I’m not making any value or policy judgments. Anyone who understands a bit of American politics knows how hard the pro-gun lobby fights anything related to curbing gun ownership. I was merely saying that as an American it saddens me that there are all these senseless killings and that I’m not all that hopeful that real change is possible. Maybe I’m a glass half empty kind of guy I dunno.

Facts and figures don't have a great track record of convincing people of things that they don't want to believe.

That may be true (ok, it is definitely true) but we have to start somewhere. I know a lot of people my age who grew up (like me!) in a house with guns and hunting that do not hunt or own guns. I don't even have anything against responsible gun owning and hunting. I am talking about getting people to understand that going beyond this (carrying a sidearm around all the time, keeping them in your car, thinking you can be Clint Eastwood when you get mugged, etc) all lead to people dying on purpose or accidentally at far higher rates than if we just didn't do this stuff. Gun OWNERSHIP is not the problem. Tons of households in countries all over the world have guns in them. You simply don't see the same level of gun death as in the US. It is because of their culture (e.g. compulsory military service - I'm not a fan but you will learn how to responsibly own and house a firearm and when you could reasonably expect it to be a useful tool vs something that will go off and kill your kid or be stolen and used in a crime later).

Rant over, sorry, I get emotional when I think about this having been mugged at gun point with a pistol that was undoubtedly stolen from a car glove compartment or something during a routine car break in (assumptions, but you know what I mean). I survived the encounter because I didn't try to fumble in my bag for some gun I barely know how to use (in fact the first thing they did was grab my bag and frisk every inch of me). It was a crew, they were all business, and they got me. I walked away with my house keys and my empty wallet (note, they did NOT steal my ID).

So yeah, that sort of thing has happened to me and I still, somehow, don't have fantasies about shooting a bunch of teenagers. Call me crazy.

I’m with you and personally dislike guns to a degree that many find weird but I think the issue is that gun violence is illegal in the first place and so making laws seeking to prevent it is ineffective at best and really just smacks of legislative hubris. I can get an illegal firearm easily, today. I can get an illegal gun much easier than I can a legal one. Most gun violence is committed by criminals. These problems are often denied by advocates for reform, and that doesn’t help their credibility with bipartisan independents wary of authoritarian government.

Exactly. Outside the US, major gun holders are criminals who get them illegally. Even in the US, most criminals have their guns illegally because they can't get one legally after their first felony.

I say let’s try it! Do a gun buy back. Ban new sales of assault rifles and high capacity magazines; institute longer more invasive (effective?) background checks (have a buyer have to see a shrink before buying? Makes sense to me.)

Before moving to Germany I owned some guns for sport: my friends and I would go into the mountains to designated shooting areas and do target practice. If the hoops to get a gun were increased 10 fold it wouldn’t effect me at all.

> If the hoops to get a gun were increased 10 fold it wouldn’t effect me at all.

I imagine this line is annoying people. That you aren't bothered isn't the issue if others are. That you don't see the issue with a delay, or a background check, says more about your one-size-fits-all view than the complexity/simplicity of the problem. Personally I never have menstrual issues so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I come from country people, where even today going to the city is an event. And it's almost a holiday to go to "the big city". So a purchase you might be able to go to walk to the store to start a waiting period for might be between two months-apart trips for my family and much more inconvenient.

You also sound like you live in the city so your needs for protection are a lot different than in the country. In the city a pistol with frangible ammo, or a shotgun at home, are the max you'd need. In the country my driveway was 1.5km so different solutions are needed. What's a scary black gun in the city, when in the country, is a way to both keep coyotes from livestock at great distance and defend yourself from people if needed. Being 500m+ from a problem means you need more bullets (larger magazine) than being at 3' from the bad guy in the city, etc.

They're different worlds with different problems.

Look at Canada where the issue recently become polarized but not across party lines. Some nutcase in a surplus police car with a replica uniform drove around a small community gunning people down while the police holed up in the city for safety. He preyed on country people many kilometers from anyone else, with a rifle he'd smuggled up from the USA. Now the city people want to ban scary guns despite that a ban wouldn't have interfered with this shooter, but people from the country want to buy exactly the same gun he used because it's the best-in-class for home defense in those same scenarios.

I apologize for my flippant response. You’re right I didn’t think about the “country folks”. I was merely highlighting that more steps need to be taken at the burden of lawful, sane, well meaning, no-harm-to-anyone gun owners to try to stem the flow of guns into the hands of those that aren’t mentally fit to own them.

A psychologist likely won’t be able to figure out things very quickly you’re right. Perhaps a discussion could be had to find a solution there to prevent more who would do harm with them from getting said guns.

I also said nothing about gun-shows. They perform the same background checks but have been very lax in the past. And then private gun sales on recently required further vetting at least in my home state of Oregon.

In the countryside do you really need an AR15 for self defense? Surely a shotgun at home makes more sense. And then to protect livestock a high powered rifle?

I don’t know what all the solutions might be but I do know that I am willing to pay in much longer lead times to get a gun if it means the next mass shooter is less likely to.

> I apologize for my flippant response.

Np. I wasn't offended.

> I don’t know what all the solutions might be but I do know that I am willing to pay in much longer lead times to get a gun if it means the next mass shooter is less likely to.

I wonder how many shooters would have been stopped. I know one recently went shooting the day he received his guns but I don't know if he had enough guns before that. Had he been denied, what would he have done?

> In the countryside do you really need an AR15 for self defense? Surely a shotgun at home makes more sense. And then to protect livestock a high powered rifle?

Defense, against animals, likely no. Almost all animals except moose and bears are smart enough to avoid people. But defense of livestock and property, yes.

Are you saying an AR-15 isn't powerful enough for animals? It'd a moose at defensive range, but isn't what I'd want for hunting. But it'll kill any cougar-sized animal or smaller in a single hit, even at great range.

If bears are an issue you might want a 30-06, or an AR-10 to get the benefit of modern gear.

For defense against people it depends. I think the crazed shooter like in Canada is a pretty rare circumstance and the likely scenario is your wife defending the family against opportunistic robbers. In that case you want something quick and reliable, like a semi-auto battle rifle, with a high-capacity magazine. You aren't shooting at 600m, but perforating a car at 30m. But country defense is handled by the idea of weapons. Simply by being armed you and your neighbors probably won't need to use it, making the tactics of what is ideal somewhat irrelevant. Being that a shotgun is just an anti-human defensive weapon (it'll just anger a bear, very badly) it might not be worth the cost unless you use it for birding as well. The main benefit is the frangibility of the shot and lower wall-penetration which is more of a city concern.

The Canadian shooting happened and took so long to stop because even country people are largely disarmed there. You have magazine size limits, gun limits, have to store the gun locked and unloaded, and you can't intend to use the gun for defense!?

(I don't own a gun, not have intention of getting one myself)

I get that for big cities with large police presence, but the US is very wide and has countless suburbs and small towns with very little law enforcement present. Please look up YouTube, you'll find many single moms and small families whose lives were saved because of guns, where it took law enforcement forever to reach them.

I don't think seeing a 'shrink' would make much difference except for those with very obvious conditions than the gun shop would refuse selling to them anyway. Most psychiatrists are nothing like the movies portray them to be, and they can't deduce everything about you from a couple hours of talking unless you're in a real dire state of mind. Hell, most of the good ones even refuse to take new patients or have 6 months long waiting list, and only the new inexperienced ones are easy to get hold of. Source: Tried to find a psychiatrist myself couple years ago for depression.

Rule35:

You seem like a reasonable mentally stable person with a respect for the power that a firearm brings. The issue is that with all tools be they an AR15 (before moving to the Germany I wanted to build an AR10 with a 7.62 caliber barrel — that would have been fun to go plinking with) or nuclear weapons or anything in between it’s how do we prevent the less sane, those that would do the innocent harm?

I don’t envy the politicians here. Their job is very hard. They have to weigh legitimate uses for self defense, recreation, hunting, etc., against those that would use them to kill many on a mass scale.

One thing that did cause alarm in your most recent post was this: “ You aren't shooting at 600m, but perforating a car at 30m.” Why is anyone shooting at a car? In the US some states if the suspect is fleeing you can’t pursue, but this is getting into the weeds of things. Suffice it to say that this is a thorny issue with no real easy fix or silver bullet (pun not intended). I do maintain that if the time to get a gun went from same day to a month I personally would be willing to pay that cost in waiting.

Feel free to continue this over email: Email (b64 encoded) YWxleGFuZGFyIGRvdCBuYXJheWFuIGF0IGhleSBkb3QgY29t

HN curiosity: I post the most practical gun-control things I can think of that veer rather draconian yet get down-voted because they're not enough? If you disagree, perhaps state why?

The definition of assault rifle is very poorly defined. There are dangerous weapons on both sides of the definition.

Yes. Each time shooting happens I see 'analysts' thinking everything is full-auto only because of how it looks, and that automatically discredits them.