[wat0n]

As a rule of thumb, you are correct. But my guy moved from an urban American area, to rural Costa Rica. He owns a farm, mostly trees. His point is that there are safe areas in Costa Rica, and places you don't go. His area is very, very safe.

You have something similar here. Maine is very safe, I live in one of the safest towns in Maine, it's very very safe. We don't have a lot of kids dying from guns...

In the last 20 odd years the number of guns has roughly doubled, while the number of AR15s has gone up roughly tenfold. More guns equals more dead bodies on the ground. And before you waste more of my time, the fact is that the tighter the gun laws (by country) the lower the death rate...

This came from another thread.

Don't you think rural Costa Rica may actually be a lot different from cities? As in, if we're analyzing the situation in countries as a whole then we stick to that.

As you hinted, even within the US, there are massive differences in crime rates and that includes gun homicide. Even within cities there are massive differences, Chicago for example is dangerous if you take the overall rate but in reality gun homicides are concentrated in specific parts of the city (those with gang problems, the new Al Capones basically).

The first step is to (again) ban assault weapons. There needs to be other regs, like limits on the size of clips. Republicans also need to stop screwing over ATF, that's lunacy.

As to the rest, we need things like background checks.

I agree with this. I don't think you need an AR at home, if you want to shoot one you can always go to a range (some will charge you like $25 for it, I saw an ad when I went to Florida last month).

Schools should have nothing to do with guns. Actually, I favor the European approach of using education money for education (as opposed to transportation and sports, which eat up too much of the budget).

I disagree with you on this, mainly because there are already too many guns around. That genie is out of the bottle and it would probably be best to accept it.

It's like those people who, in the face of school shootings, can't accept schools need to beef their security up and not allow strangers with no reason to be there inside school premises. If that means building taller fences, automatic locks, etc then so be it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Note that the school in Uvalde had just bought higher fences, a security patrol, had a system for keeping strangers off the property, and other measures that were supposed to keep the kids safe.

They worked as well as the cops did.

[late]

I disagree with you on this, mainly because there are already too many guns around. That genie is out of the bottle and it would probably be best to accept it.

It's like those people who, in the face of school shootings, can't accept schools need to beef their security up and not allow strangers with no reason to be there inside school premises. If that means building taller fences, automatic locks, etc then so be it.

In one of the school shootings, the first guy to die was the armed guard. That is one of those things that prob needs to be studied. Improving security is a good idea, but an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. So I am very glad we agree on banning assault weapons. I am hearing comments from reporters that there is a sea change happening in some states, that people are getting angry enough to demand change. That would be great.

[ingliz]

I am set to buy a second-hand AR-15 soon (if I can negotiate a better price ). It's an M16-A2 clone with an interesting backstory; the well-respected Tennessee manufacturer, an Englishman, lost his military contracts and his company for arms trafficking offenses. They made the AR-15s - semi-auto trigger group and bolt carrier with everything else the same as on the military rifles, on a separate production line - as a sideline.

I will be keeping it at home.

[wat0n]

In one of the school shootings, the first guy to die was the armed guard. That is one of those things that prob needs to be studied. Improving security is a good idea, but an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. So I am very glad we agree on banning assault weapons. I am hearing comments from reporters that there is a sea change happening in some states, that people are getting angry enough to demand change. That would be great.

We are indeed.

I mean, I don't personally have much of a trouble with owning ARs per se. But I also don't see anything wrong with banning them, at least as long as all the other stuff (background checks, gun education, etc) isn't working properly, and it clearly isn't.

IMHO the biggest issue with gun laws in the US isn't whether they are too restrictive or not but that, for whatever reason, they aren't being effectively enforced. That needs to be the top priority.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

Since data compiled by researchers from Georgetown University in 2021 found that many AR owners have multiple ARs in multiple calibres, the total number of AR-15-style weapons in American hands could be as high as 44 million.

If previous bans are anything to go by, that means 44 million 'assault rifles' will be grandfathered in.

Will a ban achieve anything?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Since data compiled by researchers from Georgetown University in 2021 found that many AR owners have multiple ARs in multiple calibres, the total number of AR-15-style weapons in American hands could be as high as 44 million.

If previous bans are anything to go by, that means 44 million 'assault rifles' will be grandfathered in.

Will a ban achieve anything?

Interesting thing to consider.

I think it would though, it would at least make it harder for new owners to appear.

But as I said it is absolutely necessary for the public to be educated on how to properly use and own guns, since there are so many around. If that means teaching this in schools, so be it.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

And why just ARs when AKs, mini-14s, and all the etceteras do the same job.