The lack of knowledge is part of the problem though. People are advocating the passage of laws against something that, as you state, they don’t really understand. They’re picking up language from the media they frequent and the politicians they advocate. I’m not disparaging but rather, pointing out that this lack of understanding doesn’t help your point of view or even what you’d likely want to achieve. If all ‘assault weapons’ magically disintegrated and were no longer in existence then the shooters would simply use hunting rifles, handguns, or a means other than guns and you wouldn’t achieve what you’re trying to achieve. This is why some people who don’t want all guns banned are skeptical of people focusing on what they call ‘assault weapons’ when, in fact, that’s not ultimately going to achieve their goal, so they’d likely follow it up with bans on other types of guns.</p>
<p>Ill. (20.2 %ownership) and NY (18 %ownership) are number 44 and 45 out of 50 in the lowest ratings for gun ownership, but are above the gun murder rate of #30 (in gun ownership) Texas. </p>
<ol>
<li>Conn (16.7 %ownership) has 2.71 murder rate with firearm</li>
<li>Rhode Island (12.8% ownership) has .57 muder rate</li>
<li>Mass. (12.6% ownership) has 2.02 murder rate</li>
<li>New Jersey (12.3 %ownership) has 3.07 murder rate</li>
<li>Hawaii (6.7 %owership) has .07 murder rate</li>
</ol>
<p>So, Ill., NY, Conn, Mass and NJ all have murder rates by firearm that exceed (some greatly exceed) what you might expect. </p>
<h1>1 Wy %ownership has 2.01 murder rate (almost identical to Mass-#48 in % ownership)</h1>
<h1>2 Alaska %ownership has 2.24 murder rate (lower than #46 Conn)</h1>
<h1>3 Montana %ownership has .76 murder rate.</h1>
<h1>4 S. Dakota %ownership has .68 murder rate.</h1>
<h1>5 West Virginia %ownership has 2.87 murder fate (on par with #44 Ill. on ownership)</h1>
<h1>6’s (3 way tie with Ala which does not report) %ownership Arkansas 4.39 murder rate and Miss. 7.46 murder rate.</h1>
<p>Please tell me, anyone, what the rationale is for private citizens owning semiautomatic weapons, and clips/magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? What are they used for?</p>
<p>Yes, I know gun owners. However, they’re all for strict regulation - similar to what eastcoastcrazy describes. I said gun fetish. There is a difference between gun ownership and gun fetish.</p>
<p>And BTW, I agree that the NRA used to be a reasonable organization that promoted gun safety and responsible ownership. But now they’re the “pry it out of my cold, dead hands” gun fetish type. Ugh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t want you in my local Starbucks with your gun. I don’t know why you possibly think it’s appealing to pretend to re-live the shootout at the OK Corral. Is it some dream that you’ll be a hero and save the day if a thug comes in with a gun? If so - no thanks; let the Starbucks employee hand over the money and let the thug go on his way. No interest in your fantasy little shoot-out world.</p>
<p>Why do middle-aged men wear toupees and drive convertible sports cars? Same thing. Proving their manhood (in one of the most unappealing ways possible).</p>
<p>well, I think, finally, what it comes down to is that we have an urban culture, and I am including the sub-urbs in this class. Also a smaller urban culture.</p>
<p>The problem with laws written for the entire country is that they are challenging to get right, and, in the case of gun laws, I’m not even sure you can get these laws right for the entire country. That’s the problem and it is why we find ourselves talking at cross purposes.</p>
<p>Wyoming, Idaho and North Dakota have over 50% gun ownerships and under 2 deaths per 100000 a year by gun. This makes it challenging for them to hear what is being said in DC, where they have so many every years. Those out west feel dictated to.</p>
<p>So, somehow, you have to get a dialogue going which is respectful and not condescending. Of course the people in Montana where there are 2.6 gun deaths per 100000 think that someone has to be insane to shoot up a group of people.</p>
<p>Of course, it may well be that those who hunt with their guns actually understand what dead means. Either way, the important thing is to communicate. I travel all over this country, and there are many places which feel the same as Emilybee, but for the exact opposite reason. So, it’s not really working for anyone right now, as far as a lot of Americans with very disparate points of view are concerned. </p>
<p>I find THIS to be very interesting, as well.</p>
<p>ETA: thank 07 for doing that math. actually, I think that really illustrates how different gun culture really is across the country.</p>
<p>Yes, in some places it’s legal to carry a Bushmaster into McDonald’s on Saturday morning. Most gun owners wouldn’t do it … wouldn’t even consider it. But some (like a few of my wife’s relatives) think it’s government oppression that restricts them to semi-automatic weaponry.</p>
<p>(Those relatives are not CC types, obviously.)</p>
<p>“That’s an interesting perspective. My husband has talked about leaving the country from time to time. But, every time we’ve looked into it, the truth is that the US turns out to be better in so many ways.”</p>
<p>Emily, I’m not going to go into my reasons for staying in the united states. My staying alone is enough. But, I can say, unequivicolly, that I would rather live here than any other country in the world, though I have and do travel extensively and could afford, quite easily to live elsewhere.</p>
<p>I think, though, that anyone who wants to leave really should look into it. There are things about other places you might not know. The US is held under a microscope to a degree other countries are not. You might be surprised when you found out what it was really like. It’s worth a look, though. It was certainly very enlightening for us.</p>
Okay, we have some common ground then perhaps. I don’t have any ‘fetish’ about guns and since one with a fetish for anything means they have an extreme or irrational affinity for that thing then one needs to be a bit wary about them. </p>
<p>
I don’t want that either in the area I live since I don’t live in an area where it’d be the norm unless one was a police officer. Since it’d be so outside of the norm where I am, I’d probably think that person had some kind of ‘fetish’ about it, to use your term, which would automatically make me less than comfortable with them there.</p>
<p>But I’ll concede that if I lived in certain areas where it was more common for people to have a sidearm, such as maybe certain areas of Alaska or some other rural areas, or maybe someone taking a coffee break from bear hunting, I might understand that it’s not unusual that they’d be wearing a sidearm and therefore I wouldn’t be as uncomfortable about it.</p>
<p>I’d be wary of anyone purposely ‘open-carrying’ in an environment where it’s not the norm simply to make a statement. Most gun owners wouldn’t do that and I doubt those individuals are helping their cause much and probably are actually hurting it.</p>
<p>I did not read the entire thread, but as a teacher, I can tell you that NO ONE wants me to have a gun. A taser might be nice and might curtail cell phone use.</p>
<p>eastcoast,
What is your issue? Except for insurance coverage, all of those regulations already exist. As discussed earlier, as a practical matter, I don’t see how an insurance requirement would fly. How do you see it working? How will we force insurance companies to cover gun owners? If they don’t, will the federal gov’t step in and pay for it? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my understanding that the rationale is the same as other non-hunting rationale: for self-defense, and because it is legal to do so. Perhaps if you lived in a remote area near the border where illegal immigration and drug running is common, you might feel the need for some additional fire power protection. Also because some people feel it creates a “check” on the threat of any government oppression if they are similarly armed. I don’t happen to think that people who think this way are psycho, although I have no desire to own such a weapon. People who own guns need to know how to operate them, so they buy ammunition and go to practice ranges. There isn’t much point in owning a firearm “just in case,” if you have no experience using it.</p>
<p>My husband who is a PhD in cultural anthropology wants to go buy a gun now. He says he wants to go buy whatever is most appalling to the anti-gun crowd. This is a guy who does backflips to avoid killing a spider we find in the house. This is a guy who is mostly vegetarian.</p>
<p>He just doesn’t like the rhetoric of those who want to control others.</p>
<p>This is what a lot of people don’t get – the freedom thing. I went to see the big movie of the moment – Lincoln. It was not about passing laws really, it was about protecting freedom.</p>
<p>“I think, though, that anyone who wants to leave really should look into it. There are things about other places you might not know. The US is held under a microscope to a degree other countries are not. You might be surprised when you found out what it was really like. It’s worth a look, though. It was certainly very enlightening for us.”</p>
<p>We have looked into it and probably will once my DH retires. Sadly, it’s a bit too late for us as DH only needs 5 more years to get his full pension. But after that, I am hoping we can buy a place in Bermuda and live there most of the year. </p>
<p>But I would certainly encourage my kid to take a job outside the US if offered.</p>
<p>ECC - I grew up in an environment similar to yours … except that our local game was pheasant and deer. It was typical that rifles and shotguns not be secured, and yet that was never a problem. For the past three decades I’ve lived in cities and suburbs where pistols were more common, and were always secured.</p>
<p>But there is a portion of Americans who believe it’s the government’s intent to confiscate guns. Reasonable discussion is impossible with such folks. Their nearest neighbor lives a half-mile away, and police response times long. To these folks … and I’m only talking about my wife’s relatives here … weapons are already over-regulated. These citizens are intelligent and educated, but they’re also isolated … and they have a deep suspicion of governments. (Just talking about my wife’s relatives here.)</p>
<p>Edit: I should add that none of these folks would consider mass-murder in any form. They don’t see problems with gun ownership … so any effort to restrict guns “must” be a renewed effort by government to restrict their 2nd Amendment rights.</p>