Yay, GUNS!

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I was trying to provide an example that there are regulations outside of the national level on the state level.

That was the first and most obvious one that came to my mind.

Then let's go with "In an economy with practically zero effective regulations on the acquisition of guns and a constant drive towards profits, it was inevitable that this downward spiral would manifest." 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The child in me would love to get my hands on an AR-15...

But as a child, I did some very stupid stuff that I wish I hadn't just after I did it.

This is a perspective that creates a pressure normal markets can deal with, and responsible leadership can regulate fairly. However, the US arms industry is so heavily protected by extreme, irrational lobbying that they can actually increase sales by running "news" stories about legislators even thinking about regulations. The media responds to every instance, and every shooting causes fear that this time regulation will happen, and the gun folks buy more guns. The media is basically the marketing arm of US arms dealers, protected from the taxpayer's negative perspectives with their own taxpayer dollars, all aimed at keeping the private profits coming full throttle.

Another instance of the media taking a minority perspective and elevating it to the importance of the vast majority, and pretending it's a controversy with equal sides.

[Ten oz]

There is a lot exaggeration and blustering surrounding guns. People shout down any gun legislation as too soon or too anti American before it can even get going. Pro gun advocates have long since put their foot down and declared they absolutely will not be party to any discussion that in anyway shape or form burdens anyone who seeks guns; period. Not only have pro gun advocates declared they won't be party to such discussions but they actively work to prevent others from even having the most preliminary of discussion. They have hijack the process by simply refusing to participate in the process yet still demanding representation. To break the deadlock those who would like changes need to act alone and accept the full brunt of the backlash. There is no other way. Mayors and Governors need to have the Political courage to go as far in the opposite direction as pro gun advocates are going. It is the only to force compromise. That means banning all assualt weapons in cities and states, banning the sale of ammunition, creating registries that track gun owners, and etc. So as a court tosses the law just reword it and get back after it. Make the NRA bleed millions in legal fees suing cities and states until everyone agrees to sit at the table and have an actual conversation. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Ten oz
Corrected the spelling of Mayor's

[Alex_Krycek]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

The NRA, with its 5 million members, has little to do with "ordinary people". A significant majority of the population wants the government to do something. 

Can you provide a poll or some other evidence verifying that?  The NRA has a core membership of 5 million, but there are many others who tacitly support their efforts. 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

What about fear of losing a loved one? No loss aversion there?

From the individual's myopic perspective, guns are seen as protection against this possible threat, not a risk factor that would increase it's likelihood.  This goes back to the problem of the individual's perception of their own life vs. their life as it relates to society as a whole.  From the individual perspective, it makes sense to arm oneself, because the individual can grasp what he / she can do on a purely instinctual level.  When it becomes abstracted in terms of how the individual person's firearm ownership relates to the aggregate,  ordinary people are unable to compute that - it's too far removed.  Having a tangible means of keeping oneself and one's family safe are the priorities for someone under threat, not brainstorming complex solutions that may or may not make society safer 10-20 years in the future.     

13 hours ago, swansont said:

I rather doubt that line of reasoning would used by those thinking logically, because it's ridiculous.

My point was that the individual in system 1 would never achieve this higher order level of thinking.  If you're operating in system 2, then you might actually consider the long term implications of any random person owning firearms, including yourself.    So you're right, Stephen Paddock (the Las Vegas shooter) would never entertain the notion that he would someday lose it and gun down hundreds of people from the upper floors of the Mandalay Bay.  But he is the perfect representation of the reality facing America: hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people having access to deadly weapons who are either A.)  mentally unstable now  or  B.)  are on the road to being mentally unstable in the future.  It's a scary thought when you see the reality of the situation we're in.  Under the present conditions, it's statistically impossible that mass shootings in America will ever stop.  In fact they will continue to increase. 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

The NRA's mission includes promoting gun sales. They lobby to keep gun manufacturers in the money. And politicians have been bought, just like with other sectors of the economy. You don't really need to look any further than that.

You don't need to look further than that - but you can.  The gun manufacturers have a financial interest in keeping these mass shootings going.  The more fear that's out there, the more likely it is that people will buy guns, and the more likely that shootings will occur - continue the cycle.  Assuming that the constant of bribed politicians never changes, this increase in societal fear will continue to drive profits higher and higher. 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Can you provide a poll or some other evidence verifying that? 

Gallup polling has it at 60% of the population wants more strict guns laws. 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

90% of the population supports Universal Background Checks.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Having a tangible means of keeping oneself and one's family safe are the priorities for someone under threat, not brainstorming complex solutions that may or may not make society safer 10-20 years in the future.   

Interestingly, even this basic logic is misguided and fails the test of reality.

https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk

Quote

Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death

Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

The same thing is true for accidents. States with more guns see more accidental deaths from firearms, and children ages 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US compared to other developed countries, where gun ownership is much less common. About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25, and some recent analyses suggest that the official count of gun accident deaths among children is understated.

"When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard," Harvard gun expert David Hemenway writes. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents."

 

Ten oz has already provided the data I would have in response to public sentiment on increased regulation and desire for government to act. My guess is that these numbers will only further increase after this (now 18th in the only 45 days we've existed in 2018) US school shooting.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, iNow said:

Interestingly, even this basic logic is misguided and fails the test of reality.

https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk

I agree.  I wasn't arguing that it was a correct line of reasoning, simply that most gun owners think that way. 

 

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The NRA, with its 5 million members, has little to do with "ordinary people". A significant majority of the population wants the government to do something. 

Strictly speaking that's not a contradiction.

I strongly suspect that most of the NRA members also want the government to "do something". They just don't think that "something" should involve taking their toys away.
The government should magically take guns away from "bad guys", but not "ordinary people like us who just want to own guns".

I doubt that, even among the hardliner supporters of the NRA, you will find many who think that roughly a school massacre per week is  "acceptable ". 

They just don't make the link between their actions in opposing control, and the continued  slaughter. They say things like "guns don't kill people" and "the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun...".

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You don't need to look further than that - but you can.  The gun manufacturers have a financial interest in keeping these mass shootings going.  The more fear that's out there, the more likely it is that people will buy guns, and the more likely that shootings will occur - continue the cycle.  Assuming that the constant of bribed politicians never changes, this increase in societal fear will continue to drive profits higher and higher. 

 

When you start saying they WANT mass shootings to happen, it's on the verge of conspiracy.

That is something I feel you should be highly careful with, because it's easy to get sucked into the "big government/big business" conspiracies.

I know many people who say that Democrats want mass shootings because it gives them a reason to try and take guns away.

Do I believe Democrats want mass shootings? Of course not.

Do I believe the NRA wants mass shootings? Of course not.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I agree.  I wasn't arguing that it was a correct line of reasoning, simply that most gun owners think that way. 

 

Another thing that's commonly pointed out is that guns kill 1,300 kids every year.

 

While accidental posioning kills 42,000 people, with 41% being children, that comes out to 17,000 every year.

 

At which point they argue, it'd do a lot more good to encourage people to lock up both guns and chemicals, rather then tell gun owners they're idiots and gonna kill themselves.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

32 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Another thing that's commonly pointed out is that guns kill 1,300 kids every year.

While accidental posioning kills 42,000 people, with 41% being children, that comes out to 17,000 every year.

At which point they argue, it'd do a lot more good to encourage people to lock up both guns and chemicals, rather then tell gun owners they're idiots and gonna kill themselves.

Well, that makes a change; people usually cite cars as the "thing that kills a lot of people".
It hardly matters.

There's a thing called a cost/ benefit analysis.

The cost of cars, poisons and guns- in terms of death tolls- is fairly easy to see.

The next thing to look at is the benefits from those things.

The poisons and cars are clearly useful...

Making the observation about "other things kill" without looking at the fact that the only things guns are really made for is killing, is either massively careless, or intellectually dishonest.

 

[Raider5678]

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, that makes a change; people usually cite cars as the "thing that kills a lot of people".
It hardly matters.

There's a thing called a cost/ benefit analysis.

The cost of cars, poisons and guns- in terms of death tolls- is fairly easy to see.

The next thing to look at is the benefits from those things.

The poisons and cars are clearly useful...

Making the observation about "other things kill" without looking at the fact that the only things guns are really made for is killing, is either massively careless, or intellectually dishonest.

3

To many people, the benefit of owning a gun far outweighs the risk of having it.

With "Better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it." being another common phrase.

 

But again, arguments like this are what they point to.

If you decide that since guns have no other purpose than killing(as you have, in the part I've quoted) then there really is no reason to keep guns around.

Which leads to the "I don't want to take your guns away. But I just think you shouldn't be allowed to have them because they have no benefit, only a cost. And the cost is human life."

Additionally, there's a cultural divide there. What you don't see as a benefit, many people do. What you see as accidents due only because of guns, are what many people see as carelessness around guns.

[rangerx]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What you don't see as a benefit, many people do.

What benefit is there in allowing a mentally ill person to own an AR-15 military style weapon?

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What benefit is there in allowing a mentally ill person to own an AR-15 military style weapon?

I'm sorry.

Could you point out to where I said there was one?

I fail to see it.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

"The suspect in one of the deadliest school shootings in modern American history arrived at the school in Florida in an Uber, according to a police arrest report released Thursday."

"The F.B.I. on Thursday said it received information about a comment made on a YouTube channel which has been attributed to the gunman, but was unable to identify the person."

"The AR-15 rifle used in the attack was purchased legally, at Sunrise Tactical Supply in Florida, according to a federal law enforcement official. "

"The leader of a white nationalist group, Republic of Florida, said on Thursday that Mr. Cruz had also participated in paramilitary drills."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-shooting.html?referer=http://www.google.com/

 

YouTube, Uber, Sunrise Tactical Supply, and the White Nationalist group Republic of Florida all should be taken to court and sued. Pro gun Politicians side step the issue so people need to start forcing discussion by dragging people into it court. Force Uber to review their policies and wonder if they have a responsibility to not transport armed people. Force YouTube to address whether they have an obligation to better moderate comments, force the store owner through expensive litigation, and force judges to answer whether hate groups that provide paramilitary training to mass shooters have some responsibility.

I know a lot of the lawsuits would go nowhere but it is a way to force discussion. Be a squeaky wheel. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Ten oz
Adjusted text size

[rangerx]

 

40 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm sorry.

Could you point out to where I said there was one?

I fail to see it.

Additionally, the AR-15 isn't even an assault rifle.

I didn't say you. I commented on your comment about others.

And I said it was a military style weapon.

Besides that, what's your point? Surely you cannot be suggesting those kids were not assaulted.

If a person is assaulted by a baseball bat, do we need to describe it as an assault bat to have legal standing to prosecute the crime?

Edited February 15, 2018 by rangerx
added question mark

[Moontanman]

I am not going to apologise for having a gun, I think it's my right as a free citizen who follows the law and safety regs. I have been around guns my whole life, guns were an integral part of growing up and responsible adults taught me to use and respect guns. I'm not all that keen on carrying one with me all the time. Hand guns are dangerous in a way that long guns are not. Even the police have accidents with handguns relatively often. I have shot guns, I got rid of my pistols many years ago, this idea of carrying around a rifle "open carry" is silly. I do not go places i feel would likely require me to defend myself with a gun. Fortunately where I live such areas are profoundly rare and maybe nonexistent. 

I support reasonable gun control, a license wouldn't be a bad idea, even gun insurance, background checks are a no brainer and should be strictly pursued. I think it's quite a bit too easy to buy a gun and concealed carry is a good way to ruin your life by killing someone by accident.  

Assault weapons are illegal already, you cannot own a real assault rifle. The ones that are called that are just semi auto rifles that are mean looking and most likely appeal to people who have rambo fantasies as much as anything else. 

For person defence a pump shotgun is the way to go, two safeties, three if you count having to load it before use. If I thought open carry was ok I still would limit it to shotguns. 

This silly idea that citizens could defend against our government if it went rogue is just stupid. A rifle can easily kill someone miles away, a pistol isn't much safer in that respect. #5 shot in a twelve gauge is the best load for self defense although I keep a box of 000 buck at hand just in case I have to kill a car  or a raging bull elephant. 

I do know people with dozens of guns, they collect them, keep them locked up in safes and usually only have a very limited amount of ammo if any for most of them. 

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

"The suspect in one of the deadliest school shootings in modern American history arrived at the school in Florida in an Uber, according to a police arrest report released Thursday."

"The F.B.I. on Thursday said it received information about a comment made on a YouTube channel which has been attributed to the gunman, but was unable to identify the person."

"The AR-15 rifle used in the attack was purchased legally, at Sunrise Tactical Supply in Florida, according to a federal law enforcement official. "

"The leader of a white nationalist group, Republic of Florida, said on Thursday that Mr. Cruz had also participated in paramilitary drills."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-shooting.html?referer=http://www.google.com/

 

YouTube, Uber, Sunrise Tactical Supply, and the White Nationalist group Republic of Florida all should be taken to court and sued. Pro gun Politicians side step the issue so people need to start forcing discussion by dragging people into it court. Force Uber to review their policies and wonder if they have a responsibility to not transport armed people. Force YouTube to address whether they have an obligation to better moderate comments, force the store owner through expensive litigation, and force judges to answer whether hate groups that provide paramilitary training to mass shooters have some responsibility.

I know a lot of the lawsuits would go nowhere but it is a way to force discussion. Be a squeaky wheel. 

1. That's a good way to lose all credibility.

2. While we're at it, we should also sue every bar that has ever sold alcohol to someone who then proceeded to hit someone while drunk. Sue every liquor store that has ever sold alcohol to someone who then gave it to minors. And then sue facebook for people posting stupid stuff on it. Then sue Instagram..... you get the idea.

Justice does not include guilty by association in my opinion.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That's a good way to lose all credibility.

Ten Oz can correct me if I’m mistaken, but you appear to be missing his broader point. I won’t claim you’re being willfully obtuse, but you are being shortsighted and potentially myopic. To clarify...

This has been going on. For. DECADES!! A new strategy is needed. It’s time to take the gloves off, accept that we might get bloodied and bruised along the way, and we need to own the repercussions of fighting this if we’re ever going to change things.

This isn’t debate club or some chess match. It’s a knife fight, and the other side is coming with guns.

Those who are pro gun are not approaching this issue in good faith. Ten Oz is suggesting that we need to be a constant irritant to them and attack them ceaselessly in the pocket books if we’re EVER going to get them to be responsible partners in negotiations. They’ll only come to the table if we make them feel enough pain to want it to stop.

The broader point is we need to stop getting our collective panties in a twist over issues like credibility and drunk driving slippery slopes. We need to start acting like EVERY OTHER advanced civilization and take some obvious steps that will help save lives. 

We can’t save everyone. We’ll always have some gun deaths no matter what we do, but doing nothing because we can’t do it perfectly is an unacceptable approach. 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

People shout down any gun legislation as too soon or too anti American before it can even get going. Pro gun advocates have long since put their foot down and declared they absolutely will not be party to any discussion that in anyway shape or form burdens anyone who seeks guns; period. Not only have pro gun advocates declared they won't be party to such discussions but they actively work to prevent others from even having the most preliminary of discussion. They have hijack the process by simply refusing to participate in the process yet still demanding representation. To break the deadlock those who would like changes need to act alone and accept the full brunt of the backlash. There is no other way.

 

[MigL]

I agree with you that its your right, Moony, to own one, or many guns, under your current laws and Constitution.
And you seem like a fairly well balanced guy, so your opinion matters to most of us.

What exactly is the purpose of you owning guns ?
You mentioned you don't need them for personal protection. Are you a hunter, target shooter, collector ?

I, personally have never owned a gun, and see no need for one.
( although the Franchi SPAS shotgun looks wicked )

Help us understand the reasons for owning one.
 

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Help us understand the reasons for owning one.

Hunting. Home protection. Sport. All can be covered by a rifle and/or shotgun.

I don’t find myself needing an AR-15 to tag a deer or wild turkey, even though I readily acknowledge they’re super well made and intelligently modular and fun to play with. 

We ban some toys for kids for safety reasons and for the greater good. It’s probably time we ban some toys for adults also for safety reasons and for the greater good. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ten Oz can correct me if I’m mistaken, but you appear to be missing his broader point. I won’t claim you’re being willfully obtuse, but you are being shortsighted and potentially myopic. To clarify...

This has been going on. For. DECADES!! A new strategy is needed. It’s time to take the gloves off, accept that we might get bloodied and bruised along the way, and we need to own the repercussions of fighting this if we’re ever going to change things.

This isn’t debate club or some chess match. It’s a knife fight, and the other side is coming with guns.

Those who are pro gun are not approaching this issue in good faith. Ten Oz is suggesting that we need to be a constant irritant to them and attack them ceaselessly in the pocket books if we’re EVER going to get them to be responsible partners in negotiations. They’ll only come to the table if we make them feel enough pain to want it to stop.

The broader point is we need to stop getting our collective panties in a twist over issues like credibility and drunk driving slippery slopes. We need to start acting like EVERY OTHER advanced civilization and take some obvious steps that will help save lives. 

We can’t save everyone. We’ll always have some gun deaths no matter what we do, but doing nothing because we can’t do it perfectly is an unacceptable approach. 

4

So it wasn't aimed at youtube, uber, etc, it was saying we had to start fighting differently?

 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So it wasn't aimed at youtube, uber, etc, it was saying we had to start fighting differently?

And start getting more people to have skin in the game... if more companies like Uber and Google/Alphabet/YouTube and others felt that their profits were suffering due to a failure to support common sense gun laws, they’d be strong allies and potentially be able to help us influence the discussion in ways that could save many many lives. 

See also: How these companies so openly support the #metoo movement and are terminating offenders due to a sharp focus on their bottom line and the revenue losses they’d face for ignoring it

Edited February 16, 2018 by iNow

[rangerx]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

I, personally have never owned a gun, and see no need for one.

I used to own guns, but now I don't. I mine jade high in the BC alpines during the summer months. It's always suggested by others (including the game wardens) that I carry one for protection from grizzly bears, but I've never seen one, no less ever been accosted by one. I don't stray far from the quad though and I'm sure I could outrun one or at least get out it's way for the time being. I just don't feel the need to needlessly destroy a magnificent creature in it's own territory for my greed (or protection, as Americans call it). If one kills me while I'm up there, oh well, I died doing what I enjoy, knowing full well mining is not without risks.

I'm certain you'd agree that as Canadians the first thing we are taught about guns is they are for hunting and not to be pointed at people, ever.

America teaches people to be afraid. To defend one's property with deadly force. To kill preemptively.

Education is the key to responsible gun ownership, not politics.

Edited February 16, 2018 by rangerx

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Moontanman said:

I am not going to apologise for having a gun, I think it's my right as a free citizen who follows the law and safety regs. I have been around guns my whole life, guns were an integral part of growing up and responsible adults taught me to use and respect guns. I'm not all that keen on carrying one with me all the time. Hand guns are dangerous in a way that long guns are not. Even the police have accidents with handguns relatively often. I have shot guns, I got rid of my pistols many years ago, this idea of carrying around a rifle "open carry" is silly. I do not go places i feel would likely require me to defend myself with a gun. Fortunately where I live such areas are profoundly rare and maybe nonexistent. 

I support reasonable gun control, a license wouldn't be a bad idea, even gun insurance, background checks are a no brainer and should be strictly pursued. I think it's quite a bit too easy to buy a gun and concealed carry is a good way to ruin your life by killing someone by accident.  

 

Quote

Assault weapons are illegal already, you cannot own a real assault rifle. The ones that are called that are just semi auto rifles that are mean looking and most likely appeal to people who have rambo fantasies as much as anything else. 

A semi-auto rifle that can discharge 30 rounds in under a minute is a de-facto assault rifle.  Calling it by any other name is disingenuous to it's real purpose.  A firearm like the SIG MCX, which can be silenced, equipped with a red dot sight, and uses a 30 round magazine is built for the purpose of assaulting multiple targets with maximum efficiency.  Watch this SIG MCX commercial and tell me this isn't an assault rifle.  This is a firearm that is available to the general public. 

Quote

For person defence a pump shotgun is the way to go, two safeties, three if you count having to load it before use. If I thought open carry was ok I still would limit it to shotguns. 

This silly idea that citizens could defend against our government if it went rogue is just stupid. A rifle can easily kill someone miles away, a pistol isn't much safer in that respect. #5 shot in a twelve gauge is the best load for self defense although I keep a box of 000 buck at hand just in case I have to kill a car  or a raging bull elephant. 

I do know people with dozens of guns, they collect them, keep them locked up in safes and usually only have a very limited amount of ammo if any for most of them. 

 

The only legitimate reasons for having a firearm are hunting and self defense.  Defending against government tyranny is a laughable idea. If push came to shove, the US gov would quickly overwhelm any militia attempting to subvert it.  It's a nonsensical idea.  Additionally, the gov already took  away most of our rights without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates.  Seems all they care about is that particular amendment and not the 32 others.

Keeping 25 guns in your house because it's your hobby is frivolous and shouldn't be protected either.  I'm for the idea of people being able to collect guns, as long as they're non-functional.  But people like to stockpile weapons.  Then 10 years later they go nuts.  This has to stop.       

Firearms like the SIG MCX and AR-15 are a problem because of their ability to discharge so many rounds per minute.  This is a big factor in the lethality of mass shootings.  If Stephen Paddock [Las Vegas] had been shooting at people with a bolt action rifle instead of a high capacity assault rifle with bump stock (making it practically fully automatic) he would have done far less damage.  People would have had a chance to run.  He wouldn't have been able to suppress them like was in a combat.  Same with this guy in Florida.  If he had to reload after 8 rounds it gives people a chance to intervene, which often they try to do. 

So two guns per person should be the new rule.  Two guns total.  And these should be firearms with limited round capacity.   If your priority is self defense, great.  Buy a handgun with some stopping power and a shotgun.  If you enjoy hunting, get two bolt action rifles.  So limiting the amount of damage a person can do within a certain timeframe would have an impact on this problem.  It's not the only solution, but part of it.  

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Raider5678]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Help us understand the reasons for owning one.

 

I live in an area where I can't name a single person adult who doesn't own a gun. At least 3/4 of the kids I know above 10 own guns as well(technically their parents own them, but they're "theirs" the same way they might have a phone)

And I know iNow already answered this, but I'll answer again.

 

The biggest reason for owning guns are hunting.

Everyone I know has a rifle. Most boys/girls get their first rifle around 10 and go hunting with their dad.

So the biggest reason for owning a gun is hunting. 

So, reason number 1: Hunting.

 

The second reason is a sport.

Every year, there are usually 5-6 shooting events held by farmers or people with plenty of land. Most are clay pigeon shoots, but there are others like target shooting, etc. 

There are small prizes, but it's usually more about the shooting then the prizes(which are like a plate of fudge or something).

So, reason number 2: Sporting.

 

Now, reason 2 is where you get to the AR-15. I know of only 2 people who have one, and both of them keep them locked up tight. They get them out for target shooting even for clay bird shoots, so others can have fun shooting it. I've shot it. Something about watching a paper target get shot every time you pull the trigger(Their's aren't fully automatic. I've never seen a fully automatic gun) is satisfying.

It's also like a bragging right. Which leads to reason number 3.

Collecting.

I know of 4 collectors in my valley. 2 of them collect old guns like flintlocks, musket loaders, etc. The other two collect modern guns. I've even seen the gun the Israeli army uses(I didn't get a chance to shoot it). 

So there are five main reasons:

1. Hunting.

2. Sports.

3. Collecting.

4. Bragging/showing off.

5. Self-defense (About 15 people in my church have a concealed carry from what I've heard. Nobody I know of has an open carry. I've never seen anyone other than a trooper carrying a pistol in the open.)

Hopefully, that helps clarify the reasons for owning guns.

 

Now I will admit, just this summer I heard of the first shooting accident in the valley my entire life. A teenager was shot when his friend(who wasn't local) thought the gun was unloaded, pointed it at him, and pulled the trigger after they had gone hunting. It ripped straight through his abdomen(rifles at close range will go right through typically) but it missed all the vital organs I believe. He survived and made a full recovery already.

But, universally, the first rule instilled into everyone I know who uses a gun is: Never. Point. It. At. Anyone.

General rules are(I'm sure Moon has heard these before):

1. Never point it at anyone.

2. Never look down the barrel.

3. Always assume it's loaded.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're going to shoot.

5. Keep the safety on until you're going to shoot.

 

There are more, but these are instilled into kids as much as the ten commandments.