would not have started rising the last few years.

 

[longbow51]

I think you misread the post.
Historically, when has a high proportion of heavily armed citizenry led to a higher level of safety for that citizenry?

That's trying to prove a negative, since almost every major purge has been carried out after first disarming the populace.

If you're talking about domestic non-governmental crime, there are more guns now than ever, yet:

Trends and Patterns in Firearm Violence, 1993–2018

bjs.ojp.gov

The difference is we have essentially no policing in very high crime areas like Chicago. In response to the high crime in the 1990s we got the 1994 bill sponsored by ...Joe Biden.

And to be fair, Giuliani totally cleaned up NYC.

Now we have guys that run over their girlfriends and subway shooters out on bail. Very different environment.

 

[TwistedSage]

As much as this thread has turning into a social cause and effect debate, heres another 2cents.. While a nuclear family may very well be ideal, I think the effects of the single parent household are a bit overstated. I know quite a few single and/or divorced parents that are great parents, very present and engaged in thier kids lives. I also know married couples or parents that are absolutely toxic and are not very engaged while being bad role models.

More people are able to have kids without the intent or will to actually raise them, or at least give it everything they got.

 

[SAJ-99]

That's trying to prove a negative, since almost every major purge has been carried out after first disarming the populace.

When has a populace ever been disarmed?

The conundrum to the "we need guns to prevent government overreach" is that it implies that we have the 2A just in case this whole democracy experiment fails. Yet, what we have seen is it is most likely to fail when an armed insurrection/militia group shows up with a little more willingness and enthusiasm than the Jan 6 people to reverse election results they don't like.