I believe your typical American, no matter their political persuasion, cares about his fellow American. I'm sure you agree that trying to paint either side as demons who don't care is nonsense.

People shouldn't care about what type of guns or the number of guns - there seems to be no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).sv
g

(the line of best fit would have a positive slope if there was a correlation)

There is a correlation between weapon type and firearm murder - pistols (of all sorts) account for approximately 89% of all firearm murders (where a firearm type is specified in the police report). Rifles (of all sorts) are about 5%. Shotguns (of all sorts) are about 3%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

This wiki has better data than you presented - you can isolate gun violence from other violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

"Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?"

The data says that Republican voters (or those that lean that way) have a firearm ownership rate of double that of Democrats.

If the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are by right wing terrorists as you suggest, then it seems odd you'd say in the same breath that the left are ready for violent political civil war. If they have less arms and less willingness to engage in violence (which I actually believe is a good thing) then they are hardly "99% more ready and better armed".

The military voted Republican at about twice the rate of voting Democrat at the last election. So the left doesn't have that going for them either.

The reason I'd use a biometric vs a keyed trigger lock is for speed and ease of use in the dark. If I have to give it a little squeeze to get it to release, zero concern. Does it secure the firearm? Yes. Is it 100%, no. Show me one that is.

p.s. in a random sampling, the twenty-three 15 year old boys in my algebra class, none of them own or plan to buy a flat piece of bent metal that precisely fits in a lock of this type, let along lock picking tools. The determination that this lock is no good is based on tests that have little to do with the intended function.

If you want an assault style firearm, better get to it. There's a chance for a ban, albeit not a good one. Moscow Mitch won't allow a vote on gun regulations if he can help it, and Trump already indicated he's only interested if they combine a limited gun bill with anti-immigration (wall) funding.

Side note....can anyone tell me why Chicago isn't getting reported? Two mass shootings there on Sunday, 7 dead, 46 wounded. It's not even mentioned on national news, but El Paso and Dayton are dominating it. What gives?

Reply to multiple previous comments:



Re:
"Literally no different from a pistol other than it can have better accuracy and sometimes higher caliber"

.38 (9mm), .40, .45 are the calibers you will see used by police pistols

.223 (5.56mm), .300, .308, are the calibers you will see used by police rifles

Unless an officer is using a personal firearm at work, the pistols should all be higher caliber.

The major difference is muzzle velocity damage.
The pistol cuts a tunnel the diameter of the [expanded] bullet.
The rifle leaves an exit wound multiple inches across, and at point blank will grenade the exit side of the target, painting the wall with gibs.





Re:
"Can you tell me why you believe it's "not a great idea" when the criminals already all have guns too?"

Because police should be there to protect citizens lives, at the cost of their own if needed. (Hence the "hero"/"Public Servant" status they so like to remind us of)

If they protect their own lives, at the cost of citizens if needed, then they become a part of the problem they are supposed to be solving.

Just imagine the uninvolved bystander down the street struck down for no fault of their own.

The better path forward is full head to toe level 4 body armor for police, not heavier police firepower in packed suburbs.

That way they have the option to hold fire and assess the situation without shitting their pants and hosing the place down with lead "just in case, so they minimize the risk of getting hurt".

Full L4 body armor means that when things like the VT shooting happen, the police don't pitch tents outside and wait for SWAT (who actually has armor) to show up while people are likely getting killed inside.

Full L4 body armor means that when police open a door to a bathroom with an intruder inside (or a vacuum), they don't have to be thinking "kill or be killed".





Re:
"You are assuming it's a high velocity rifle. It's likely only 9mm, meaning minimal impact and penetration"

The video shows shots of the rifle magazine. It's not a 9mm pcc (pistol caliber carbine) magazine. It's the standard form factor. Meaning it is likely to be one of common the off the shelf calibers for that form factor :
.223/5.56
.300 blackout
6.8 spc
.224 valkyrie
6.5 grendel
None are 9mm. And other than a subsonic .300 blackout variant (used with suppressors/silencers), all pack a world more hurt than a 9mm.






It's true that a faster/heavier round will pass through more walls, and more houses.

Not sure it matters though, as 9mm ball will go through plenty of sheetrock layers, and rifle ammo stands a chance at fragmenting on impact with obstacles.
Which goes farther for any given shot will depend on what each one strikes along the way, and if it's bullet is of type FMJ/ball or HP or frag or penetrator or whatever.

-scheherazade

So, I get that you need the leverage, but the point of the Winchester 1873 lever arm cocking lever was that you didn't need to take it off your shoulder to cock it...that's a firearm and that short a throw would never work for a crossbow...but...why bother with a magazine?

She claims she had the door cracked and he came in. He claims he used his key fob, you can hear him in his video claiming he buzzed in with it at 1:31.

As an individual member of the HOA, she is not allowed to enforce anything. She can report the incident to the Board and they can enforce fines etc. The HOA board hasn't even stuck up for her actions, which means they are likely sending out messages telling their fellow condo owners to act as security in lieu of actual security.

You can tell she knew she fucked up when she saw him put his keys in the door to his condo. She may not be racist, but she is the type of person that shot Trayvon Martin. We should likely be glad she didn't own a firearm.

The command was confusing, but I can see the officer's POV by that point. He had tried to grab one or both cop's actual firearms, I can see one attempt at :24. Then he tried to charge the cop with the taser out and punch him.

He got tased and missed, falling to the ground. They tased him for a bit, dragged him out of the road, and the other officer moved his backup gun that had fell out onto the ground out of reach. Then came the confusing comments. They were attempting to move him, so I think if he had stopped there it would have been over. But he kept fighting.

The crazy thing is, none of these actions seem to match those of someone high on weed. These are more like the stuff you see with PCP or crack. Multiple taser hits, extraordinary strength, shrugging off hits from two people, and being able to drive off with a bullet lodged in his head.

How many of the 200 deaths a year are suicides?

US CDC 2015

All suicides
Number of deaths: 44,193

Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 22,018

It's pretty but what does it say? So - weapons exports: sold to military, sold to civilian, transferred for use in conflict by US military, transferred for us in conflict by other countries? What is included - is a fighter jet a weapon? is a tank a weapon? My point: I don't know whether to be astounded or just "meh". It's data without scale or comparison (e.g. 1/3 of all firearms sold in the USA are produced internationally). Hmmm...

I'm unsure as to what Noir is arguing against.

He makes valid points about people in poorer neighbourhoods being able to defend themselves. I mean, to me, that's a damning indictment of the failure of civil society in the US, but let's ignore that for the moment.

Almost no one is suggesting banning guns, and there are very few countries with an outright ban on firearms. But there are plenty of places with simple, sensible gun laws that have been proven to work... none of which would have any of the negative impacts Noir is talking about.

It's like arguing against speed limits by claiming people need to drive to work.

Also, the "prevent a tyrannical government" argument? Jesus, that was obsolete 100 years ago. 50 years ago, it was laughable and to suggest that any kind of armed citizen uprising could make any kind of dent in any modern military, much less the worlds biggest, is bordering on insanity.

An AR-15 isn't going to do jack shit against a tank, and you're not even going to see a predator drone coming.

But upvote and kudos to him for discussing this is in a rational manner.

I didn't really like the movie. Certain parts of it was well done, but there are some glaring issues that ruined my suspension of disbelief.

For example, early in the movie we got a shot of John's character's workshop, and there's this whiteboard with the most basic information about the monsters written on it in large bold letters. Your character has masterfully survived for over a year under constant threat from these monsters, and you have to write down that the creatures are blind? Who is this even for other than the audience? It's such a lazy way of conveying information and disrepectful of your viewer's intelligence.

Also, the ending was pretty ridiculous.

*spoiler warning*

The fact that these monsters are susceptible to small firearms (even if they have ARMOR as the whiteboard reminds us) makes the premise that they overran all the world's militaries in a few months pretty unbelievable.

That is an awful argument......and it kind of makes you an anarchist. Let me explain.
No law ever has completely stopped the crimes they outlaw. By your measure, no law should exist.
E.g. speed laws don't prevent speeding by all cars, theft laws don't prevent theft by all thieves, bribery laws don't prevent bribes by all real estate tycoons, drug laws actually increase drug related crimes, but firearm laws must prevent all misuse of all weapons, not even just all firearms, or forget it?!

Your requirements of gun control are completely...insanely... unrealistic.

Also...crazy cat lady is "using those cats to claw your face" just like shooting wildly into a neighborhood is "using a gun to shoot you". Her irresponsibility directly created a situation that endangered the neighborhood and caused damage, no? Damage caused by firing unguided fur missiles is always the shooters responsibility, not the missiles'.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.