What's new

At least the guns are okay

I don't want to downplay individuals fears, but fighting off wild animals does not strike me as a particularly serious concern for the vast majority of the country (rough wikipedia scan, so unsure on accuracy, but it is what it is - 4 fatal cougar attacks, 19 bear, 1 hog, 28 gator in the lower 48 in the last 25 years). Majority being solo hikers/campers for the bears/cougars. Then a bunch of retirees falling in ponds in Florida.

Special deep wilderness semi-auto permit would be something I'd be open to compromise on. But that's like .01% of semi autos owned.
Great. Now tell me how many lives were saved because of a semi auto firearm was present when an animal attacked.
 
Great. Now tell me how many lives were saved because of a semi auto firearm was present when an animal attacked.

I think we're both aware that stat is basically impossible to gather. '# of deaths prevented in wildlife attacks by having a semi-auto in place of a lever action/bear spray or similar.'

Oddly enough I'm related to one of the very few people where it may have made a difference - https://www.newsweek.com/wes-perkins-survivor-bear-attack-face-constructed-1775076

(we're 3rd cousins once removed or something like that)
 
Last edited:
I think we're both aware that stat is basically impossible to gather. '# of deaths prevented in wildlife attacks by having a semi-auto in place of a lever action/bear spray or similar.'

Oddly enough I'm related to one of the very few people where it may have made a difference - https://www.newsweek.com/wes-perkins-survivor-bear-attack-face-constructed-1775076

(we're 3rd cousins once removed or something like that)
See, that’s my point. The anti gun movement likes to point out all the bad things about guns without considering the positives.
 
See, that’s my point. The anti gun movement likes to point out all the bad things about guns without considering the positives.
Yeah but objectively, in and of itself, a gun is a pretty neutral thing. There really are no objective positives about guns in general. It is a tool like any other and it's positivity or negativity is defined by its use. And for many of us who are gun owners, that could include hunting, or target shooting, or...uh...that's really about it. The vast vast majority of guns will never be used in any violent act, whether attack or defense. In fact the vast majority of guns sit in a safe or case or drawer 99% of the time. The big issue is that we have few other items, cars leap to mind, that can be destructive on the same level as a gun with just minor mis-use, whether purposeful or accidental. Cars kill way more people than guns every year, but cars also serve an objectively useful purpose when they aren't killing people. Guns just simply do not.

So to me this isn't about pointing out the positives to outweigh the negatives as that tends to be a moot point. It could be summed up in total utility of the item, adjusting for mis-use and actual objective productive usefulness, and even as a gun-owner who really enjoys my guns and used to hunt a lot and likes having one around for a minor sense of security, I can fully admit that, ceteris paribus, guns are really just novelty or luxury or hobbyist items any more in modern society, in no way shape or form useful beyond that, except as the situation dictates from outside forces. So if we had no guns, there would be no need to introduce guns, not like cars that enable the very machinery of our society and economy. Except in times of war or maybe police work, again when dealing with outside forces, there would be no use for guns beyond hobbies realistically.

So I have a hard time arguing against regulations on the basis that my hobby is more important than stopping kids from getting killed. I know it isn't that simple, but everyone tries to boil it all down to bullet points, and that is mine. We are way way past the intent of the founding father's inclusion of a "well-regulated militia" in the constitution. And the military complex is so overwhelmingly strong that there is no way a few rednecks with 100k rounds of ammo and everything painted in camo is doing anything to stop the government from, well, anything really. That argument is so old it farts dust, and has full-on dementia. I fully support the right to keep and bear arms, but there have to be reasonable limits within a reasonable society. The founding fathers even placed limits we tend to ignore in the constitution itself, "a well-regulated militia". And no, Jethro and his in-bred cousins are not a well-regulated militia no matter how much they like to play soldier and make tough videos on tiktok. So if they added in some level of restraint in the original document, further restraints to guard against an increasing swell of chaos in society is not just a good idea, it is downright critical.
 
See, that’s my point. The anti gun movement likes to point out all the bad things about guns without considering the positives.

We've done this whole thing, and the positive we've come up with is that there could be some situations in the deep wilderness where a gun is a bit more effective than bear mace - maybe, sources disagree. It's just so thoroughly underwhelming compared to the clear negatives of having a society overflowing with guns.

I'm even trying to go out of my way to make it just semi-autos to cut mass casualty events (unfortunately wouldn't hit the overall homicide rate as hard) while still allowing 99% of sport/hunting, because I get it, it can be fun, I've been plinking since before I started school. I would like to continue to be able to do so, but it seems too large a portion of society can't pull their heads out of their asses.
 
Yeah but objectively, in and of itself, a gun is a pretty neutral thing. There really are no objective positives about guns in general. It is a tool like any other and it's positivity or negativity is defined by its use. And for many of us who are gun owners, that could include hunting, or target shooting, or...uh...that's really about it. The vast vast majority of guns will never be used in any violent act, whether attack or defense. In fact the vast majority of guns sit in a safe or case or drawer 99% of the time. The big issue is that we have few other items, cars leap to mind, that can be destructive on the same level as a gun with just minor mis-use, whether purposeful or accidental. Cars kill way more people than guns every year, but cars also serve an objectively useful purpose when they aren't killing people. Guns just simply do not.

So to me this isn't about pointing out the positives to outweigh the negatives as that tends to be a moot point. It could be summed up in total utility of the item, adjusting for mis-use and actual objective productive usefulness, and even as a gun-owner who really enjoys my guns and used to hunt a lot and likes having one around for a minor sense of security, I can fully admit that, ceteris paribus, guns are really just novelty or luxury or hobbyist items any more in modern society, in no way shape or form useful beyond that, except as the situation dictates from outside forces. So if we had no guns, there would be no need to introduce guns, not like cars that enable the very machinery of our society and economy. Except in times of war or maybe police work, again when dealing with outside forces, there would be no use for guns beyond hobbies realistically.

So I have a hard time arguing against regulations on the basis that my hobby is more important than stopping kids from getting killed. I know it isn't that simple, but everyone tries to boil it all down to bullet points, and that is mine. We are way way past the intent of the founding father's inclusion of a "well-regulated militia" in the constitution. And the military complex is so overwhelmingly strong that there is no way a few rednecks with 100k rounds of ammo and everything painted in camo is doing anything to stop the government from, well, anything really. That argument is so old it farts dust, and has full-on dementia. I fully support the right to keep and bear arms, but there have to be reasonable limits within a reasonable society. The founding fathers even placed limits we tend to ignore in the constitution itself, "a well-regulated militia". And no, Jethro and his in-bred cousins are not a well-regulated militia no matter how much they like to play soldier and make tough videos on tiktok. So if they added in some level of restraint in the original document, further restraints to guard against an increasing swell of chaos in society is not just a good idea, it is downright critical.
This is basically my feeling, although based on my research and gun ownership historically, I think the well-regulated militia doesn't mean much, and I hate judicial activism in any context (giving non-elected judges the power to change the law based on what they think is reasonable). Historically even (non-violent) felons could still own guns, so it feels like current laws are already much more restrictive than gun laws were during the early years of this country.

While some would bark, I think most gun owners would be fine with more red flag laws, storage laws, etc. As you say, the majority of guns aren't used in mass shootings or otherwise, and getting rid of them (even with a constitutional amendment) would be a large task. Find a bipartisan approach (I know, I know, doesn't seem possible these days), but we need to elect leaders that will compromise and reach across the aisle, and provide each other with mutual respect. I truly abhor politicians on both sides of the aisle right now. But clearly we can make huge strides with laws to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental issues, even if it makes it a bit harder for everyone else to buy guns, and have a system where gun owners are background checked by a central system on a regular basis, not just when they want to buy a new gun.

Even if it doesn't prevent all deaths, we can make strides. We also need to spend more money on mental health support. My kids elementary school has 3 assistant principals and one school psychologist. I'd like to see those reversed. I think there needs to be more education on the impact of bullying, and help people that need it. There was a kid at my school that was so bullied that I think it caused him to have mental issues. I am surprised he didn't go postal.

I shoot a lot, but am fine with reasonable restrictions that will likely save lives. An AR ban does nothing, as there are too many other dangerous weapons. Semi-auto pistols are responsible for the majority of gun death homicides, but the "scary" AR is the focus of everything. I shoot a lot, have a number of guns, have competed in pistol division but at the same time, am not a "gun nut". I support restrictions, but don't think bans (limited as required under Bruen and the Constitution) will not do anything. But again, guns are tools, and we can do a lot to prevent them from getting them into the hands of people with mental issues, and we can do a lot more to support people with mental issues (that lack of support is the reason for a very high percentage of homelessness in this country).
 
This is basically my feeling, although based on my research and gun ownership historically, I think the well-regulated militia doesn't mean much, and I hate judicial activism in any context (giving non-elected judges the power to change the law based on what they think is reasonable). Historically even (non-violent) felons could still own guns, so it feels like current laws are already much more restrictive than gun laws were during the early years of this country.

While some would bark, I think most gun owners would be fine with more red flag laws, storage laws, etc. As you say, the majority of guns aren't used in mass shootings or otherwise, and getting rid of them (even with a constitutional amendment) would be a large task. Find a bipartisan approach (I know, I know, doesn't seem possible these days), but we need to elect leaders that will compromise and reach across the aisle, and provide each other with mutual respect. I truly abhor politicians on both sides of the aisle right now. But clearly we can make huge strides with laws to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental issues, even if it makes it a bit harder for everyone else to buy guns, and have a system where gun owners are background checked by a central system on a regular basis, not just when they want to buy a new gun.

Even if it doesn't prevent all deaths, we can make strides. We also need to spend more money on mental health support. My kids elementary school has 3 assistant principals and one school psychologist. I'd like to see those reversed. I think there needs to be more education on the impact of bullying, and help people that need it. There was a kid at my school that was so bullied that I think it caused him to have mental issues. I am surprised he didn't go postal.

I shoot a lot, but am fine with reasonable restrictions that will likely save lives. An AR ban does nothing, as there are too many other dangerous weapons. Semi-auto pistols are responsible for the majority of gun death homicides, but the "scary" AR is the focus of everything. I shoot a lot, have a number of guns, have competed in pistol division but at the same time, am not a "gun nut". I support restrictions, but don't think bans (limited as required under Bruen and the Constitution) will not do anything. But again, guns are tools, and we can do a lot to prevent them from getting them into the hands of people with mental issues, and we can do a lot more to support people with mental issues (that lack of support is the reason for a very high percentage of homelessness in this country).
Mass shootings are fancy and flashy and all, but they're not the real problem. The real problem is suicide. In 2020, depending on how you count, there were about 521 deaths in mass shootings. There were 24,292 deaths by suicide. The majority, maybe even vast majority, were handguns. In most cases, making those less available makes suicide attempts less likely to occur. Attempts by gun are also far likelier to succeed than any other method. And most people who attempt suicide and survive NEVER ATTEMPT IT AGAIN.
 
Historically even (non-violent) felons could still own guns, so it feels like current laws are already much more restrictive than gun laws were during the early years of this country.
That really depends on 1) what part of the country you were in, and 2) how much privilege you had. For example, I understand it was common in western, territorial towns to prohibit carrying a gun.
 
That really depends on 1) what part of the country you were in, and 2) how much privilege you had. For example, I understand it was common in western, territorial towns to prohibit carrying a gun.
I was referring mostly to state and federal rulings, not what towns did which largely were not challenged in high courts. We also saw those bans largely go unheeded like the famous incidents with "The Cowboys" in Tombstone. The old west had a lot of stuff going on that had no oversight.

Though the cases that did uphold gun rights stood regardless of class (early on race, or color as it was referred to at the time would preclude ownership largely in cases in the southern states).
 
This is basically my feeling, although based on my research and gun ownership historically, I think the well-regulated militia doesn't mean much, and I hate judicial activism in any context (giving non-elected judges the power to change the law based on what they think is reasonable). Historically even (non-violent) felons could still own guns, so it feels like current laws are already much more restrictive than gun laws were during the early years of this country.

While some would bark, I think most gun owners would be fine with more red flag laws, storage laws, etc. As you say, the majority of guns aren't used in mass shootings or otherwise, and getting rid of them (even with a constitutional amendment) would be a large task. Find a bipartisan approach (I know, I know, doesn't seem possible these days), but we need to elect leaders that will compromise and reach across the aisle, and provide each other with mutual respect. I truly abhor politicians on both sides of the aisle right now. But clearly we can make huge strides with laws to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental issues, even if it makes it a bit harder for everyone else to buy guns, and have a system where gun owners are background checked by a central system on a regular basis, not just when they want to buy a new gun.

Even if it doesn't prevent all deaths, we can make strides. We also need to spend more money on mental health support. My kids elementary school has 3 assistant principals and one school psychologist. I'd like to see those reversed. I think there needs to be more education on the impact of bullying, and help people that need it. There was a kid at my school that was so bullied that I think it caused him to have mental issues. I am surprised he didn't go postal.

I shoot a lot, but am fine with reasonable restrictions that will likely save lives. An AR ban does nothing, as there are too many other dangerous weapons. Semi-auto pistols are responsible for the majority of gun death homicides, but the "scary" AR is the focus of everything. I shoot a lot, have a number of guns, have competed in pistol division but at the same time, am not a "gun nut". I support restrictions, but don't think bans (limited as required under Bruen and the Constitution) will not do anything. But again, guns are tools, and we can do a lot to prevent them from getting them into the hands of people with mental issues, and we can do a lot more to support people with mental issues (that lack of support is the reason for a very high percentage of homelessness in this country).
This is basically my thoughts as well. I wholeheartedly think changes need to be made. The far left is just as bad as the far right. Hearing politicians say things like “I’m coming after your guns” does nothing to help or fix the problem. Neither does people saying “you’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers”. Both stances are stupid. I’m pretty sure I said it earlier in this thread, but I’d love to see a waiting period. I’d love to see the end of private sales (I don’t actually think this could be done unless there was responsibility for the last registered owner of a weapon used in a crime). I’d be okay with limiting the amount of ammunition purchased for a specific time (something akin to what has been done with medicines like Aleve Cold and Flu).
 
This is basically my thoughts as well. I wholeheartedly think changes need to be made. The far left is just as bad as the far right. Hearing politicians say things like “I’m coming after your guns” does nothing to help or fix the problem. Neither does people saying “you’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers”. Both stances are stupid. I’m pretty sure I said it earlier in this thread, but I’d love to see a waiting period. I’d love to see the end of private sales (I don’t actually think this could be done unless there was responsibility for the last registered owner of a weapon used in a crime). I’d be okay with limiting the amount of ammunition purchased for a specific time (something akin to what has been done with medicines like Aleve Cold and Flu).
you can regulate private sales by requiring all sales to transfer through an FFL with background check. A few states do this, and it applies across the board for pistol sales to people with different state residency.

You could have ID required for ammo sales that can be tracked just like Sudafed is. Require you to have submitted to a background system, which instantly rechecks for ammo purchases.
 
you can regulate private sales by requiring all sales to transfer through an FFL with background check. A few states do this, and it applies across the board for pistol sales to people with different state residency.

You could have ID required for ammo sales that can be tracked just like Sudafed is. Require you to have submitted to a background system, which instantly rechecks for ammo purchases.
Yeah, the ammo thing is doable. I don’t think the private sale thing is doable. Too easy to just sale a gun to some random dude. That’s why I think it would have to involve some penalty if a gun that was registered to me was involved in a crime, whether I’m the perpetrator or not. If I saw my gun to a friend of a friend, I have no obligation to do a background check (more would I even know how to do one). Now, make accountable if that gun is used in a crime, I’m not going to just sale it to him. I’ll go through a licensed dealer who is required to do a back ground check.
 
Yeah, the ammo thing is doable. I don’t think the private sale thing is doable. Too easy to just sale a gun to some random dude. That’s why I think it would have to involve some penalty if a gun that was registered to me was involved in a crime, whether I’m the perpetrator or not. If I saw my gun to a friend of a friend, I have no obligation to do a background check (more would I even know how to do one). Now, make accountable if that gun is used in a crime, I’m not going to just sale it to him. I’ll go through a licensed dealer who is required to do a back ground check.
Just make it a harsh penalty to transfer without going through an FFL period. Not worth the risk of a felony to skip the FFL process.

As it stands, if you transfer to someone who then goes and kills people you could still be sued. Any time I have sold it has been through an FFL with background checks and I pay the transfer fees. Also provides me the safety of doing the exchange in a business than out on tje street.
 
You really want to take the side of Mrs Jones? I don’t want to hear anything from you when another kid/person shoots up a school and there were signs.


Rebekah told deputies in a report during the assessment that Jackson is homeschooled and that there are no guns in her residence, and that the only weapons present were kitchen knives she has stored in a lock box.

Deputies eventually made contact with Jackson, who says his friends started rumors and didn't know why people would make stuff up about him, according to a report.

Jackson told deputies he had no intentions of carrying out any threats.

Deputies then say they searched Jackson's room. They did not find any weapons, which was consistent with what Rebekah told them, according to a report.

He has no access to guns, and doesn't go to that school (I do support the deputies searching his room to make sure). How big a threat is that?
 
Top