http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/10/wh-no-idea-why-americans-buying-so-many-guns/

Oh, I think they do know. They just don't want to admit that a sizable portion of Americans hold a different opinion than them. What does everybody else think?

There is a perplexing visceral quality in the drive for guns by so many in the US. That's the question. Ask most gun owning Americans why they got guns and they will give bland platitudes that don't hold up to the most base of challenge, but that need goes deep.

It's like asking a 3 year old why they need that colorful box on the grocery store shelf. They can't tell you why, they just MUST have it. (Not to insuate gun owners are children, it was just best example of a need without reason I could find.)

So, yes, it is quite an enigma as to why Americans need guns so much.

The only thing is, the people who don't want us to have the right to own guns aren't fighting with guns, they're fighting with drugs. No matter their recovery, anyone who has left their drink unattended at the wrong place is subject to have their rights taken under the clause regarding institutionalization, and anyone from such an instance with an opinion is opted to refrain from speaking or be in jeopardy of being under the whims of assassination and their/there perspectives creative reclassification.

Under the manipulation and experimentation of the hierarchy, the moment any one subject becomes intelligible enough to interfere with other studies, any half wit big enough to kick in a door can ruin -him and his likes- life's sake work.

"11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"

I think anyone who isn't flailing swords in the street to kill the seven headed dragon and Babylon, should be allotted reasonable means to protect their households from lower class thugs and their likes.

Of course Americans are buying guns now! It's the Christmas season, everybody buys more stuff!

The only guns I ever saw was at a 21 gun salute for my grandfather's death.

At 12/20/15 10:09 AM, Korriken wrote: Hunting, defense, sport. The only 3 legitimate reasons to have a gun.

I would add range shooting, but I guess that can count under sport.

Well I suppose there is also collecting, but that seems silly to me.

Current guns, yes. Historical guns, not so silly.

Before someone go yelling, "What are the odds of someone invading your home?" or some crap like that, let me ask you, "what are the odds of your stove catching fire?" Little if any, but you should always keep a fire extinguisher handy. It's better to be prepared for something that doesn't happen within reason, than to have something happen and you're not prepared for it.

This still doesn't explain the gutteral reaction to guns. There are lots of places in life we ignore or openly flout risk, why is this specific one paid attention to, and with such unplaceable vigor?

At 12/19/15 07:56 AM, zornuzkull wrote: Christmas shopping nothing more.

Nothing celebrates the holidays more than a new gun.

At 12/20/15 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/20/15 10:09 AM, Korriken wrote: Well I suppose there is also collecting, but that seems silly to me.

It is no more silly than any other use of disposable income. Besides a nice firearms collection, I have an extensive library and Star Wars memorabilia collection. Jay Leno collects high-priced cars. I know many guys who collect sports memorabilia.

Unless you can show me the harm that comes with that, beyond a thought experiment, then why limit it as some have proposed?

Current guns, yes. Historical guns, not so silly.

Camaro,

Today's guns are tomorrow's antiques. And honestly, the AR-15 family of firearms is no more lethal than WWII era guns. I would argue that despite the higher mag capacity than a M-1, someone could do far more harm with that than any tricked out AR.

At 12/19/15 05:46 PM, uhnomal3 wrote: ...the moment any one subject becomes intelligible...

Was I the only other person to find this line funny?

At 12/19/15 10:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote: ... Ask most gun owning Americans why they got guns and they will give bland platitudes that don't hold up to the most base of challenge, but that need goes deep.

I think this demonstrates two things:

1) Your own bias/lack of knowledge on the issue...which when compounded with more people with the same background living in the same echo chamber leads to the greater issue:

2) Just how separate and polarized our society has come in the last 40 years (and no...it is not because of either Obama or G.W. Bush).

First off, yes you are right. If you ask some people why they need a gun, they are going to be inarticulate. Furthermore, they may be reacting to a perceived threat that is not firmly based in reality (but to be fair, many push for gun control/safety from the same level of reality disconnect). But you are going to encounter that with any issue when you take a random sample of the mob.

But as Korriken pointed out, there are reasons to own firearms even in this day and age. As I've harped in the 15 years I've posted on NG:
* The police are not there to save you, they are there to take a report and (if possible) pursue justice for the victim. They are a responsive force that in the vast majority of times are not able to respond in time to stop the crime from happening. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you need police help there is a greater chance you will face the issue by yourself than with their help. This leads to a need to have one for home/self-defense. If you ever end-up facing an attacker and all you have are your fists, you are at best on equal ground with an attacker. If you have not had any sort of combatives or martial arts training, you will be at a disadvantage. If you have a knife, you are still at best equal...unless you have some sort of specialized knife fighting training. If you have an incapacitant such as mace or pepper spray, it is an area of effect weapon which means that you will hurt yourself from it. You will have better odds of escaping...but does not tilt the situation in your favor all that decisively. Only guns and TASERs give you a decisive edge...guns so much that the assailant will most likely run. Only rarely when a gun is used in self-defense is someone hurt. Personally, I think the person who does not choose to have a gun in their home is acting negligently from an irrational fear rooted in the lizard brain reinforced by an elitist and urban sense of tribalism.

* Hunting is still a major means of providing meat for the table of poor families in many rural communities. Even for the lower-middle-class it can be a huge financial boon to stock a freezer with deer meet from a hunt.

On the other hand, there is the sanctimonious arrogance and ignorance coming from the Left on this issue. The New York Times has an interesting opinion piece on this...written by someone for gun 'safety'. His point was that both sides need to look at facts as a starting point. To an extent, I would agree, but before that we need to relax and realize that the problem is there is no consensus only mutual antagonism.

I know that talk of the Second Amendment puts the Left to sleep. Furthermore, the idea that people still live that far away from civilization in the US that there is a near zero police presence AND subsistence hunting is still practiced is a completely alien concept to the Left. Likewise there are things that comes out of the mouths of people on the other side that makes me feel like they are either:
A: know absolutely ZERO (I'm talking 0 degrees K/-273 degrees C/-459 degrees F) about guns.
B: the expressed opinion comes not from logic or reason, but of a deep seated fear of the unknown.
In case you're wondering, the things that cause gun owners to shut-out Liberals are:

* "Common sense gun control."/"Gun 'safety'."
This just smells of propaganda and Orwellian newspeak. You are simply re-branding old policy proposals while trying to portray the other side in a negative light. Yes Republicans and the Right do it too...but it does not make it right. Most Democratic law makers currently do not appear to have the requisite knowledge on the subject to know what common sense is on guns...much less legislate it. Guns like the AR freak them out and they want them banned (is it because they are black?)...when these types of weapons are used in about 2% of crime. So you're looking in the wrong direction (think handguns and shotguns).

* "The Gun Show/Internet Loophole." This is another totally made-up bit of political theater. No such thing exists. If I am a licensed dealer and I set-up a booth at a gun show...I have to sell it just like I was selling in my store. If I advertise and sell them online, I have to transfer it to another licensed dealer in the buyer's area for them to transfer it to someone who is not licensed. BUT if I am a private citizen, I can sell it to another private citizen...without paperwork or a background check. I can do this at a gun show, over the internet, in a Walmart parking lot, or in my home. If I do sell without a background and I hold a FFL...I have just violated the law. Which leads me to my next point:

* "Vast majorities, including 67% of gun owners, support universal background checks." Unfortunately, this does not translate into popular support for proposals such as Manchin-Toomey. Why? About 45% of the people who support universal background checks only support it when transferring to a stranger. If I sell to my best friend or a relative...I do not think I need a background check because I more than likely know them better than any info I could get from a background check. What I think is needed is making the system accessible to sellers for a nominal fee (say no more than $10) for strangers at a gun show or online...

I actually have more...but need to head somewhere...maybe later I'll finish my list.

I can't speak for anywhere else, but anyone yammering on about the "gun show loophole" in Pennsylvania is full of shit, since that was legislatively closed 30 years ago.

When I was living by myself in Ohio, I was seriously considering getting my CCW. People where I was living are fucking crazy. I'm 5'1" and 130 pounds, so don't expect me to fight anyone off. Besides, the point has been made on this forum before: just having the gun is a deterrent most of the time. If someone tries to mug you and they see you're armed, they'll back off unless they have a death wish.

Would it have ever come to the point where I needed to use the gun? Who knows. I was laid off from the job and moved back to Pennsylvania as a result, so it became a moot point. But I wanted to be able to protect myself because my job, as well as where I lived, could get dangerous at times.

I visited Ohio again a couple of years ago and found out that 40% of all CCW registrations/applications are either single women or single mothers with no man around (boyfriend/brother/etc.). They want to be able to protect themselves and their families and realize they can't rely on men for everything if they're not there.

So, if the Democratic party continues its anti-gun push, they risk alienating a lot of these women. Sure, go ahead and get raped...but birth control is free, right?!

At 1/17/16 12:03 PM, TheMason wrote: I think this demonstrates two things:

1) Your own bias/lack of knowledge on the issue...which when compounded with more people with the same background living in the same echo chamber leads to the greater issue:

This is true in that I don't place any value in the self-defense mantra. I believe it is a bland platitude, and little more than an excuse. Working with both victims and criminals, I have yet to see a scenario where the introduction of a gun would have de-ecsalated the situation. The element of surprise and the high tension gives very little ground for a person to use a gun in a manner that actually would make a situation deflate.

In short, I don't buy it. To me it seems like a way to put up a wall against gun control that people can respond with a sob story in the exact manner as Rydia did and claim that people who want gun violence to stop are dooming small women to a life of rape. I know this tactic, I use it a lot (look at my post history). It's the same argument my pro-gun control people use: "People who oppose gun control want more kindergartners to die ala Newtown!" It's BS.

Frankly, outside of hunting and collecting, there aren't valid reasons other than the unspoken obvious reason: people just love guns. That reason carries little weight and thus is never used, though I think if that became a movement it would carry a lot more weight than the hackneyed and swiss cheese self defense argument.

2) Just how separate and polarized our society has come in the last 40 years (and no...it is not because of either Obama or G.W. Bush).

I wouldn't deny this. People in rural America think urban centers are havens for crimes and blacks. People in cities think rural areas are full of ignorant fools.

* The police are not there to save you, they are there to take a report and (if possible) pursue justice for the victim.

There are 2 problems with this. First off, what's more dangerous than a criminal with a gun? An idiot with a gun. I can guarantee you there are a shit load more total fucking idiots in this nation than there are criminals. Most criminals have a goal and only use a gun as a method to achieve that goal. They enter the crime intending expressly to NOT use the gun. This means that when a gun is brought out, they are now put in a position where they may actually want to use the gun.

Second, the notion that a gun can stop most crimes is utterly foolish. Criminals don't give you a warning. They don't let you dig through your purse or reach down to your holster. By the time you know you need to use your gun, it's too late to get it.

So, your gun is useless most of the time, and in the few times it actually can be used, it tends to take anon-violent ituation and turns it into a violent one. Can a gun possibly stop a crime? yes. Is it more likely to result in something worse? I don't know, simple logic screams yes, but there is no way to accurately prove it.

I know that talk of the Second Amendment puts the Left to sleep. Furthermore, the idea that people still live that far away from civilization in the US that there is a near zero police presence AND subsistence hunting is still practiced is a completely alien concept to the Left. Likewise there are things that comes out of the mouths of people on the other side that makes me feel like they are either:
A: know absolutely ZERO (I'm talking 0 degrees K/-273 degrees C/-459 degrees F) about guns.
B: the expressed opinion comes not from logic or reason, but of a deep seated fear of the unknown.
In case you're wondering, the things that cause gun owners to shut-out Liberals are:

I'd actually say C. It comes more from a lack of knowledge about and a disdain for gun culture. Many cannot understand the pervasive fear that drive so many toward guns. Many have a complete disrepect for those who let fear run their lives, and they see that fear as based in no sort of reality.

They see guns as an accessory and wonder why people are so deeply attached to them. People are dying left and right, and they see a huge group of people who refuse to act like they care because it may cause them to lose something equivalent to an iPod.

This is what I see as the big gap.

I actually have more...but need to head somewhere...maybe later I'll finish my list.

I don't care about the ground work. I don't see a solution. But, I DO see a problem. One thing that bugs me about the pro-gun side is that they flat out refuse to see or acknowledge the problem of gun violence. They write it off as an "oh well, what are you going to do?" So instead of actually doing anything, they try to deflect it off onto another issue, and often times, it is onto mental health which is an issue the pro-gun group cares as much about as they do gun control.

Perhaps if there were some intellectual honesty in the debate (pro-gun as to why they want the laws and pro-gun control as to the efficacy of their requests) we might be getting somewhere.

At 1/17/16 02:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Perhaps if there were some intellectual honesty in the debate (pro-gun as to why they want the laws and pro-gun control as to the efficacy of their requests) we might be getting somewhere.

The NYT actually had a pretty good column about this today. Kristof is pro-gun control, but he did say that if people want to see gun control regulations be passed, let alone be taken seriously, they need to cut out the sanctimony. Then others might actually listen. When Obama described rural Pennsylvanians as "clinging to guns and religion," everyone just immediately tuned him out right then and there, so anything he had to say after that point fell on deaf ears.

The cities with the strictest gun control laws (e.g. Chicago) have the highest rates of gun violence. Why is that? The pro-gun crowd would also do well to try and explain this without any name calling. That being said, the pro-gun control folks are also quite guilty of that. We're not all rednecks/rubes/hillbillies/whatever. Hell, even the Amish own guns.

At 1/17/16 11:11 AM, TheMason wrote: It is no more silly than any other use of disposable income. Besides a nice firearms collection, I have an extensive library and Star Wars memorabilia collection. Jay Leno collects high-priced cars. I know many guys who collect sports memorabilia.

These are not equivalent arguments. They really aren't. Guns are weapons. They are for maiming and killing, that is what they're function is. This is not true of a car (though they are capable of being used as a weapon with the outcomes I mentioned, this is not what the INTENDED function is), star wars memorabilia is not to be used as a weapon, nor are sports memorabilia. This is why I think these comparisons are false.

Unless you can show me the harm that comes with that, beyond a thought experiment, then why limit it as some have proposed?

Because amasing a collection of weapons should always arouse suspicion because while there are people like yourself who do it for no other reason then enjoyment of them from a benign perspective, there are those like the Columbine shooters or terrorists who are doing it to then use those weapons for their primary intended purpose. I'm not saying we need to ban collecting, but does it not make reasonable sense that there should be some checks and ability to monitor weapons collectors where such things aren't as necessary when the things collected are not?

At 1/17/16 06:27 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The NYT actually had a pretty good column about this today. Kristof is pro-gun control, but he did say that if people want to see gun control regulations be passed, let alone be taken seriously, they need to cut out the sanctimony.

Agreed.

The massively stilted narrative and demands of the pro-gun crowd kinda forced the hand, though.

The cities with the strictest gun control laws (e.g. Chicago) have the highest rates of gun violence. Why is that?

It can't be explained. It'll forever be a chicken and egg argument. No one will be able to prove anything.

The pro-gun crowd would also do well to try and explain this without any name calling. That being said, the pro-gun control folks are also quite guilty of that. We're not all rednecks/rubes/hillbillies/whatever. Hell, even the Amish own guns.

True. People need to back down on two things: how they characterize the other side, and on why exactly they believe what they do.

At 1/17/16 06:27 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The cities with the strictest gun control laws (e.g. Chicago) have the highest rates of gun violence. Why is that?

Perhaps Chicago's gun control laws aren't as strict as Republicans would like you to believe.

At 1/17/16 02:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

SELF-DEFENSE:

This is true in that I don't place any value in the self-defense mantra. I believe it is a bland platitude, and little more than an excuse. Working with both victims and criminals, I have yet to see a scenario where the introduction of a gun would have de-ecsalated the situation. The element of surprise and the high tension gives very little ground for a person to use a gun in a manner that actually would make a situation deflate.

I think your bias is showing. Your line of work exposes you to many people, but how varied are their backgrounds? While you may see what amounts to many people for an individual; how much of the problem are you really seeing? A person's line of work introduces strong biases. Being military, I for one have to fight the tendency to stop listening with someone mistakenly refers to an AR-15 (or any assault rifle/clone) as 'high-powered'. Similarly, if you were to take a poll of ER docs, you would probably find a highly unrealistic approximation of just how bad gun violence is in this country.

My point here is, we all need to step back and look beyond our personal experiences. I have used a gun effectively in self-defense...and no one got hurt. Other people on here have shared their experiences of the same thing. What it is is cognitive dissonance...another person's anecdote conflicts with your's/mine...so we dismiss their point.

So I go to the science. Researchers from both sides of the spectrum put annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) at between the low six digits and 2.5 million. From my read of the studies, I think the number is between 500k and 750k. The number of justified homicides in this country combined with the total number of gun injuries barely approaches the low-end. This means that guns are being used to deflate tense situations.

* The police are not there to save you, they are there to take a report and (if possible) pursue justice for the victim.

There are 2 problems with this. First off, what's more dangerous than a criminal with a gun? An idiot with a gun. I can guarantee you there are a shit load more total fucking idiots in this nation than there are criminals. Most criminals have a goal and only use a gun as a method to achieve that goal. They enter the crime intending expressly to NOT use the gun. This means that when a gun is brought out, they are now put in a position where they may actually want to use the gun.

I do not think you can guarantee me that there are 'a shit load more total fucking idiots'.

* In 1904 we started tracking gun accidents & deaths. Since then we've seen a drop of almost 94% in them.
* Over the past few decades crime has steadily been decreasing instead of increasing.

Also, it depends on the situation. If a criminal enters a home, whether he has a gun or not, he is disadvantaged. In my home I'm shooting from a barricaded position, an erstwhile home invader would have to get through a door to get to me...and then find me to shoot me. I on the other hand can position myself optimally to avoid the 'fatal funnel' (in case he tries to fire through the door) and shoot through the door where I know he is at. In this case, I give a warning and 9 out of 10 times the criminal will flee. If he does not, then he, not I, is the 'total fucking idiot'.

Second, the notion that a gun can stop most crimes is utterly foolish. Criminals don't give you a warning. They don't let you dig through your purse or reach down to your holster. By the time you know you need to use your gun, it's too late to get it.

You are not totally wrong here: If a gun is already pulled on you (or a knife within 21 ft), your gun will likely get you killed/injured. If you are walking down the street, not paying attention to your surroundings then yes this is a danger. But, this really only applies to a scenario where a person is being mugged on the street and maybe a mass-shooting event. But there are few things to consider:

* When it comes to CCW, I think people who get one should get some tactical training on how to be alert to their surroundings and know when you are being approached so you do not let someone get within 21 ft where the gun becomes useless.
* In a mass-shooting event, the person is more than likely firing erratically and suffering from tunnel vision. Again someone trained (or who thinks) tactically has a reasonable chance of taking the guy out.

So, your gun is useless most of the time, and in the few times it actually can be used, it tends to take anon-violent ituation and turns it into a violent one. Can a gun possibly stop a crime? yes. Is it more likely to result in something worse? I don't know, simple logic screams yes, but there is no way to accurately prove it.

Actually, it is called 'science'. This issue has been studied extensively.

Likewise there are things that comes out of the mouths of people on the other side that makes me feel like they are either:
A: know absolutely ZERO (I'm talking 0 degrees K/-273 degrees C/-459 degrees F) about guns.
B: the expressed opinion comes not from logic or reason, but of a deep seated fear of the unknown.
In case you're wondering, the things that cause gun owners to shut-out Liberals are:

I'd actually say C. It comes more from a lack of knowledge about and a disdain for gun culture. Many cannot understand the pervasive fear that drive so many toward guns. Many have a complete disrepect for those who let fear run their lives, and they see that fear as based in no sort of reality.

So if a person has a lack of knowledge about gun culture...how can one rationally and objectively hold a disdain for it? From what you describe, option 'C' is actually worse: it is completely disrespecting people by projecting a fear that runs their own lives onto a whole group of people.

When I hear people on the Left talk about this issue all I hear is fear instead of rationality, common sense, and knowledge. I hear this because what they say makes no sense in regards to my background in social science, the military, and my understanding of the physics, biology, chemistry, and metallurgy involved in firearms and this issue.

I do not see myself living in fear, but I do see people on your side ruled by it. Perhaps this is a mutual disconnect, but I think the balance of fear-mongering is on the Left (not all...but more so than on the Right).

They see guns as an accessory and wonder why people are so deeply attached to them. People are dying left and right, and they see a huge group of people who refuse to act like they care because it may cause them to lose something equivalent to an iPod.

That it is seen as equivalent to an iPod could be indicative of ignorance and fear rather than reality.

I don't care about the ground work. I don't see a solution. But, I DO see a problem. One thing that bugs me about the pro-gun side is that they flat out refuse to see or acknowledge the problem of gun violence. They write it off as an "oh well, what are you going to do?" So instead of actually doing anything, they try to deflect it off onto another issue, and often times, it is onto mental health which is an issue the pro-gun group cares as much about as they do gun control.

1) By not caring about the ground work and resolving your own ignorance and fears....there will never be a solution.
2) We do not just 'write it off'; instead someone like me sees that there is no more efficacy in pursing gun-control solutions. The answer lies in education and improving economic opportunites...and maybe eliminating victim mindsets in the poor of all races.

Perhaps if there were some intellectual honesty in the debate (pro-gun as to why they want the laws and pro-gun control as to the efficacy of their requests) we might be getting somewhere.

Right now...I think the Left needs it more than the Right.

At 1/18/16 09:58 AM, TheMason wrote: Right now...I think the Left needs it more than the Right.

At 1/18/16 09:58 AM, TheMason wrote: Right now...I think the Left needs it more than the Right.

Yes, the party whose front runners include Donald Trump and Ben Carson needs less intellectual honesty than the party whose frontrunners care about stuff like "facts".

Seriously, the left wing does not give any to its lunatics. No Democratic politician was a truther, neither Obama nor his colleagues have pursued a war crimes trial for anyone in the Bush administration. Meanwhile, Texas Governor George Abbot put the Texas National Guard on high alert for Jade Helm 15, GOP politicians reguraly accuse Obama of being a Muslim or Socialist. Donald Trump, the frontrunner in the GOP primary, said Sanders was going "to tax you people at 90%" calling him a "Socialist/Communist". Where did he get that 90 figure? His ass, Sanders never said anything like that. And that isn't even the craziest thing he said.

Let's look at the craziest claim the Democratic candidates have touted about; that Global Warming Contributes to Terrorism. Most Conservatives simply scoff at such a notion as complete bullshit, yet this is a position the Department of Defense has had for decades calling it a "Threat Multiplier". The Syrian Civil War was in part caused by a massive drought in Northern Syria and the governments failure to respond. The drought caused alot of farmers to leave their land and flee to the cities and in turn they were unable to find work. This created a good environment for ISIS to grow. Now, you can debate that whether or not it's true but there is at least evidence behind it. Most of what the GOP fights for has little to no evidence to support it from their economic policy to their foreign policy. It's no wonder that the candidates who spout the most false claims are Republicans.

At 1/17/16 07:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/17/16 11:11 AM, TheMason wrote: It is no more silly than any other use of disposable income. Besides a nice firearms collection, I have an extensive library and Star Wars memorabilia collection. Jay Leno collects high-priced cars. I know many guys who collect sports memorabilia.

These are not equivalent arguments. They really aren't. Guns are weapons. They are for maiming and killing, that is what they're function is. This is not true of a car (though they are capable of being used as a weapon with the outcomes I mentioned, this is not what the INTENDED function is), star wars memorabilia is not to be used as a weapon, nor are sports memorabilia. This is why I think these comparisons are false.

Flag on the play...
Defense: moving the goal post fallacy, half the distance to the goal, repeat first down.

They are perfectly equivalent analogies (not arguments). See, the question at hand was whether or not gun collections are silly...which is to say foolish or imprudent. If I read this wrong then Korriken can set the record straight on what he meant.

You are interjecting with a different argument...but I will get to that later.

In this case, the analogy fits perfectly because we're essentially arguing that if something is superfluous it is not a legitimate reason to own something. It appears that he's saying at a certain point the number of firearms a person owns no longer serves a utility...you don't take them all hunting or use them in self-defense all at the same time. And he's perfectly correct.

BUT...

The point I was trying to make was that people spend their disposable income in various ways based on their backgrounds. There is the abstraction that this is enjoying the fruits of their labors and exercising their right to property. On a more practical level, gun collections are (like sports and toy memorabilia) can become sources of wealth.

Unless you can show me the harm that comes with that, beyond a thought experiment, then why limit it as some have proposed?

Because amasing a collection of weapons should always arouse suspicion because while there are people like yourself who do it for no other reason then enjoyment of them from a benign perspective, there are those like the Columbine shooters or terrorists who are doing it to then use those weapons for their primary intended purpose. I'm not saying we need to ban collecting, but does it not make reasonable sense that there should be some checks and ability to monitor weapons collectors where such things aren't as necessary when the things collected are not?

Again you are moving the goal posts...or burning a straw man...or a mix of both. The subject being addressed was not what checks should be put on weapons collectors; it was whether or not just collecting firearms was a legitimate reason for owning them...and Korriken put forth the argument that there was no utility to them. That is/was the topic at hand.

As for what you bring up; we do have background checks for lawful collectors. Those things are already in place. Monitoring weapons collectors would divert time, money, and other resources from policy initiatives that would make an appreciable difference in gun violence.

@ Feoric

While your point is somewhat on target...it was only on paper not in the ring.

I am not absolving the Right of emotional manipulation when it comes to guns. You do not need to show me...I have seen far more egregious examples than what you showed. I also get why people on the Left or otherwise outside of 'gun culture' get concerned when they see advertisements for things like ARs or Kimber .45s or Desert Eagles. The other side is perfectly correct in pointing out that this is playing to male fantasies of power and domination...just like advertisers have always done with sports cars, beer, and cigarettes. So there are people on my side who are easily manipulated...but in the end they wind up learning about guns. Learning about the science behind them and what are effective and not effective for what application.

As for the political advertising; do you ever look at that and think "how could anyone believe that when all Obama has done is small and all he has proposed are relatively mild"?

Do you just chalk it up to racism and/or partisanship?

For me, I can see how that is effective. From my perspective when Obama does these minor executive actions...and they have been minor...I wonder if he really knows what he is doing because it seems like he is just tilting at windmills.

* His executive order banning the importation of military surplus firearms? To someone on the outside of 'gun culture' it sounds like he was banning the importation of military-grade AK-47s. It was not. It was on American made M-1 rifles from the WWII and Korea era. These are NOT assault rifles, and in fact these firearms match the criteria for guns Lefties said were alright and acceptable. They cannot be altered to full auto, at least not that I am aware of nor pretty easily. Furthermore, not only do their mags only hold 7 or 8 rounds...they are fixed which means they cannot be replaced. All he did was to hurt a US government program (the Civilian Marksmanship Program or CMP) that promoted shooting sports.

* These last executive orders close a loophole that does not exist and does little to nothing to clarify an obtuse law.

So yeah, it definitely appears that on this issue the Left really does not care about learning what they do not know.

At 1/18/16 11:37 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 1/18/16 09:58 AM, TheMason wrote: Right now...I think the Left needs it more than the Right.

Yes, the party whose front runners include Donald Trump and Ben Carson needs less intellectual honesty than the party whose frontrunners care about stuff like "facts".

Everything you just wrote is totally irrelevant. Not a single one of those things had anything to do with the topic at hand. On gun control, the Left does not really care about facts.

The Kristof article Rydia and I linked to really got me thinking. I have personally seen many cringe-worthy pieces of propaganda come from the Right on this issue. I do not fully support open-carry, although I do not fully oppose it either...I just think it's not practical. So yes, there are morons on my side who are ignorant and fails to grasp things. My side is not perfect.

However, I honestly think I can articulate the rationale and logic of gun control. And it makes sense until you go from thought experiments to application. Nor do I think that those on the Left are rubes or morons; people do not know what they do not know.

THE NRA:
If the Left really has an interest in compromise and reaching 'common sense' gun policy...shut-up about the NRA. Yeah, I get it...they are powerful. They are 'bought and paid for' by the gun industry to protect their profiteering on gun violence. They do not really represent the typical gun owner; and just manipulate my emotions and fears to sell guns.

Believe it or not, I can see some areas where we can tighten gun policy:
* Providing access to background checks for person-to-person sales...when not selling/gifting to a close friend or family member.
* Limitations on handgun purchases...I do not mind a waiting period. Nor do I mind restrictions on handgun LCMs. I do not think it will have much of an impact other than nibbling around the edges. But I think we could get a 2-10% reduction.

But the focus on the NRA...makes the Left look uninformed and fearmongering. The NRA becomes a lobbyist boogeyman that you channel all your irrational fears of guns into.

And then you project that irrational fear and ignorance onto people like me. The message I get from the Left about people like me in the 'gun culture':

* I do not think for myself but am instead manipulated by the NRA into fearing Blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims.
* What I know about guns does not come from actual knowledge about guns (ie: the metallurgy of the bullet itself, the chemistry of the powder, the physics of deciding what round to use for what application) comes from slick advertising or NRA propaganda.

WE NEED SCIENCE:
This is where my social science background comes into play. There is no real substance to this argument; it is a clever technique to manipulate emotions and generate the false idea that research is being repressed that shows gun control works.

I've read the public health approach to this subject; and it is laughable. Researchers at institutions such as Johns Hopkins are coming up with findings such as 'having a gun in the home increases risk of gun injury and death by 48x'.

OMG! If you do not know how such scientific inquiry works you would think this was something major. In reality, this does not pass the 'giggle test'. All they found was that when you engage in an activity your chances of getting hurt or killed doing that activity is greater than if you don't. Well, the Amish and Menonites do not own/drive cars but they still get hurt in car accidents.

I've also seen them analyze DGUs where they attempt to use survey methodology on actual reported results. Totally inappropriate to the level of being negligent/incompetent.

If this is the level of sophistication that this approach is at, and the one the CDC will pursue, then save the money. Criminologists, political scientists, and psychologists have studied this issue and are publishing far more informed and consequential research.

At 1/18/16 01:17 PM, TheMason wrote: ...but in the end they wind up learning about guns. Learning about the science behind them and what are effective and not effective for what application.

That's great, but what does this have to do with literacy of the political environment and policy agendas? Nothing, and if anything is likely to be detrimental to understanding such things if the content of NRA newsletters are anything to go by. So how can you say what's below this in good faith?

So yeah, it definitely appears that on this issue the Left really does not care about learning what they do not know.

edit: just to be clear, obviously there is some degree of knowledge about guns which is required to know whether specific policies are effective (the AWB is a good example of this, which banned lots of useless albeit scary looking cosmetic accessories), but knowing the differences between single action and double action triggers (for example) isn't going to give you much luck in determining the likelihood of whether or not the United Nations is going to violate your Second Amendment rights.

edit2: And, if I may, the problem with a large segment of the right-leaning pro-gun caucus isn't necessarily that they seem to think that's true, but rather that they want it to be true.

The left knows full well the NRA doesn't represent most gun owners on most issues. However, when it comes to gun control battles in the political arena, it is not the regular gun owners who are making policy, it is the NRA.

At 1/18/16 12:59 PM, TheMason wrote: Flag on the play...
Defense: moving the goal post fallacy, half the distance to the goal, repeat first down.

I don't think that's fair personally as that to me would go to an intention I did not have. I didn't feel the examples were equivalent personally for the reasons I stated. There was no effort on my part to re-direct or distract from an argument I didn't feel confident to have.

They are perfectly equivalent analogies (not arguments). See, the question at hand was whether or not gun collections are silly...which is to say foolish or imprudent. If I read this wrong then Korriken can set the record straight on what he meant.

I think it's actually ME who read it wrong and mistook your point. If we're talking about notion of collecting guns as being "silly", then yes, I agree to call one sort of collection "silly" is really to condemn the whole process of collecting itself, I agree. My point was that I don't think you can say that collecting weapons is the same as collecting stamps, but I see where it looks like I applied a new argument because I misunderstood the point you were making. Mea culpa.

The point I was trying to make was that people spend their disposable income in various ways based on their backgrounds. There is the abstraction that this is enjoying the fruits of their labors and exercising their right to property. On a more practical level, gun collections are (like sports and toy memorabilia) can become sources of wealth.

Very true, and I would say that if the collecting is with an eye towards later resale for profit, gun collecting is probably among the BEST collections you could have for that purpose.

As for what you bring up; we do have background checks for lawful collectors. Those things are already in place. Monitoring weapons collectors would divert time, money, and other resources from policy initiatives that would make an appreciable difference in gun violence.

I'm not necessarily saying monitor all collectors. As Cam pointed out, there's very little harm in owning an antique gun because the odds of it being used for it's original intended purpose seem pretty low to me. But when someone is buying up a large quantity of MODERN guns and such well....I think that should raise some red flags and it should raise an eyebrow or two. It's not so much I think that you and I have any massive disagreement on this issue I think (probably only a handful of points really), but it's just alarming to me how cavalier some people can be about the issue really.

Sorry again for the earlier misunderstanding.

At 1/18/16 09:58 AM, TheMason wrote: I think your bias is showing.

Explaining my bias was the whole purpose of that paragraph.

So I go to the science. Researchers from both sides of the spectrum put annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) at between the low six digits and 2.5 million. From my read of the studies, I think the number is between 500k and 750k. The number of justified homicides in this country combined with the total number of gun injuries barely approaches the low-end. This means that guns are being used to deflate tense situations.

I would like to see these studies to see what sort of crimes were defended against and what they used as evdence.

Also, it depends on the situation. If a criminal enters a home, whether he has a gun or not, he is disadvantaged.

I don't like this line either. How common are burglaries? They don't belong in the same sentence as common. So using rare crimes to justify something as a defense for all crimes is specious.

* When it comes to CCW, I think people who get one should get some tactical training on how to be alert to their surroundings and know when you are being approached so you do not let someone get within 21 ft where the gun becomes useless.

How many false positives does this create? Should we really making people prepared to use their guns everytime they get skittish? Is that not a recipe for needless danger?

* In a mass-shooting event, the person is more than likely firing erratically and suffering from tunnel vision. Again someone trained (or who thinks) tactically has a reasonable chance of taking the guy out.

How many mass shootings have we had and how many have been stopped by this person? (I do know many mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones but then also, many have occurred in areas where guns were allowed, and I have still yet to see one halted by a "good guy with a gun")

Actually, it is called 'science'. This issue has been studied extensively.

I would like to see the studies, because my gut say the study is based upon self reporting, which is notoriously innaccurate, especialy when people have reason (be it even just ego) to falsely report or to exaggerate. Also, are these studies talking about minor thefts stopped with a gun, or actual violent crimes stopped with a gun? I'd make a personal value judgment and say property crimes (with few exceptions) are not a good trade off for gun violence.

I do not see myself living in fear,

The whole argument for self defense is born out of a culture of fear. The notion that somone is going to get you so you need a gun, is a very fearful notion.

1) By not caring about the ground work and resolving your own ignorance and fears....there will never be a solution.
2) We do not just 'write it off'; instead someone like me sees that there is no more efficacy in pursing gun-control solutions. The answer lies in education and improving economic opportunites...and maybe eliminating victim mindsets in the poor of all races.

What does a victim mindset have to do with any of this?

Right now...I think the Left needs it more than the Right.

The left may not know how things work, but the right is flat out lying to itself and the country. I would rather hear "because we can" or "because I like guns" or "while guns likely won't make me safer they at least make me FEEL safer" as a reason for no gun control than "I need it to defend myself".

At 1/18/16 02:27 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/18/16 01:17 PM, TheMason wrote: ...but in the end they wind up learning about guns. Learning about the science behind them and what are effective and not effective for what application.

That's great, but what does this have to do with literacy of the political environment and policy agendas? Nothing, and if anything is likely to be detrimental to understanding such things if the content of NRA newsletters are anything to go by. So how can you say what's below this in good faith?

It's very important.

When the Left talks about 'safer guns and safer bullets' or 'weapons designed only to kill humans as quickly as possible'; we're talking about the physics involved with propelling a mass of metal of a certain weight towards flesh and bone. Furthermore, how the bullet interacts with that flesh and bone is a component of metallurgy...what the bullet is made of.

Quite simply, if all you know about guns is what you see on Assault on Precinct 13 (remember D2Kvirus? He based his opinion of guns on that movie)...then you think military style firearms are designed to kill a LOT of people quickly. Take movies out of it and if all you have is a superficial knowledge of the military and how we do things...then it makes sense.

But the reality is if you apply these sentiments to the scientific facts regarding what guns are capable of in reality; the guns and ammo that would be available would be assault rifle clones, military grade ammo, and modern black-powder rifles (this last one for the hunters). Shotguns, handguns, and high powered rifles are far more deadly than 'military grade' assault rifles combined with military grade ammo.

So yeah, it definitely appears that on this issue the Left really does not care about learning what they do not know.

edit: just to be clear, obviously there is some degree of knowledge about guns which is required to know whether specific policies are effective (the AWB is a good example of this, which banned lots of useless albeit scary looking cosmetic accessories), but knowing the differences between single action and double action triggers (for example) isn't going to give you much luck in determining the likelihood of whether or not the United Nations is going to violate your Second Amendment rights.

You are right; there is a certain level of getting into the weeds that is unnecessary. BUT if you look at the rhetoric when I hear Democratic politicians discuss the following they sound like total morons to a guy like me who knows what he is talking about:

* Barrel shrouds: Used by the Left to describe a feature that allows a gun to be held while firing a large quantity of bullets, maybe even rapidly. This has been around for centuries, going back to the earliest rifles. It is called a forestock/forearm/handguard. The AR family uses 'barrel shrouds' to serve the same function. It is nothing new.

* High-powered rifles: Used by the Left to describe assault rifle clones. One of the definitions of an assault rifle is that is fires a round with less power than traditional (aka: 'high-powered') rifle rounds...but more powerful than most handgun rounds. They are actually 'intermediate rounds'.

edit2: And, if I may, the problem with a large segment of the right-leaning pro-gun caucus isn't necessarily that they seem to think that's true, but rather that they want it to be true.

1) You are right that there are crazies on the Right. In no way am I denying this; I'm part of gun-culture remember? That said, I think the number who think the NRA is out to take our guns is WAY overblown on the Left and an unfair stereotype.

2) It is also a non-sequitor. My point is that a certain knowledge level is necessary to make good gun control policy that is based on reason and has a good chance at being effective. The problem is when I hear the Left and their proposals (a better indicator of knowledge level than their rhetoric); I do not trust that they know enough to say what is 'common sense' when it comes to gun control or 'safety'. All I hear is a good deal of ignorance and fearmongering. There is a great deal of fearmongering on the Right on this issue, true, but if you know guns then the Right are the people who are making more sense.

At 1/18/16 02:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The left knows full well the NRA doesn't represent most gun owners on most issues. However, when it comes to gun control battles in the political arena, it is not the regular gun owners who are making policy, it is the NRA.

Wow, my point is completely missed! This sums up the arrogance of the Left that I'm talking about! You are saying that somehow, you are above the fray of fearmongering. You understand what most gun owners feel best represents them...even if the majority of them do not understand their best interests themselves.

It's not that when Democratic politicians articulate gun policy it makes no sense to people who regularly use and understand guns!

At 1/18/16 07:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/18/16 09:58 AM, TheMason wrote: I think your bias is showing.

Explaining my bias was the whole purpose of that paragraph.

But have you done anything the mitigate the way this bias can blind you on this and accentuate your own fears?

I would like to see these studies to see what sort of crimes were defended against and what they used as evdence.

I have linked to these quite frequently on here. And while some are published by private organizations (on both sides), many are also peer reviewed in academic journals.

As for the methodology on DGUs, there is a good bit of survey data involved because there is no way to get hard data since police do not generally report DGUs.

Also, it depends on the situation. If a criminal enters a home, whether he has a gun or not, he is disadvantaged.

I don't like this line either. How common are burglaries? They don't belong in the same sentence as common. So using rare crimes to justify something as a defense for all crimes is specious.

* In 2014, there were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter decreased 0.5 percent and robbery decreased 5.6 percent when compared with estimates from 2013. Rape (legacy definition) and aggravated assault, however, increased 2.4 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively.

* Nationwide, there were an estimated 8,277,829 property crimes. The estimated numbers of each of the property crimes show declines when compared with the previous year’s estimates. Burglaries dropped 10.5 percent, larceny-thefts declined 2.7 percent, and motor vehicle thefts were down 1.5 percent.

SOURCE

There were 13 thousand murders in 2014 vs 1.6 million burglaries.

SOURCE

So 1.17 million violent crimes vs 8.28 million property crimes. The total number of violent crimes less than just burglaries?

So which is the rare crime again?

* When it comes to CCW, I think people who get one should get some tactical training on how to be alert to their surroundings and know when you are being approached so you do not let someone get within 21 ft where the gun becomes useless.

How many false positives does this create? Should we really making people prepared to use their guns everytime they get skittish? Is that not a recipe for needless danger?

Not really. When you get someone trained on how to think and act tactically it is a good thing and the amount of time they get 'skittish' decreases. If you have a plan on how to react to common situations, when put in them (even if they are extreme life and death) people calm down.

* In a mass-shooting event, the person is more than likely firing erratically and suffering from tunnel vision. Again someone trained (or who thinks) tactically has a reasonable chance of taking the guy out.

How many mass shootings have we had and how many have been stopped by this person? (I do know many mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones but then also, many have occurred in areas where guns were allowed, and I have still yet to see one halted by a "good guy with a gun")

Here's another rub...mass shooting remain VERY rare. Yes, this administration and Democratic lawmakers tout stats that one happens pretty much every day. But this is a case of defining down a phenomenon to get a result you want. How many theater shootings were there when Star Wars premiere? The Columbine style mass shooting is still very rare.

Actually, it is called 'science'. This issue has been studied extensively.

I would like to see the studies, because my gut say the study is based upon self reporting, which is notoriously innaccurate, especialy when people have reason (be it even just ego) to falsely report or to exaggerate. Also, are these studies talking about minor thefts stopped with a gun, or actual violent crimes stopped with a gun? I'd make a personal value judgment and say property crimes (with few exceptions) are not a good trade off for gun violence.

* Yes some are survey based and others are state-by-state comparative studies of how crime responds to new policies.

* In the case of home invasion, you do not have the time to determine the nature of the threat. Furthermore, in doing so puts you more at risk of physical confrontation. Gathering your family behind a locked door and then chambering a round when the guy is on the other side and can hear it is the safest way to use a gun. If the person is just there for your TV he will run; no contact is made between home owner and home invader.

I do not see myself living in fear,

The whole argument for self defense is born out of a culture of fear. The notion that somone is going to get you so you need a gun, is a very fearful notion.

No, it is called living in the real world. In the rural area where I grew-up and live now there is about one or two deputies patrolling about 600 miles of road. I have no local police protection. Also there is some level of concern about dangerous wildlife (Mountain Lions are making a comeback amongst other things like rattle snakes). There are shitbags out there who will victimize people because they are bullies and just general asshats. It is a sober judgement call that comes from, in part, having a military/emergency management mindset.

1) By not caring about the ground work and resolving your own ignorance and fears....there will never be a solution.
2) We do not just 'write it off'; instead someone like me sees that there is no more efficacy in pursing gun-control solutions. The answer lies in education and improving economic opportunites...and maybe eliminating victim mindsets in the poor of all races.

What does a victim mindset have to do with any of this?

Everything. Victim-think can hobble a person psychology and infantalize them. This can be on the individual level or group level; you tell a group of people that the system wants to keep them down they will take far longer to get on their feet and realize their collective economic potential. Since the root of violent crime is economic in nature, getting young inner city people to think of their future as one of education and legitimate employment instead of gangs...we would see an even more remarkable drop in violent crime than we have seen in the past 30 years.

Right now...I think the Left needs it more than the Right.

... I would rather hear "because we can" or "because I like guns" or "while guns likely won't make me safer they at least make me FEEL safer" as a reason for no gun control than "I need it to defend myself".

Of course you would; we all would rather have our positions confirmed rather than deconstructed.

At 1/18/16 07:30 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/18/16 12:59 PM, TheMason wrote: Flag on the play...
Defense: moving the goal post fallacy, half the distance to the goal, repeat first down.

I don't think that's fair personally as that to me would go to an intention I did not have. I didn't feel the examples were equivalent personally for the reasons I stated. There was no effort on my part to re-direct or distract from an argument I didn't feel confident to have.

1) It is an attempt and humor and playfullness in calling out your error. Even if it was not intentional, it was still moving the goal posts. I'm sure there are flags and fouls called all the time that happen unintentionally or are honest mistakes...but that does not make them less of a flag/foul.
2) If you did not feel confident in having the argument...why post? You can't complain if you get called out...

As for what you bring up; we do have background checks for lawful collectors. Those things are already in place. Monitoring weapons collectors would divert time, money, and other resources from policy initiatives that would make an appreciable difference in gun violence.

I'm not necessarily saying monitor all collectors. As Cam pointed out, there's very little harm in owning an antique gun because the odds of it being used for it's original intended purpose seem pretty low to me. But when someone is buying up a large quantity of MODERN guns and such well....I think that should raise some red flags and it should raise an eyebrow or two. It's not so much I think that you and I have any massive disagreement on this issue I think (probably only a handful of points really), but it's just alarming to me how cavalier some people can be about the issue really.

This is representative of the gulf between the two camps.

* As I pointed out; I think the emphasis on 'modern' vs 'antique' is coming from your's and Cam's fear and ignorance. I would rather be shot by a guy with a AR-15 with a 30 rd detachable mag than a guy with a M-1 from WWII with a fixed 7 rd mag. Make the AR full or burst fire...and all the better for me. And I'd rather get attacked by a guy with the M-1 than just about any handgun since the advent of cartride ammo.

* I don't see it as being cavalier. I know it and understand it. I have one AK-47, but it is configured with a sportarized stock. I would like another one with the traditional stock. Not because I want to take the UN or the US government...but just have examples of both. Then there are the ARs with their various options and function (they are the Barbies of the gun world).

* Also, there is a difference between hoarding for mischief and collecting for the sake of love of the sport or just it's what you want to collect. I see no data that suggest collecting even modern military firearms has had a negative impact on US society.

Sorry again for the earlier misunderstanding.

At 1/22/16 01:46 AM, TheMason wrote: But the reality is if you apply these sentiments to the scientific facts regarding what guns are capable of in reality; the guns and ammo that would be available would be assault rifle clones, military grade ammo, and modern black-powder rifles (this last one for the hunters). Shotguns, handguns, and high powered rifles are far more deadly than 'military grade' assault rifles combined with military grade ammo.

Like I said in my last post, obviously there is some degree of knowledge about guns which is required to know whether specific policies are effective. We're in complete agreement on that. And, if there is a bill (or even a talking point) which necessitates the knowledge of ballistics in order to have intelligent, meaningful discourse about a specific thing (such as 'safer guns and safer bullets'), then that should appropriately be injected into the conversation as that knowledge would be useful. I don't think I've said anything so far that you would take an issue with. My point is that until that information becomes necessary, it isn't--within the context of a given political environment and the policy agendas that come with it.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: in the wake of Sandy Hook there was obviously a renewed national interest in gun control (an interest which, might I add, rapidly diminished after it became clear there was little political capital to do much of anything besides token gestures, some of which you already mentioned in this thread). In a thread tangentially related to the issue, the topic of the AWB and the possibility of it being renewed came into question. You gave it a 50/50 shot, I said it was nothing more than a bargaining chip, in addition to describing the context of Feinstein's AWB renewal proposal. Who had the better reading on the issue the AWB, and did that reading require the knowledge of ballistics?

Despite all your knowledge about guns themselves, you misread the political situation as it related to them. That's not a dig at you; it happens (you also clearly bested me on the issue of the CDC). As for myself, it's quite clear I know jack shit about guns, yet I was able to quite accurately interpret the politics of the proposal (no thanks to physics).

Another example would be this shitshow of a thread. Knowledge about metallurgy is not helping anyone here--knowledge about policy is what matters. From what I've seen on these boards and elsewhere, the right has just as much of a problem with gun literacy (especially on policy) as the left does, if not more so. Which makes a statement like this:

if you know guns then the Right are the people who are making more sense

...seem a little off.

1) You are right that there are crazies on the Right. In no way am I denying this; I'm part of gun-culture remember? That said, I think the number who think the NRA is out to take our guns is WAY overblown on the Left and an unfair stereotype.

2) It is also a non-sequitor.

Nope. It's not a non-sequitor and it's not unfair. Like Camaro said, the NRA has a de facto monopoly on the political discourse w/r/t guns on the right. They are essentially integrated with the party itself, up to and including bankrolling nearly every Republican member of Congress. If Republicans have an issue with the NRA being a boogeyman then they should take it upon themselves to expunge them from their party, but they're not doing that ostensibly because they like the rhetoric they construct and the candidates that espouse it. The narratives and talking points they create have a mainstream platform not relegated to just the 'crazies.' That's not a problem the left created.

At 1/22/16 02:48 AM, TheMason wrote: * As I pointed out; I think the emphasis on 'modern' vs 'antique' is coming from your's and Cam's fear and ignorance. I would rather be shot by a guy with a AR-15 with a 30 rd detachable mag than a guy with a M-1 from WWII with a fixed 7 rd mag. Make the AR full or burst fire...and all the better for me. And I'd rather get attacked by a guy with the M-1 than just about any handgun since the advent of cartride ammo.

For me it's a case of my own internal logic of what is more likely then not. If someone has access to a more modern gun, and an antique gun equally....which is the gun they're more likely to use? I would assume it's the modern one, therefore the modern one is more likely to be used to cause harm, and since the primary means of a gun is as a weapon, an instrument of harm....I feel like we should be doing everything in our power to make sure the bad people can't easily get them. No, we won't stop everyone, but that's not the basis for making laws anyway.

* Also, there is a difference between hoarding for mischief and collecting for the sake of love of the sport or just it's what you want to collect. I see no data that suggest collecting even modern military firearms has had a negative impact on US society.

I agree, huge difference. But if we are not sensibly making access restrictive, and trying to take the folks like you who collect and have a benign interest vs, the people you mentioned like the militia idiots out in Oregon, we're just asking for trouble. At the end of the day guns are weapons, that is what they're for. That is why I have an impossible time when people try to downplay that aspect, or conflate collecting guns with something like collecting stamps. They are demonstrably different things with demonstrably different purposes.