<p>I worked with a guy a long time ago who liked to play around with weapons. I remember him bringing in a blow-dart and his group set up a target in the office and practiced with it. He eventually quit and started his own software business and moved to Thailand. He told me about an event where a guy owned a lot of property - they put a bunch of junk cars in a field and you could go and shoot up cars for a fee. All sorts of weapons there.</p>
<p>I thought that the guy was pretty scary.</p>
<p>BTW, I had a feeling that he moved to Thailand to do stuff that he couldn’t do here.</p>
<p>You can buy guns at WalMart over here. There’s no stigma. Might be the other way around.</p>
<p>In my state it is “common” to own guns. I don’t know one person who owns a handgun, though of course I know many who hunt, so therefore have hunting rifles…or shotguns, whatever they are called :o</p>
<p>You can’t make a right guaranteed by the constitution contingent on “approval” of a private entity. I know people who just don’t like guns think they’re clever when they come up with ideas like “Oh you can have as many guns as you want, we’ll just restrict the hell out of ammunition” or “[insert odious restriction here]”. But you have to look at it in the context of a human right similar to freedom of speech or religion. Imagine saying “You don’t have the right to free speech unless you pay $1 million or have equivalent insurance against libel claims”. Of course, those who have an emotional aversion to guns will just reply with “well, when’s the last time someone’s words killed someone”, but this displays a lack of understanding of civil rights, which are not contingent on how “dangerous” they can be - anything can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Having the right to free speech or to own firearms, etc implies the right to own the things that make these rights possible (printing presses, websites, ammunition, etc)without unreasonable restrictions.</p>
<p>I am in northern MN right now. We were in a Walmart last night where they sold rifles and handguns. It was shocking and repulsive to me. I took pix and texted to my friends/relatives. It’s just so bubba and hick to me.</p>
<p>Yet far more people are killed in Chicago than in most rural areas with lots of guns. I’m much more cautious in Chicago than in the North Woods. Where would you rather go to a walkup ATM at night?</p>
<p>Clearly on CC there is, which is surprising to me - I’m from California (certainly not the most gun-friendly state), and it was slightly unusual for me to come across someone who didn’t own at least one gun or have one in their house (i.e. owned by a parent, sibling, etc). Even the people who you would least expect…</p>
<p>(Edit: Oh, oops, I see this was already mentioned in post #477.)</p>
<p>This article also mentions that Holmes was already removing his body armor when the police found him at his car. I’m not sure whether that had been mentioned before…</p>
<p>There are plenty of restrictions on freedom of speech. Some of them have to do with safety. The Amendments to the Constitution are not completely unfettered. If they were, then we would have the right to bear nuclear arms.</p>
<p>I understand that - but my point was that you can’t legislate rights out of existance or out of reach of 90% of the population just because you don’t like them. And it is already illegal to murder someone (with a gun or otherwise), unjustifiably threaten or assault someone (again, with a gun or otherwise) - we have background checks, etc. You can’t restrict something just because it has the potential to be misused or because it looks scary (which is the only reason to think that so-called “assault rifles” are more lethal than other types of firearms). You make the “misuse” illegal, not the item or right itself.</p>
<p>Heck no, ya’ll. In Texas we not only own them we used them to pin down mass killer Charles Whitman at UT till the cop could kill him in 1966. Oh yeah, there was the Kennedy thing in 1963. And Waco with Koresh. And, the Luby’s massacre in Killeen. And, the killings at Fort Hood. And, we apparently sell a lot that end up down ole Mexico way! What’s a stigma?</p>
This is another attempt at futility. Someone who plans to commit mass murder isn’t going to let something like ‘insurance’ stop them. Even the anti-gun crowd needs to look at this realistically if they want any kind of solution.</p>
<p>btw - In my area there are many people (people in the country illegally among others) driving without auto insurance even though it’s illegal to do so. If someone plans to commit a crime it’s usually not a bother to them to commit a few more ancillary ones.</p>
<p>
Obviously many of the anti-gun people would likely hold a stigma against gun owners but I doubt that most gun owners care what they think about them owning a gun. Certainly I don’t. Given that, and given that I think the stigma holders are in a minority in the first place, I don’t think that route’s going to achieve the goal of the anti-gun people. And does anyone think that stigma against owning guns would stop someone from committing a mas murder like this? Talk about societal stigma and that doesn’t stop these people!</p>
I’m amazed that anyone would be shocked by this. Well, I’m not surprised that some big city dwellers might find it at least surprising. The guns for sale in Walmart and many other stores is normal and is indicative of how many ‘regular’ people purchase and own guns who you never hear about because they’re not criminals and don’t go on killing sprees as surprising as that might sound to some. </p>
<p>As an example, apparently Holmes used a Remington 870 shotgun in the shooting. There have been over 10,000,000 Remington 870 shotguns produced over the course of decades and purchased by many people including me yet a minuscule percentage of them have ever been used to harm people.</p>
<p>This also illustrates why gun owners won’t generally feel a stigma against them because of the anti-gun people because I think most gun owners would view most anti-gun people as uninformed when it comes to guns in general including the details about them, how they’re used, who uses them, and few are ever used to harm anyone and therefore don’t put much stock in what they say.</p>
<p>True, GladGradDad. When I hear someone use phrases like “high-powered, bullet-spraying, big bullet-magazine, military assault weapon” I instantly think that that person either knows nothing about firearms or has an agenda. Why? I actually have a more than passing knowledge of firearms and US laws on them. Those phrases, and others, are technically incorrect or misleading phrases designed to elicit an emotional response from people who don’t know any better. For example, the “ultra-high powered,” “bullet-spraying” AR-15 is most commonly chambered in a round that some states won’t let people hunt deer with, because it is not considered powerful enough to humanely kill a large deer. It also fires at the same rate as any other semi-automatic firearm…including those old deer rifles and shotguns. However, it’s black and it looks like an M-16…scary to some people, I guess.</p>
<p>What’s my point here? If you want to suggest a change to gun laws, I highly recommend doing enough research to have some idea about what you are talking about.</p>
I can’t remember but if one owns fairly expensive guns then I think they need to be declared like any other expensive items like jewelry, art, coin collections, etc. although I assume it varies by the insurer and policy. I don’t own expensive guns.</p>
<p>Can it really be true that some homeowner’s insurance companies will not insure me if I own a trampoline, but they don’t care how many guns I have around the house?</p>