Let's see if I have this right, the reason there are so many mass shootings in the u.s is the over abundance of firearms?

How has banning hard rugs worked for the drug trade?
With the theory that banning would make it all better ,shouldn’t your country be drug free now?

Your question and then your details are a non-sequitur.

If guns were banned in the US (as they were in Australia) there would be a big drop off in gun deaths and mass shootings. That doesn’t mean life would be all flowers rainbows and unicorns.

But a lot of kids would get to live.

Guns are NOT banned in Australia but heavily regulated, kind of what we all want…..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

Access to firearms turns some fights into murders. Instead of someone getting beat up, someone dies. When more people have easy access to guns, more fights turn into deaths. That’s really it.

The drug argument doesn’t really stand up well, the closest thing to legal hard drugs we have is opioids. And that’s not going well, they’re outpacing all other drug overdoses. So again, greater access has lead to greater harm, and been declared a “national emergency” by the same people who say guns aren’t the problem.

@funkdaddy I was talking about illegal drugs, and people seem to have very little problem acquiring them.
Every law abiding firearm enthusiast I have talked to has no problem with better gun laws, we all want to keep guns out of hands that shouldn’t have them, but we also don’t want to be painted as one screw loose from committing a mass shooting ourselves simply because we like firearms.
And for those of you that say guns are only meant for killing.shove it.

No, not killings but MASS killing have more to do with easy access to WMD’s. People would still kill but the number of people they could kill at one time would be much fewer. This is also the answer to your second question; no the world would not be at peace because (Question 3) yes we really are that/this savage. Question 4 – Correct, we still have not evolved beyond the fight/flight mechanisms that have allowed us to get to the point where we are in the food chain. (I guess this answers Question 5 as well) and finally, No firearms are not to blame,this is just a bumper sticker hot button, but they are instrumental in making our savagery more lethal.

@SQUEEKY2 – This might be a useless experiment, but it would be helpful for me:

[Warning, completely far-fetched hypothetical coming up…]

Let’s say that guns had never been invented, and there is currently 0 (zero) guns in the U.S. Someone has invented them and are about to ramp up manufacturing with the goal of making guns available for sale.

If you were asked to assessed the safety of selling these new products, what types of things would you consider when developing regulations for them? In other words, if you could start from scratch, what would be the most reasonable steps that could be made to make sure we don’t start seeing 10k+ homicides, 15k+ suicides, and mass shootings using these new things?

You could probably agree that it might seem silly to even contemplate allowing the sale of guns at all if this were the scenario, right? You can’t even sell lawn darts or fireworks in some states. Claims that people would want to be able to buy these guns because they find them beautiful or fun would be dismissed immediately with much laughter.

The only reason private gun sales and ownership isn’t a completely laughable idea is that guns have been around a long time. It is part of the culture. And the existence of 300 milllion+ guns complicates matters.

There is now momentum to move towards something that some people feel might reduce gun deaths. While you may feel that these efforts are not going to be successful, it almost doesn’t matter. The time for gun enthusiasts to propose solutions – and act – has come and gone. The fact that there has been only resistance to gun control only means that you have decided to leave the solutions up to other people.

The younger generations do not necessarily have the same cultural connections with weapons. Remington and other gun manufacturers are suffering and close to filing chapter 11 in some cases. Gun culture has produced some negative costs that many people feel are too great. If you want to get active and propose something that might work, go ahead. But I suspect you’ll find that your comrades in this fight are likely disinterested in giving up anything. It’s an ideological fight…that’s already been lost.

The trouble is that guns make it so easy to kill. You can do it from a distance and with one finger.

Good grief, @thisismyusername have you not read any post from myself or @MrGrimm888, we want tighter gun laws, we want to keep firearms out of hands that shouldn’t have them.
I have said my ideas for stronger gun laws in a lot of posts and yet gun haters still think I want nothing to change?
I will say again for the first time in history the Rep/cons are on the verge of actually doing something about gun control, but both sides are at extremes, the NRA wants nothing to change and gun haters want them all banned, BOTH have to come out of their corners and start heading towards the middle, or dig your heals in and scream ban them all, which is exactly what the NRA hopes the gun haters do.

@SQUEEKY2 – Ummm…if you are in agreement with gun control, what’s the problem?

I’ve tried following these threads where someone makes some reasonable control suggestion, and you attack them for wanting to ban all guns, or make the claim that it would be ineffective.

What exactly do you want? Why do you feel that people wan to ban all guns? For the record, I’ve stated that I’m not a gun-control guy, and have generally been disinterested in the fight. But I believe that I’m the only one here who has half-jokingly said that the ban of all guns seems the only reasonable path. Everyone else keeps saying how they’re not for banning guns, yet you keep talking about gun haters’ desire to do so.

So, where exactly is this mysterious, reasonable “middle” that would work for you?

@SQUEEKY2 – I understand you were talking about illegal drugs. But at some point they were legal, and then were banned. Right? They aren’t illegal by nature.

The closest test we have now to a “regulated” dangerous drug is opioids, which are basically commercial heroin/morphine. Looking at those legal drugs gives us a better idea of what kind of numbers other dangerous drugs (cocaine, meth) might be used or abused in if they too were legal.

Even if we think it’s easy right now to get cocaine or meth, how much easier would it be if any doctor could prescribe them, and were encouraged to? For instance is it easier right now for you to find cocaine or vicodin/hydrocodone?

There’s no perfect solution, but I don’t think we can argue that illegal drugs are as prevalent as their legal counterparts. And the more available legal drugs have had a larger impact despite being potentially less deadly.

I think we could say the same with guns. Banning all drugs isn’t the solution, and banning all guns isn’t the solution, but being smart about what’s easy to get probably saves a lot of lives.

Ok, I will double space this so it’s easy to read here once again is my idea of better firearm control .

A multi tiered firearms license, for every gun owner, with different checks and balances for different classes of firearms, that must be renewed every five years.

Raise the age of firearms owners,NO ONE under the age of 21 can be in possession of a firearm, without a licensed adult firearm owner present.

Make safe storage of all firearms mandatory.

Make some classes of firearms prohibited ,THAT DOESN’T MEAN BAN!!!! it means people that don’t already have this class of firearm can’t legally buy one.

The ones already in private hands are grandfathered these people can still use them,sell them ,buy them TO ONLY other people under the grandfather clause.

Totally ban bump stocks new and in private hands.

Totally ban high capacity magazines, new and in private hands, no mag over 10 rounds, hand gun or rifle.

DOES THAT READ LIKE I WANT NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!

What gun haters fail to see is some of these firearms are family heirlooms handed down generation after generation.

Gun haters also fail to see some of these firearms are very valuable and increasing in value every day.

Who is asking for all guns to be banned? The closest thing to that some people want to ban semi-automatics. Is there any crying need for people to have these? They are not quite the right weapons for target practice unless you want to obliterate the target.

The Yankee bandidos are living in fear of each other so would use a knife, baseball bat or their fucking mother in law as a battering ram if no gun was available they really are stark staring mad y’know

@SQUEEKY2 – Great. Now where do you disagree with the “gun haters”? Who are you arguing with?

@thisismyusername for one when they claim all semi autos should be banned, there is a place for semi autos in private hands, there are several sports IPSC, (handgun) sporting clays, Skeet (shotgun) that use semi auto firearms.

I have no problem with these types of firearms being on the upper tiers of the firearms license,(BUT NOT BANNED!!)

Right now a firearms license would make it easier for law enforcement, when they find a weapon in a car if their isn’t a licensed firearm holder present the cops can just remove it.
If it’s a legal gun the owner can show that he/she does have a license and want it back.

there is over 600million guns in your country, lot less legal law abiding firearm owners easier to license them then trying to register the gun.

@SQUEEKY2 – So, what’s with all of the “are guns to blame” questions? Why not focus on the details where you and the “gun haters” differ? And when you do, saying that it’s fun isn’t really an argument.

@SQUEEKY2 Hon, I appreciate your outrage for us down here, but you’ll give yourself an aneurysm if you keep this up.

Official Answer:
Yes, probably. Easy to get illegally, easy to get legally, cheap, fun, popular, etc…

The analogy between guns and drugs is correct. Neither the shooting nor drug epidemics are possible without a dependable glut of illicit fuels. And EXACTLY as with drugs, once that supply is in place, no legislation known will serve to contain the outbreak. The epidemics are a direct reflection of the ease of supply.

No, firearms are not to blame. (I don’t know why I bothered to answer this question…)

“opportunity makes the thief”.

Stop with the THEY WAY TO BAN ALL GUNS stuff. The vast majority of us simply want reasonable, strict gun laws. Like they have in Australia.

And laws DO work. If they didn’t work would wouldn’t have seen the drastic drop in drunk driving deaths after MADD got to work, and worked to make it a much more serious offense than it was at that time. Do people still break the law? Yes. But no one I know who has gotten a DUI with EVER do it again.

Squeaky, love you, really… agree with you most of the time, BUT.

Cell phones, drunk or awkward drivers, guns.
You run these topics into the ground.
Friend, no member of fluther ever changes their mind about anything because of something said on flutter.
You have found who agrees with you, and who disagrees. That is the very most you can hope to accomplish.
Please don’t take offense. It’s just that some get whipped into a froth by the repetition.

The posts are tiring. Your agenda is visible. The multiple guns are like “whatever” questions actually has shifted my position from some guns are cool to “take them all away because SQUEEKY2 would loose their shit.”

I see three questions posted all day,just three and your tired of my posts?

If only you would post questions with no agenda attached, and more variety of topics.

I have seen you occasionally share some info about Canada. I like when you remind us of holidays, and compare the Canadian laws and practices for various things in the U.S.

Try asking questions about stuff you have no opinion for, and see if any of the answers say something that gives you an opinion.
I am glad you are asking questions. I just wish you would choose from a longer list of topics.
By the way, you are looking especially Radiant this week.

If jellies are tired of a subject, they have no need to offer opinion on it.

But as humans when we see the opportunity to bitch about something we can’t possibly pass it up.

I know I can’t!

This is an issue WORTH bitching about simply for the frank demonstration on how a society might allow failures in logic to dominate its agenda.

The great gun experiment has been implemented and we are the laboratory on whether or not the population can be trusted with their possession. As the profusion of military grade submachine guns and assault rifles permeate the landscape, the coming carnage should be illuminating. Because once again the numbers of weapons available transform the question from one of “can the population be trusted” to “can virtually EVERYONE who wants one be trusted with a machine gun?” Who would care to answer that one?

@stanleybmanly No, everyone cannot be trusted with wmd’s.

@KNOWITALL So follow that thought and ask yourself what must result if anyone who wants one can easily get one?

@stanleybmanly I can understand your frustration, no one wants to see anyone shot by someone.
BUT,machine guns in your country are VERY highly regulated,and only people with a special license can own one,and only certain types of ones/
The assault style rifles these idiots are using, are manufactured for the private market, and some law enforcement they never were intended for the military, believe it or not.
The military have their own version that can go full auto.
I totally agree with you on weapons are to easy to obtain, and certain styles such as the assault style,(NOTICE how I said assault style?) these weapons are not,not ,not assault military rifles they are made to resemble that style,yes they do a great job when a nut job is pulling the trigger.
Maybe these styles of weapons should become prohibited meaning people that already own one can keep it as long they are licensed, and NO new sales of these types of weapons should continue.
I am letting passion get the better of me on this issue, I want you(your country ) to find a solution that curbs these shootings and doesn’t punish law abiding firearm owners that just want to continue, hunting,target,sport shooting,and hurting no one, can that be done?

Like I said SQUEEK, by now it’s entirely too late to actually control the experiment. If all firearms were banned this instant, the death toll here would continue to climb for years, and people would say “I told you so!”. I’m afraid that your Southern neighbors are doomed to live through the carnage as merely “the price of doing business.”

Sorry to hear that?
Makes me really want to stay north of the border for the rest of my days.

I read somewhere that the creator of the AR15 actually originally made them for the military.

^“ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

Because the M16 which looks like the AR is a far superior weapon, for military purposes.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the M16 is an AR-15 variant basically.

I know this doesn’t mean much on it’s own, and both can be configured in enough different ways, but saying one is far superior is just a matter of which branch of the tree you’re using. It’s the same tree.

From Understanding the Different Types of AR 15 Rifles – M16 vs. M4 vs. AR15 – A1, A2, A3, or A4

In the late 1960’s, the US military began use of an AR-15 variant known as the M16 rifle. This rifle became standard equipment for the US Army beginning in the Vietnam War.

The damn things ARE assault weapons. Anything disagreement is just semantics.

I don’t particularly care for the rifle myself, but they do cost over a $1000 up here have seen them for over $2000, the ones in civilian hands were bought legally, what do you do about those.
Would you walk away from $1000plus dollars?
I am not against shutting down new sales of these style of weapons,and grandfathering the ones already in private hands,what else do you suggest?
That’s sensible,and realistic, and just doesn’t cater to one side or the other.

^^^ Australia instigated a buyback program and paid for the guns.

^^^ If the US did the same, we could then turn around and re-sell them to South American/Middle Eastern rebel/terrorist (depending on your point of view) groups and thus make it a revenue-neutral enterprise.

Or, isn’t Ukraine in the market for weapons these days?

Maybe it’s like the wall between the US and Mexico, we’ll sell the guns to Australia as part of their buyback program, get them to pay for them and then destroy them for us. Same end and everyone gets paid for their guns at no cost to the taxpayers of this fine country.

That’s it, I’m running for office.

But to answer your original question @SQUEEKY2, no the “overabundance” of weapons is not the problem. It only takes one weapon. It’s the ease of getting them, and the lack of laws that is the problem.

@SQUEEKY2 I wasn’t trying to diss you with my previous answer. I feel you already know the answer to the question, and in my own weird little way, I was agreeing with you.