Lexinverts

Those look awesome, Jorge!

Thanks so much for pointing that out. It's tough to have discussions about really complicated things like guns with smart guys like you. Thanks for your help.

Nope, I didn't know that you could for a pistol. What would that look like? I can't imagine that would be very easy to use. I also know that a powerful rifle like an AR and a 30, 50 or 100 round magazine will allow someone to fire that many bullets as fast as they can pull the trigger that many times. If that is something our society thinks belongs in the hands of civilians, then I guess we'll have to live with the consequences. Perhaps states like Colorado with limits on magazine sizes have the best policy in this regard.

Randy, as I said, if the intent of the second amendment was for the citizens to be armed to the degree necessary to keep the US military at bay, then we should all have bazookas and RPGs. Obviously, that is not what most people want. Furthermore, it appears that the intent of the founding fathers was for the weaponry of the citizens to be "well-regulated." I don't think anyone would say that guns are well-regulated in this country. I can't show you proof the AR-15s are used more often in *mass* shootings, but common sense tells me that if they are they can do more damage in a shorter period of time than less powerful weapons that don't accept high capacity magazines. We know that Adam Lanza obliterated the front door of Sandy Hook with his AR. Perhaps he could have used a shot gun to do the same thing. Not sure where you are going with the "fists" comment. Protecting people from physical violence is not controversial. For some reason, trying to protect people from gun violence is.

It's black and has ridged edges and can accept a 100 round drum, like the one James Holmes brought to the theater in Aurora. It's not something most people need.

Randy, you countered my argument that guns need to have a reasonable purpose for personal safety, hunting etc...in your post by saying "The second amendment says nothing about personal protection or hunting." I responded by saying, "ok" if we are to take the second amendment word for word and not try to read into its intent, then we should also respect that the second amendment literally says the right of guns exists so that people may use them within a "well-regulated militia." You cannot tell me that I shouldn't look for "intent" in the second amendment and then do the same thing yourself. Saying that the M-16 is outdated, and therefore so is the AR-15 is outdated is missing the point (so are lots of dangerous military weapons). This gun was designed with only one purpose in mind---killing lots of people quickly. We need to ask ourselves if the average citizen has that need, especially in light of how they are repeatedly being used in mass killings.

What about the part about the right of owning a gun being for use in a "well-regulated militia." How many modern gun owners are members of a well-regulated militia? It is difficult to take something written in the 1700's word for word in every regard, without interpreting it within our modern reality. Of course that is not easy to do, and we have the Supreme Court for help in this regard. Regarding the fight against tyranny argument: In order for me to adequately protect myself from our military, I don't think an AR-15 would cut it. Do you? I would want to have a tank in my garage and a bazooka, etc... I do not and should not have the right to be keeping military weapons like that. Clearly the second amendment must have some limits.

Regarding PowderBlue's attempts to portray me as crazy: I suppose I deserve that since I mentioned in my *deleted* comment that I thought it was lunacy for you to think that you had to carry a gun everywhere you go in the USA. I shouldn't have posted that. I'm sorry. My private road rage comment was meant to be in jest, however it is based on real research. Take a look at what carrying a gun does *statistically* to someone's behavior. Despite the NRA's best efforts there are some studies: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/youth-and-guns/ Back to fish stuff.

PowderBlue, I stated that antidepressent use was not the root cause. You suggested that antidepressent CAUSED people to become murderers. People being being mentally ill does make them more likely to grab a gun and shoot people. To reduce this risk we need to improve mental health care AND make it less easy for them to get their hands on guns. Improving mental health care does not mean not using antidepressents, which are an effective treatment for many mental health problems. Does this make sense now? Untreated mental health problems --> more likely to do something irrational Mental health problems + antidepressents ---> Many people are well treated and less likely to be irrational. Some people still might not be effectively treated and still might do something irrational. That doesn't mean the antidepressants caused the irrational behavior. We need to improve mental health so that everyone is treated in some way who needs to be. We also need to be better at identifying people with untreatable issues and keep them from getting guns. Does that help? Regarding the suicide numbers, I do understand. What I am saying is that homicide numbers when we compare the US to other countries do not include suicides. You can't explain the difference in "gun deaths" between the US and other countries with suicides. Does that make sense?

Hello Dave: It is not really a fair comparison to compare the US to a developing country like Mexico. The overall crime rate and law enforcement, and quality of institutions is at a completely different level than it is here. Comparing the US and any third world country with regards to guns is comparing apples and oranges. That is why the rigorous studies out of Harvard always compare the US to other comparably developed countries like Australia and Western Europe. As an example, in Mexico a law that makes having a certain type of weapon illegal is not effective because anyone can pay a bribe to an official and get whatever they want. Does that make sense? Regarding the Australian gun buyback, I'm not sure of exactly how they implemented it so that they had such a high rate of participation, but it did end up getting lots of assault weapons out of their society. I'm not sure how it would work if it were to happen here. It would be expensive, that is for sure. I do know that LA often has gun buybacks that get a lot of guns back. A recent one had an RPG turned in! Along those lines, I am of the strong opinion that gun rights do not extend to ANY kind of weapon. If I wanted to have a bazooka or an RPG, that would be illegal, and rightly so. I also don't think that we need the right to own an AR-15 (which is only made for killing lots of people very quickly), because it is more than you need for personal protection, hunting, etc... If it is constitutional for people to be prevented from having bazookas, it is also constitutional to draw the line at AR-15s with high capacity magazines. This doesn't mean that all weapons will be eventually banned----since we already have SOME limits. I also support universal background checks nationwide for all gun sales. This would also be complicated and expensive, but worth it in my opinion. Because it wouldn't involve taking anyone's guns any from them, it would also be much more politically do-able (this is relative, of course because the NRA makes everything impossible).

Yup, that is another risk factor to having a gun in your house. Statistically, you are more likely to take your own life than you are to defend yourself against an armed intruder. I support the right of people to have a gun in their house, but that is statistically just the way it is. This doesn't change the fact that the homicide rate is 20x great in the USA than in England and Japan, 5x greater than in Australia, etc... Suicides are not lumped into homicide numbers.

This is why we need to act on mental health AND guns.

Cars are very dangerous. That is why we have drivers training, licensing, seat belt laws, car maker safety regulations, drinking and driving regulation, speed limits, and it goes on an on. Do these things always prevent death? Of course not. Will criminals always avoid driving drunk or speeding in a school zone? Does that mean that they are not worth enforcing or having at all? Of course not. Because of the NRA, guns are MUCH less regulated than cars. That just doesn't make sense, and it is only true in the USA.

Sometimes bad things happen and it seems appropriate to start talking about one of our sacred cows, even on a fish forum.

Interesting how they never compare homicide rates between these countries and the US. It's always "violent crime." Personally, I'd rather be punched out on "The Tube" in London than shot on the Max in Portland. Here's what it looks like when you compare HOMICIDE rates. Incidentally, these analyses come from the Harvard School of Public Health. http://jonathanstray.com/papers/FirearmAvailabilityVsHomicideRates.pdf According to the Harvard study, the homicide rate is 5.3 times greater in the US than in Australia. And it is 20 times the rate in England, both of which Brad's links would have you to believe have a big problem with violent crime. And then in the US: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/ Here's a summary of several study findings: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ Most people take findings from Harvard on personal health seriously. E.g. taking statins to lower cholesterol will reduce heart disease risk. These gun safety studies are conducted with the same rigor.

Some of them have had serious mental health issues that could have been used in background checks. But not all. You're right that it wouldn't stop them all.

For the record, I never said any of you were bad people or "idiots." I just don't agree with your arguments. Individual state laws on background checks are not as effective as a national law. I'm new to Oregon, so I am catching up with the laws here. This recent law that requires most sales to have background checks is a step in the right direction, and was new to me, until PowderBlue told me about it: http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/33386692-75/oregon-gun-sale-background-checks-law-gets-off-to-rough-start.html.csp Given that his law is brand new, I think it is too early to say that it hasn't helped, Tat2d. (If you are referring to this fellow today, he came from out of state.) It sounds like several of us are in agreement that this would be a good idea for the entire country. Unfortunately, that can't happen because too many people are afraid of the NRA and too many people believe some of the arguments that have been presented here: People will just kill people anyway, even if they can't get their hands on a gun; the real problem is things like antidepressants, video games, etc... BoringDave, this issue is very difficult, since as you said, there are tons of guns already in the country. However, 19 years ago Australia was in a very similar situation. They had a huge massacre and they instituted new guns laws. Guess what? After 20 years of effort they have made a huge difference: http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-years-after-passing-strict-gun-control-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia

I never said that I don't support your right to own a gun. That is a straw man argument. I am talking about reasonable national background checks here.

Cars can kill people, but they are not inherently evil. We have seat belt laws to reduce traffic deaths. People like yourself opposed those like heck when they first came out because they restricted freedom. Well, what do you know.....do you have any idea how many lives the seat belt laws have saved since the 80s? That is one thing we can thank Ralph Nader for. Now, we could have effective background checks that have not been weaken to the point of futility by the gun lobby. Would they be fool proof? No. Would they be an annoyance to responsible gun owners, well, maybe some. Would they save lives? Yes, they most likely would when you look at other western countries who have reasonably effective background checks in place. Would they always prevent tragedies, no. But maybe we would not be so far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of gun violence. Now, was that fun?

What is to blame is the fact that we are the ONLY western developed country that has almost no sensible gun control. People want to blame our homicide problem (much higher than other developed countries) on the internet, poor diet, vaccines, antidepressants, lack of corporal punishment (LOL), etc..., which are all things that other western countries have too. As an example, Japan has the most violent video game participation in the world, and they have almost no gun homicides... We are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence in this country than in Western Europe. We have 3 to 10 times the overall homicide rate of ANY developed country. What is the biggest difference between us and the rest? We have the easiest access to guns in the developed world. Crazy people live everywhere. In the USA, crazy people have a relatively easy time getting their hands on a deadly weapon. No, 10 people would not have died today at that school if the perp showed up with a knife or a box cutter. Again, I don't expect to change any minds on this board, since I am communicating with a bunch of middle-aged guys (the biggest opponents of any gun restrictions), but every once in a while I feel the need to put another point of view out there. Of course, what is complex and difficult about this issue is effecting any kind of change. There is already a sea of guns out there.....and there are reasonable people want to have a gun to protect themselves. Every tiny incremental step towards beefing up sensible gun laws is weakened by the gun lobby, and then people point out that the few gun laws that we have aren't working. Well, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying and that we should just throw up our hands whenever something like this happens. I'll get off my soapbox now and do some water tests.

Right........that must be what is to blame for school shootings. Wow.

I certainly don't hold the majority view on this forum---not with a bunch of middle-aged male reefers. But, it's the least I can do when there is yet again another school shooting (as someone who works on a campus and doesn't want to get shot by one of his students), to present the alternate view. There are certainly intelligent people on both sides of the gun control debate, but I happen to believe that the root of the problem is the ease of access to guns in this country, which makes us stand out from the rest of the Western developed world, only comparably to how we stand out in terms of per-capita homicides. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and focus on talking about coral. Happy reefing everyone.

But, you can't win with this discussion, so I'm gone. Have a nice day.

.

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131