The Myth of the Responsible Gun Owner: An American Nightmare (Part I)

[onthedarkside]

 

Are most gun owners reckless and rage-filled? Probably not. But the data show that the gun lobby’s promulgated myth of the responsible gun owner is just that—a myth.

 

An extraordinary number of gun owners are not responsible stewards of firearms and the assumption that they are informs public policy.

 

Last year, in an opinion authored by Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s 109-year-old gun law, which required gun owners seeking a concealed carry license to demonstrate “proper cause,” a special need for such permission. In its ruling, the 6-3 majority repeatedly referred to the rights of “law-abiding” and “responsible” citizens.

 

READ MORE

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/06/02/the-myth-of-the-responsible-gun-owner-an-american-nightmare-part-i/

 

 

 

[Tug]

I’ll bet money the cops aren’t happy about that just makes their job that much more dangerous someone should show a genuine need before they are allowed to conceal carry and be checked out for criminal behavior 

[quake]

Should do the same as Australia did after the biggest mass shooing at a school.

no more F-------- guns.

What the Australian people say, Ok fair dinkum. 

 

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

There is also a giant myth called... "criminals obey the law"... if no guns for everyone is the law, why are there still shootings in countries with strict gun laws or cities like New York City or Chicago which have very strict gun laws... guns aren't as big a problem as criminals... used to be if someone stole your horse he got hanged... 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

There is also a giant myth called... "criminals obey the law"... if no guns for everyone is the law, why are there still shootings in countries with strict gun laws or cities like New York City or Chicago which have very strict gun laws... guns aren't as big a problem as criminals... used to be if someone stole your horse he got hanged... 

I’ve never heard anyone claim criminals obey the law.

 

Go on, admit it, you made that nonsense up.

 

 

[ozimoron]

9 hours ago, quake said:

Should do the same as Australia did after the biggest mass shooing at a school.

no more F-------- guns.

What the Australian people say, Ok fair dinkum. 

They haven't for 50 years but I do agree with you ????

[Skipalongcassidy]

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve never heard anyone claim criminals obey the law.

 

Go on, admit it, you made that nonsense up.

 

 

See if you can follow this logic being spouted by the gun control advocates... if you forbid gun ownership than nobody will have guns... as Paul Harvey used to say..."Now for the rest of the story"... except criminals... because as you noted criminals do not follow the law.

[Emster23]

On 6/4/2023 at 7:55 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

There is also a giant myth called... "criminals obey the law"... if no guns for everyone is the law, why are there still shootings in countries with strict gun laws or cities like New York City or Chicago which have very strict gun laws... guns aren't as big a problem as criminals... used to be if someone stole your horse he got hanged... 

"...strict gun laws or cities like New York City or Chicago which have very strict gun laws..." really? are you that lacking in imagination or critcal thinking skills? Let me help: people can carry guns across state lines... US has "open borders" between states and cities... many countries restrict who may have guns (yes, some laws broken, but shooting rates far, far below USA).... others strict laws on training, possession, storage etc with high ownership rates but negligible shootings (Swiss, for example). In US we have Republican governors loosening ownership laws, repealing law against those with mental illness from owning guns, for example

[BritManToo]

On 6/4/2023 at 6:26 AM, onthedarkside said:

Are most gun owners reckless and rage-filled? Probably not. But the data show that the gun lobby’s promulgated myth of the responsible gun owner is just that—a myth.

Not much point in owning a handgun unless it's loaded and near your hand.

[LosLobo]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

See if you can follow this logic being spouted by the gun control advocates... if you forbid gun ownership than nobody will have guns... as Paul Harvey used to say..."Now for the rest of the story"... except criminals... because as you noted criminals do not follow the law.

Only 40% of the 50,000 gun deaths yearly relate to criminals.

 

'Now for the rest of the story'......

 

Of those 20,000 criminals, there are a lot who were not criminals before the act and used legally obtained guns.

 

Would it not be logical to have a general gun ban irrespective of your argument, which has proven to be effective in most western countries.

 

This would possibly save tens of thousands of lives and uphold the human rights of the citizens against gun violence which the US and State Govts has failed to protect.

 

Isn't time the US realised that they are now living in the 21st century and not the wild west of the 1880's with third world country gun laws.

 

US gun deaths (usafacts.org)

 

How can states help communities with high levels of gun violence?

 

'States have the obligation to protect life and ensure security for all through human rights-compliant law enforcement, community interventions, and tightening of regulations on firearms possession and use'.

 

Gun Violence - Amnesty International

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

23 hours ago, Emster23 said:

"...strict gun laws or cities like New York City or Chicago which have very strict gun laws..." really? are you that lacking in imagination or critcal thinking skills? Let me help: people can carry guns across state lines...  

And those that do this and trespass against local laws are criminals... my critical thinking skills are intact... how are yours???

[Skipalongcassidy]

22 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Only 40% of the 50,000 gun deaths yearly relate to criminals.

 

'Now for the rest of the story'......

 

Of those 20,000 criminals, there are a lot who were not criminals before the act and used legally obtained guns.

 

Would it not be logical to have a general gun ban irrespective of your argument, which has proven to be effective in most western countries.

 

This would possibly save tens of thousands of lives and uphold the human rights of the citizens against gun violence which the US and State Govts has failed to protect.

 

Isn't time the US realised that they are now living in the 21st century and not the wild west of the 1880's with third world country gun laws.

 

US gun deaths (usafacts.org)

 

How can states help communities with high levels of gun violence?

 

'States have the obligation to protect life and ensure security for all through human rights-compliant law enforcement, community interventions, and tightening of regulations on firearms possession and use'.

 

Gun Violence - Amnesty International

 

You have taken data and misconstrued it... 48,832 deaths by guns last year... just because it was one of the 26328 suicides doesn't mean it wasn't committed by a criminal (ever heard of murder suicide)... suicides would probably happen anyway... drugs for instance... so that leaves the 20,958 homicides... which is criminal... and unlike you imply that most of them were not criminals before and it was a first time act and using legally obtained guns... that's just conjecture and wishful thinking by the gun control lobby... the vast majority of shootings in the USA are done by criminals with guns as I stated. 

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You have taken data and misconstrued it... 48,832 deaths by guns last year... just because it was one of the 26328 suicides doesn't mean it wasn't committed by a criminal (ever heard of murder suicide)... suicides would probably happen anyway... drugs for instance... so that leaves the 20,958 homicides... which is criminal... and unlike you imply that most of them were not criminals before and it was a first time act and using legally obtained guns... that's just conjecture and wishful thinking by the gun control lobby... the vast majority of shootings in the USA are done by criminals with guns as I stated. 

How can I misconstrue data when I clearly stated 'there are a lot who were not criminals before the act and used legally obtained guns', as would be the case of murder suicides.

 

I suggest the victims murdered in a murder suicide was not be statically classed as a suicide but a murder.

 

''Probably' in your post 'suicides would probably happen anyway' is just a biased opinion with out any statically evidence.

 

Statistics have proven that stricter gun laws reduce not only gun deaths but suicides overall.

 

On 6/5/2023 at 8:18 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

See if you can follow this logic being spouted by the gun control advocates... if you forbid gun ownership than nobody will have guns... as Paul Harvey used to say..."Now for the rest of the story"... except criminals... because as you noted criminals do not follow the law.

In your above quote please point to where you stated 'the vast majority of shootings in the USA are done by criminals with guns'.

 

I must admit I cannot 'follow' your 'logic' here. as most perpetrators of murder suicides generally would not be criminals when they buy their guns.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by LosLobo

[Hanaguma]

On 6/5/2023 at 12:35 PM, LosLobo said:

Only 40% of the 50,000 gun deaths yearly relate to criminals.

 

'Now for the rest of the story'......

 

Of those 20,000 criminals, there are a lot who were not criminals before the act and used legally obtained guns.

 

Would it not be logical to have a general gun ban irrespective of your argument, which has proven to be effective in most western countries.

 

This would possibly save tens of thousands of lives and uphold the human rights of the citizens against gun violence which the US and State Govts has failed to protect.

 

Isn't time the US realised that they are now living in the 21st century and not the wild west of the 1880's with third world country gun laws.

 

US gun deaths (usafacts.org)

 

How can states help communities with high levels of gun violence?

 

'States have the obligation to protect life and ensure security for all through human rights-compliant law enforcement, community interventions, and tightening of regulations on firearms possession and use'.

 

Gun Violence - Amnesty International

 

Can you tell me any country that has a "general gun ban", as you put it? I can't think of any. Firearms ownership is possible anywhere except dictatorships like China or North Korea as far as I know.

[LosLobo]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Can you tell me any country that has a "general gun ban", as you put it? I can't think of any. Firearms ownership is possible anywhere except dictatorships like China or North Korea as far as I know.

Yet, from your previous posts, you know already know countries that have a 'general gun ban'.

 

With respect, are you baiting or trolling?

 

As I put it?

 

What English dictionary you like me to use to define the words I used, so you may better understand my post?

 

In most countries of the west, a 'general gun ban' would not be a total ban but only apply to most of the general population, and exclude armed forces, police sporting clubs, farmers to kill pests, etc .

 

That is, those with a real need for a gun.

 

Most sensible western countries have logically passed laws to protect the human rights and lives of their citizens.

 

[ozimoron]

On 6/5/2023 at 10:32 AM, BritManToo said:

Not much point in owning a handgun unless it's loaded and near your hand.

You don't often get to do a Wyatt Earp when somebody decides to shoot you.

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Yet, from your previous posts, you know already know countries that have a 'general gun ban'.

 

With respect, are you baiting or trolling?

 

As I put it?

 

What English dictionary you like me to use to define the words I used, so you may better understand my post?

 

In most countries of the west, a 'general gun ban' would not be a total ban but only apply to most of the general population, and exclude armed forces, police sporting clubs, farmers to kill pests, etc .

 

That is, those with a real need for a gun.

 

Most sensible western countries have logically passed laws to protect the human rights and lives of their citizens.

 

To me, a "general gun ban" means nobody can have a gun - except of course police and military.  It doesn't mean the same to you?  In that case, my apologies. Could you be specific about what kind of weapons you would allow people to have, and how they could obtain them?

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

To me, a "general gun ban" means nobody can have a gun - except of course police and military.  It doesn't mean the same to you?  In that case, my apologies. Could you be specific about what kind of weapons you would allow people to have, and how they could obtain them?

I don't think it ,means that to anybody. Certainly only a handful of extremists advocate for a total gun ban.

 

I would take out more of the more egregious weapons such as are already banned despite the 2nd amendment.

Edited June 6, 2023 by ozimoron

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't think it ,means that to anybody. Certainly only a handful of extremists advocate for a total gun ban.

 

I would take out more of the more egregious weapons such as are already banned despite the 2nd amendment.

The most egregious are already devilishly hard to get- automatic weapons for example.  

 

According to the article, there are about 81 million gun owners in the USA.  There are also about 15 school shootings per year. I am sure you can do the math.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The most egregious are already devilishly hard to get- automatic weapons for example.  

 

According to the article, there are about 81 million gun owners in the USA.  There are also about 15 school shootings per year. I am sure you can do the math.

Yes, my point is I'd add to that list.

 

In Australia we have far fewer gun owners and no school shootings or mass shootings of any kind. Not since guns were made much harder to get anyway.

Edited June 6, 2023 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, my point is I'd add to that list.

 

In Australia we have far fewer gun owners and no school shootings or mass shootings of any kind. Not since guns were made much harder to get anyway.

If you can follow the gun control debate you’ll understand it’s not about hyperbole arguments of taking every law abiding citizen’s guns.

 

It’s about gun controls, making sure people who are a danger don’t get guns. Including keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

If you can follow the gun control debate you’ll understand it’s not about hyperbole arguments of taking every law abiding citizen’s guns.

 

It’s about gun controls, making sure people who are a danger don’t get guns. Including keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

The problem is that neither of those lists actually exist or could exist and so gun control needs to be broader.

[riclag]

I wonder if restricting organizations who promote gun safety from distributing safety measures influences this narrative  that the anti gun lobby’s are trying to promote.limop

“ This includes not only information about their purchase and use, but also the promotion of firearm safety and training. This law also restricts communications that promote an organization such as ours”

I was a owner and member who obeyed the laws and took great care in storing my guns away from

criminals and malicious individuals.

.

https://agegateway.nrahq.org/?s=CA&r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nraila.org%2Fwhy-gun-control-doesn-t-work%2F

[LosLobo]

14 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

To me, a "general gun ban" means nobody can have a gun - except of course police and military.  It doesn't mean the same to you?  In that case, my apologies. Could you be specific about what kind of weapons you would allow people to have, and how they could obtain them?

Google, the preferred search engine used by the general population of the world, ie not all but 80% of the world's population, uses Oxford Dictionaries as its reference. 

 

And it states as its the first choice definition :

 

General

 

"Affecting or concerning all or most people or things; widespread".

ie 'books of general interest'.

 

Apologies, IMHO, my definition is appropriate.

 

Why ask me questions that you already know what my response will be.

 

If you want to repeat your usual narrative feel free to go ahead I don't need to be your foil.

 

I can define 'foil' if you want.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

I wonder if restricting organizations who promote gun safety from distributing safety measures influences this narrative  that the anti gun lobby’s are trying to promote.limop

“ This includes not only information about their purchase and use, but also the promotion of firearm safety and training. This law also restricts communications that promote an organization such as ours”

I was a owner and member who obeyed the laws and took great care in storing my guns away from

criminals and malicious individuals.

.

https://agegateway.nrahq.org/?s=CA&r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nraila.org%2Fwhy-gun-control-doesn-t-work%2F

Do you support laws to enforce the "great care in storing my guns away from criminals and malicious individuals."?

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The problem is that neither of those lists actually exist or could exist and so gun control needs to be broader.

I agree.

 

I would start with laws to recording all violent convictions in a ‘non gun ownership’ register and a law to temporarily remove guns from anyone who receives a contact with the police wrt violent crimes - People arrested, cautioned, indicted but not yet convicted and all households in which a domestic violence police call out occurs.

We know these groups of people are high on the gun violence statistics, take their guns. Leave law abiding gun owners alone.