How is a "military style" weapon unique from hunting rifles? Most weapons had some design input from the military or were patterned after weapons used in the miltary.

Also what's a "high velocity round". The article from the radiologist comparing rigle ammo to handgun ammo is very popular for gun control advocates, but ignores the fact that nearly all rifle ammo is higher velocity than pistol ammo. A 22LR has more velocity than a 44 magnum.

We can ban high cap mags, just like with any intervention on any issue, I'd like to see solid analysis on the efficacy. If the CBA is solid, I'd support that but right now there's just too much rigidity on both sides so IMO pushing for rational, factual discourse and analysis is essential.

@educatedredneck I told you it is evolving description

@MikeFlora OK, well if we're going to ban something, there should be exact definitions

@educatedredneck thank you! And wasn't a musket a military style weapon back in the day?

Totally agree politicians on BOTH sides just want to milk many issues. Trent Lott and Tom Daschle co-wrote a book where they acknowledged many don't want efficacy on gun violence or abortion bc those issues are cash cows for both parties.

@educatedredneck
They're great talking points during election campaigns.

I think I agree, although my main point that regulations aren't our only focus for other things is still very appropriate.

Again, I'm not against all regulations. I've mentioned several laws I'd support. I'm against tunnel vision and group think for problem solving with any issue bc the agenda becomes more important than being effective

Someone else asked me to leave the group. They're now just saying they don't want to engage me, I'll stay in this group as long as it seems productive or others aren't asking me to leave.

I despise the NRA-ILA. Despite how so many demonize the NRA, they're still the biggest proponent for gun safety and training in the USA....which seems kinda odd doesn't it? our government pushes better guidelines and safety for all kinds of things from sex, driving even tripping at work...but the evil NRA is our biggest proponents for gun insurance, safety and training??? Granted the NRA probably gets over 20% of their overall funding from pushing those things and they're clearly biased.

MANY people who criticize the NRA don't have any idea how much they push insurance, safety and training. I've talked with dozens who don't even know enough to distinguish between the NRA-IL and the regular NRA.

I totally agree.

Untrue, people generally obey social mores, traditions, general safety guidelines and many other things.

BTW, even legislation doesn't actually make everyone compliant, it merely allows the state to formally consequence those who are not compliant.

I'm waiting to hear back from the admin who asked me to leave....I won't discuss this much on this page until an admin approves it.

Although it seems like your question ties right into my biggest question, why is legislation the main or ONLY type of intervention people think about for gun issues?

I didn't go into significant detail above, but I did stress a mix of formal and informal interventions would be best and your only question is what formal interventions I propose...ie reinforcing the idea that formal interventions are the only way we think about decreasing gun issues.

Hey, if you want a nuanced, and likely prolonged discussion feel free to IM me. I'm not familiar enough with this site yet but if there's a good way to have a new discussion elsewhere, I'm open to that as well.

I don't like it when someone buys merchandise X which turns out to be Saran gas or a bazooka. Are you saying I should not buy X but you or anyone else should be able to?

@dare2dream No, clearly what I am saying is that no matter what is said or discussed in an open debate, the controversy will go on and on forever. Sure enough, that's exactly what you are trying to do right now so you just have proved my point. Go ahead and be individual A or B, it's your choice and I have nothing to do with it.

I didn't say there shouldn't be restricting on guns and I definitely didn't say there shouldn't be restricted access to guns.

My central question is why is legislation the main (or frequently the ONLY) emphasis for gun violence? We seem to know that attitude doesn't work on other problems.

Personally I think some people shouldn't have guns. I think bump stocks are a stupid gimmick, go ahead and outlaw them-but understand they're pretty easy to make but at least they won't be mass produced w some type of quality control and mass marketed.

I assume it was an admin in this group who suggested I leave the group, I'm waiting her reply to my comment. If peole don't want a conversation, I won't force my views into their lives.

If anyone wants to talk about gun issues I'm happy to have those conversations via IM or in a group setting.

@educatedredneck I guess I am curious as to how you accomplish this without legislation?

@AmelieMatisse My OP said a mix of formal and informal interventions. Legislation is usually a formal intervention. Unfortunately we're not just fixating on legislation, but mostly restrictive legislation aimed at responsible people.

I'm not against all gun legislation, I just don't understand why we seem obsessed with legislation as the main or only solution for gun issues. I really can't think of any other problem we try to reduce where restricting the rights of responsible people is our main focus.

I listed a few laws I'd support, but I also think we won't have a significant impact on gun violence as long as we keep fixating on restrictive legislation as the main or only solution.

@educatedredneck because legislation can be something that affects the entire country so that means I can't cross state lines to buy 500 rounds of ammo or buy a gun that I wouldn't be allowed buy in my state. . I haven't seen any proposed gun legislation that takes away the rights of the good citizen. I've been hearing for more than 10 years that lawmakers are going to take your guns but yet that has never happened. But here is another question, do you think there should be speed limits on highways? Do you think a 10 year old should be allowed to drive a car? Do you think I should be allowed to drive drunk just because I have a license? Or how about having to register your car or have it inspected or keep a license plate on it, or why do I have to renew my license every year? Or why is it a law that if I wish to buy a certain type of antihistamine I have to have my ID scanned and it goes on a record to make sure I don't buy too many of those drugs because it could mean I'm stirring up meth. You gun people whine and bitch about your gun rights but turn a blind eye to every other type of legislation that exists whether it is right or wrong. So how about taking your AR 15 and marching/protesting to allow the speed limit to be increased to 100 mph because I should have the right to drive that fast and not get arrested because I am a very responsible driver.... I hope you get the irony here

@AmelieMatisse I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. I'm not against all gun legislation, in fact I've listed several laws I do support.

I'm betting most of your questions are really rhetorical, but sure I don't have any problem with speed limits, laws about drunk driving....but the thing about every single thing you mentioned is those laws are against irresponsible behavior. It's inherently irresponsible to drive too fast or for 10 year olds to drive cars. It's not inherently irresponsible to merely own an AR series gun.

I hope you get the irony of posing a bunch of theoriticals and essentially ignoring what I've said here.

Plus you seem to be including me in the "you gun people". My initial post here and several other posts calls for effective interventions for gun violence. I've also criticized the NRA, so I'm really curious if you are including me in the "you gun people" comment?

I assume it was an admin who asked me to leave this group if I don't support gun control. You can see my reply below, but I'm not entirely opposed to gun control.

My central question is why is legislation nearly our entire focus, especially when we seem to know that's not a good approach for other problems.

If I do leave the group and you want to have a respectful discussion, please IM me

Agreed, I'm not against all restrictions on guns or even against responsible people. I dislike tunnel vision in any problem solving on any issue.

Right now it seems like restrictions for responsible people are the main or even only solutions the USA talks about.

I think this is true for any problem, but if your problem solving falls to group think and all your solutions are very similar to each other then you're missing all types of solutions and likely efficacy.

@educatedredneck We have restrictions for responsible people to drive and a lot of other activities. Why, the hell not for weapons that can and do kill people!!! What do you suggest as alternatives??

@JackPedigo The response you replied to I stated, "I'm not against all restrictions on guns or even responsible people" My first post here stated I want effective interventions on gun violence. Yet your response seems to entirely ignore my comments.

If you want a genuine discussion, please address what I'm saying. Granted I'm being a little vague, but that's intentional bc I don't have all the answers. I just know the dynamic we've built where one side keeps fixating on legislation as the main or only solution and the other side dismisses the problems is not working for anyone. I'm being vague bc I want people to have a new type of conversation and NOT keep addressing the same points. So again, please address what I'm actually saying.

I will specifically address something you've said, sure we have legal restrictions for responsible people. We consequence generally responsible people who do irresponsible things like drive too fast. We don't tend to make restrictions generally responsible behavior. Most, but not all, proposed gun legislaiton is geared towards restrictions on behavior that's not inherently irresponsible. It's not irresponsible to own an AR or a semi-automatic weapon. It is irresponsible for people convicted of domestic violence to have guns and we have extremely strict laws on guns for people with any domestic violence conviction. Unfortunatley we just don't enforce those laws well.

I can't keep track of my car keys..so I would be bad with a gun

I'm losing track of all the reply threads sorry, sure responsible people have restrictions but most problems we focus on restricting irresponsible people and consequencing irresponsible actions.

The focus for gun violence continues to be on restricting responsible people overall.

We barely crack down on bad actors who are FFL, guns in the black market, legal, civil or social consequences for people who don't store guns properly or other good gun safety.

Many of my friends are hunters..not my cup of tea, but we have other things in common. I live in a rural area where hunting is part of life and people are responsible with guns. I respect others view as we all think and behave based on our personal lens we see through.
I would like to know more and hear more from those more knowledgable about guns and solutions.

@SallyMc I'm not opposed to gun control. My question is why is legislation the ONLY solution?

As I said above I think a mix of formal and informal interventions would be best...although if nobody wants to have those discussions then I'll leave the group wt complaint.

@educatedredneck : You have not behaved like a troll so I think you have the right to stay. Asking questions or even or simply having another opinion only promotes discussion. With everyone thinking the same, we end up only nodding at each other.

@educatedredneck : Exactly what "formal and informal interventions" are you suggesting?

I think most people here are not against " formal and informal interventions". I think most people here are for sensible solutions to curbing mass murder and gun violence.

@educatedredneck Just so you know, not all here, even proponents of some form of gun control, feel the same as certain others do. I feel you have been respectful & reasoned, if not always in agreement with my particular views, & I personally welcome you here!

@SallyMc I wasn't intending on dodging questions. I was busy last night and this morning with plumbing issues. Water is dangerous and takes precedence over an online discussion which should take months or years if we're focused on efficacy.

I apologize for not getting back to you and I did see your last comment last night but didn't have the time to respond fully. I may have responded to other's comments after you posted, but I saw your comment as I got the call about plumbing.

I acknowledge my wording wasn't great with "I'm not opposed to gun control", so I'll clarify now.

I support some, but not all proposed gun control legislation. My main goal for any issue is efficacy, although I think maximizing rights in every area is also a good. goal. In the gun violence discussion, I define efficacy as measurably fewer gun deaths and injuries. I definitely support banning bump stocks, gimmick guns made to look like cell phones, bans on people with a history of violence....

Efficacy and maximizing rights are frequently in conflict, although IMO less if we look at dynamic factors and long-term 2nd and 3rd order effects.

If efficacy is the main goal, fixating on one type of intervention and effectively ignoring everything else won't give us the best results.

The fact you're (SallyMc) making negative assumptions about my motivations without direct clarifciation tells me at the very least on this thread you're not following effective dispute resolution. I have no idea who is an administrator or even if this site has admins. If people want me to stay and have a respectful discussion, I'll happily oblige but only if it is productive and that means people need to allow for oddities in life-I couldn't have predicted a tenant would have multiple minor plumbing issues. That also means people strive to never make negative assumptions without clarification and people do strive for factual dialectic while acknowledging what they think they absolutely know v what the assume.

I included the part about making it clear where people acknowledge what they think are solid facts intentionally. I doubt the efficacy of every assault weapons ban I've seen for the USA. That doesn't mean an assault weapons ban written by smart people with significant criticism and input from all sides wouldn't be effective. I'm just saying I haven't seen a specific proposal that I think would work. IMO effective discourse rarely happens on political issues. I've even said it some politicians, Lott, Daschle and Bayh, have said politicians don't want effective resolution to some issues. I'd love to have efficacy focused discussions on many issues.

In addition to doing a lot of preventative maintenance for plumbing today, I have a big conference tomorrow and may not check this site again until Saturday.

If there are administrators on this site, please weigh in if we should continue the discussion or if I should leave the group.

I'll do one more post now, if I have time I'll check back in later tonight but I have to prep for tomorrow. Hopefully the plumbing is ok

@dare2dream Thanks for your kind words, I have no idea who is an admin here. If people want me to stay, I'll stay and strive for a factual, efficacy focused discussion while acknowledging my own biases and lack of information where appropriate

What formal and informal interventions do I propose are phenomenal question!

Unfortunately, I can't really lay out a thorough plan of formal and informal interventions-YET.

I think the USA is so split on every political issue, effective discourse is almost impossible.

I've been asking variants of, why is restrictive legislation the only answer for gun issues? question for over four years and so far nobody has really answered that questions. Some people acknowledge I have a good point but quickly run right back to ONLY pushing legislative solutions.

My goal in asking that question is to change the dynamic of the discussion, initially in a few small groups.

I do have theories on what might be good interventions, especially informal interventions. I think it's odd the federal and state government sponsor safety ads, training...for many issues from parenting, drunk driving, seatbelts, pedestrain safety, teen pregnancy (I could list a dozen mroe) but the main proponent for gun safety and training is the evil NRA.

Why don't we sponsor safe gun storage? Keeping guns away from children or unsafe friends and relatives? We seem to know some areas have a higher density of guns per capita but fewer gun issues. Why not study good and bad areas to push for better standards? If you look hard enough, you'll find a few small, local informal pushes but they're rare, poorly funded and tend to be temporary.

I listed a couple of formal interventions above, but another would be expanding the existing gun registry (many pro and con people don't know there is an existing registry, or there's legislaiton against a federal registry) to better track the origin of guns used in crime.

We also don't try to crack down on bad actors in the FFL or guns on the black market in any significant way. That absolutey blows my mind!

@SallyMc My last word to you will be just an apology. I really didn't "dodge" your question as that implies intent. I wasn't clear nor did I communicate effectively, so I do apologize for that.

It seems others here are choosing to interact with me and not asking me to leave, I'll stay as long as it seems productive or if someone official asks me to leave