More mass shootings

[billvon 2,384]

2 hours ago, yoink said:

They may not say it out loud, they may not even internalize it, but I suspect that many of them wouldn't change their stance even if it were a close family member involved. Once you make that leap then it's obvious - no matter how well I construct an argument, or how eloquently I argue it there is NO chance I will change their minds. Absolutely none. If the death of a family member won't do it then what chance would my words have? It's talking for the sake of it.

Yep.  But illegal aliens?  It's an emergency.  We have to DO SOMETHING!

[Stumpy 256]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  But illegal aliens?  It's an emergency.  We have to DO SOMETHING!

True. As the social media posts I keep seeing say:

 

Abortions : BAN THEM!

Birth control: BAN IT!

Immigrants: BAN THEM!

Guns: Look, banning things never works, it's a mental health problem.

[DJL 232]

On 6/1/2019 at 6:34 PM, kallend said:

24 hours have elapsed and a mass shooting (in Virginia Beach) is now so mundane that no-one has bothered to mention it until now.

I guess we just accept that mass murder is part of the normal rhythm of life in the USA, and choose not to do anything about it beyond the useless "thoughts and prayers".

My Facebook feed came alive with people saying that if people were allowed to carry a weapon in that government building then the outcome would've been different.  At that point I was in the hangar at the DZ and thinking about other places I've been in which people could be carrying a weapon.  Since Virginia is an open carry state, 100% of the people could've been carrying a weapon but ZERO people were.  It's as simple as that, nobody carries a fucking gun around with them.  I know ONE person who actually goes open carry and a few who occasionally wear with their concealed carry but most of the time nobody wants to carry a gun with them.  Even in that dz hangar situation there are definitively guns out in the cars but if someone walked in and started shooting then a gun a car would've have helped until it were all over - just like every other shooting in which someone finally showed up with a gun.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

11 hours ago, yoink said:

Yup.

 

I thought about posting, but really, what’s the point?

 

A while ago I asked people here what they considered an acceptable cost for their 2nd amendment rights were - was it worth the cost of x mass shootings a year? What if it involved a neighbor? Or a family member? IIRC only riggerrob answered directly.

From that I worked out that for staunch supporters of gun rights this isn't something that can be discussed or argued rationally, at least to me. It's as much a belief as any religion is. That's why I just don't 'get' it - It's not a logical position in how I frame my world view.

They may not say it out loud, they may not even internalize it, but I suspect that many of them wouldn't change their stance even if it were a close family member involved. Once you make that leap then it's obvious - no matter how well I construct an argument, or how eloquently I argue it there is NO chance I will change their minds. Absolutely none. If the death of a family member won't do it then what chance would my words have? It's talking for the sake of it.

So that's why I've given up lamenting about the latest mass killing on here. It'll keep happening and the only recourse we have is hope. Hope that big number theory keeps me and my family safe.

 

Well, to counter that, what's an acceptable number of drunk driving deaths per year? 
There are thousands. And while there has been a change in the overall attitudes towards drunk driving, and the numbers have declined, it's still a big problem. 
And it's a problem with a fairly simple (although not cheap or super 'easy') solution. Many people convicted of OWI are required to have an 'intoxilock' in their car for a period of time. That's the device that you have to blow into and show no alcohol on your breath before the car will start. They are expensive, inconvenient and subject to problems (one I know of is that they freeze up in the winter). But if car makers installed one in every new car, and people were required to retrofit all cars on the road with them, then drunk driving would virtually disappear.

I've asked this before and been accused of asking a 'gotcha' question. Or that it's a false equivalence. 

 

To answer your question directly (I didn't before), the answer is zero. No deaths are 'acceptable'. 
But what would you do to stop them? How many other rights would you be willing to give up along with the 2nd? 

I'm certainly willing to listen to ideas that would help. But I have yet to hear any substantive ideas that would stop shootings of this kind, short of bans and confiscation.

What specific solutions would stop these kinds of shootings?
 

Background checks? Most of the high profile shootings that I know of used guns that were purchased after passing checks. There are a couple incidents where the checks should have prevented the shooter from getting the guns, but they 'fell through the cracks. The one a few months ago in Aurora (Chicago) is a stunning example of the shortcomings. The shooter had a felony conviction. But it was in another state, so the check didn't catch it. He then applied for a carry permit. That had a deeper check (fingerprints) that did catch the felony. But, rather than actually doing something, the state wrote him a letter telling him his FOID card had been cancelled and that he had to turn in his gun. That was it. They knew he had a gun and that he was a felon (that's a crime). And they wrote him a letter. 

Ban military style rifles? While the ones that make the national media use those, most shootings aren't committed with them. 

There are millions of them out there (probably tens of millions). When Obama got elected sales went absolutely nuts. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, they went nuts again. Everybody wanted to get one before they got banned. 

With the previous ban, it only applied to new manufacture. Stuff that was already out there could be owned, bought and sold. So while availability went down some, and price went up, they were still readily available.

Unless a 'ban' included confiscation of some sort, it would be equally toothless. 
Are you willing to see that? Government confiscation of private property? Unless the government is willing to pay a LOT of money, it would simply be 'taking', not 'buying' (since the government never owned them in the first place, it's not a 'buy back").
And are you willing to see the cost in privacy/search rights? 
There would be a lot of people who wouldn't turn their guns in. The government would have to search virtually every house and business in the country to find all the guns. Sales & background checks would show a lot of owners, but what if the owner said "I sold that a long time ago, I don't have any guns." Would you believe him? Would you search his house? How far would you search? Tear out the walls & ceiling? Destroy the house? Would you take a metal detector around his back yard if you didn't find any? 
What about people who never bought a gun from a dealer (no check, no paperwork). 
Do you get ammunition sales records, parts and component sales records, gun range membership lists. ect? 

How far do you go? 

5 hours ago, Stumpy said:

True. As the social media posts I keep seeing say:

 

Abortions : BAN THEM!

Birth control: BAN IT!

Immigrants: BAN THEM!

Guns: Look, banning things never works, it's a mental health problem.

And the gun rights folks are also flipping that around:

If you ban abortion, they will still happen, just illegally. 

So why would banning guns work?

 

Quote

My Facebook feed came alive with people saying that if people were allowed to carry a weapon in that government building then the outcome would've been different.  At that point I was in the hangar at the DZ and thinking about other places I've been in which people could be carrying a weapon.  Since Virginia is an open carry state, 100% of the people could've been carrying a weapon but ZERO people were.  It's as simple as that, nobody carries a fucking gun around with them.  I know ONE person who actually goes open carry and a few who occasionally wear with their concealed carry but most of the time nobody wants to carry a gun with them.  Even in that dz hangar situation there are definitively guns out in the cars but if someone walked in and started shooting then a gun a car would've have helped until it were all over - just like every other shooting in which someone finally showed up with a gun.

This came up while I was composing my response, so I can't attribute it (haven't figured that out yet).

I'm going to disagree. I know a few people who carry guns on a regular basis. NONE of them 'open carry'. Most 'gun types' don't really think much of open carry. It's more an 'ego' thing than a 'self protection' thing. It also puts a hell of a target on the person carrying the gun. Cops open carry, but they wear distinctive clothes and drive around in really obvious cars. Even if they carried hidden, everyone would still know. The plain clothed cops carry under their jackets more to be discreet than to keep it secret (that big bulge under their arm is a pretty good clue). 

I don't think anyone is going to carry when jumping, but not jumping and just hanging out? Betcha there's one or two. I know pilots who carried when flying the 182. I've known of staff that carried when working the desk. It wasn't advertised, and I knew because I either had long conversations about guns with these people or I spotted the gun at some point. 

And don't totally discount the 'gun in the car' situation. There have been a number of shootings that were stopped by someone who had a gun close by. A janitor at a school, a principal, a couple of off duty cops at a college (these are off the top of my head). It wasn't stopped instantly, but the shooters were stopped before they were done. 

[normiss 620]

12 hours ago, yoink said:

Yup.

 

I thought about posting, but really, what’s the point?

 

A while ago I asked people here what they considered an acceptable cost for their 2nd amendment rights were - was it worth the cost of x mass shootings a year? What if it involved a neighbor? Or a family member? IIRC only riggerrob answered directly.

From that I worked out that for staunch supporters of gun rights this isn't something that can be discussed or argued rationally, at least to me. It's as much a belief as any religion is. That's why I just don't 'get' it - It's not a logical position in how I frame my world view.

They may not say it out loud, they may not even internalize it, but I suspect that many of them wouldn't change their stance even if it were a close family member involved. Once you make that leap then it's obvious - no matter how well I construct an argument, or how eloquently I argue it there is NO chance I will change their minds. Absolutely none. If the death of a family member won't do it then what chance would my words have? It's talking for the sake of it.

So that's why I've given up lamenting about the latest mass killing on here. It'll keep happening and the only recourse we have is hope. Hope that big number theory keeps me and my family safe.

 

Maybe we could try forcing gun owners to sacrifice a family member "for the cause".

They seem to not understand the other side, so why not show it to them?

[turtlespeed 212]

16 minutes ago, DJL said:

My Facebook feed came alive with people saying that if people were allowed to carry a weapon in that government building then the outcome would've been different.  At that point I was in the hangar at the DZ and thinking about other places I've been in which people could be carrying a weapon.  Since Virginia is an open carry state, 100% of the people could've been carrying a weapon but ZERO people were.  It's as simple as that, nobody carries a fucking gun around with them.  I know ONE person who actually goes open carry and a few who occasionally wear with their concealed carry but most of the time nobody wants to carry a gun with them.  Even in that dz hangar situation there are definitively guns out in the cars but if someone walked in and started shooting then a gun a car would've have helped until it were all over - just like every other shooting in which someone finally showed up with a gun.

That is more of a "Who you hang out with" - I know for a fact that there were weapons in many of the gear bags at the DZs that I went to.

I suspect - that even though you may not be aware of it - your DZ is the same.

Especially since 4 of the DZs I frequented, and are referencing, are in Georgia.(One is mobile)

[DJL 232]

18 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm going to disagree. I know a few people who carry guns on a regular basis.

Do you think that there would be a decrease in mass shootings in these "gun free zones" if you allow people to be armed.  Let's remember that the person who wants to do the shooting can easily utilize either a concealed or open carry permission to bring that weapon into that space.  I know this is almost an impossible question because mass shootings are practically allegorical in their frequency and % of overall gun crimes and instances where an armed citizen stopped a mass shooting are even more infrequent.  So, given the frequency at which people ACTUALLY would carry a weapon, would it do anything or serve as a deterrent?

[DJL 232]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That is more of a "Who you hang out with" - I know for a fact that there were weapons in many of the gear bags at the DZs that I went to.

I suspect - that even though you may not be aware of it - your DZ is the same.

Especially since 4 of the DZs I frequented, and are referencing, are in Georgia.(One is mobile)

Actually, I know where no fewer than four firearms are at my DZ inside of the hangar (depending on who is there).  The question is whether they would do any good before everyone had already either fled or been shot in the first wave of shooting.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 minutes ago, DJL said:

Do you think that there would be a decrease in mass shootings in these "gun free zones" if you allow people to be armed.  Let's remember that the person who wants to do the shooting can easily utilize either a concealed or open carry permission to bring that weapon into that space.  I know this is almost an impossible question because mass shootings are practically allegorical in their frequency and % of overall gun crimes and instances where an armed citizen stopped a mass shooting are even more infrequent.  So, given the frequency at which people ACTUALLY would carry a weapon, would it do anything or serve as a deterrent?

The person doing the shooting will carry the gun in regardless of whether or not it's a "possession prohibited' area or not. 
AFAIK, school property is prohibited property for everyone except police in most states (in Wisconsin, even having a cased firearm locked in your car in a school parking lot is a felony). 

 

I also doubt it would be a deterrent. The shooter in those situations is not thinking rationally or logically. They're going to go to work/school/wherever and pull out their gun and shoot everyone they can. Typically they have a few 'specific targets', but often times they just want to go out in a 'blaze of gunfire'. Many either expect to be killed or plan on committing suicide.

I've had this conversation a few times (AggieDave on here maybe?). Balancing the prevalence of carry permits with the actual frequency that they are utilized, I would make a guess (and it's mostly that) that there's somewhere between a 25% and 50% chance that there's a concealed firearm on someone in the immediate area anytime you are out in public (and in a 'carry permitted' area). Posted prohibited areas are going to see a lower number (although not zero) , depending on the consequences for getting caught. Most private 'prohibited' areas will just make you leave. Public areas will see stronger consequences, depending on the circumstances (helpful hint: Don't get caught with a gun in a school, court house or police station). 

Quote

Actually, I know where no fewer than four firearms are at my DZ inside of the hangar (depending on who is there).  The question is whether they would do any good before everyone had already either fled or been shot in the first wave of shooting.

That's a good question. The 'standard' response for civilians is 'run, hide, fight'.  Escape if you can, take shelter if you can't escape, fight back if you have no other choice.

As a 'non-cop' I have no obligation to 'protect and defend' anyone. How willing I would be to put myself in danger in a situation like that has a lot of 'depends'. Who is in danger? What tools do I have? What options do I have to escape? What kind of threat (how many, what kind of weapons, what sort of behavior) is being presented. 

As a 'for instance', if I'm in the hangar, and I hear shots coming from the lobby, and I know where a gun is in a gear bag (generally, unsecured in a gear bag is a really bad idea) or a car or something, I would likely go for it, keeping an eye on the door to the lobby. Presuming I can get to the gun before the shooter appears, I would then either take cover/concealment or escape from the hangar. Depends on who is still in there, what kind of cover I can get to, how far the door is, what kind of noise is coming from the area being shot up, and on and on. 

In a 'building situation', getting out is the best choice. Hiding in a room is next. If that's what ends up, barricading the door, hiding in a closet or behind furniture, having most of the people hide in one area while anyone with a weapon takes up a position covering the door, and on and on.

 

I remember the VA Tech shooting had a situation like this. A professor held the door closed against the gunman, at the cost of his life when the shooter opened fire through the door. 

There have been other 'hiding in a room and could have ambushed the shooter if we had been armed' situations. 

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The person doing the shooting will carry the gun in regardless of whether or not it's a "possession prohibited' area or not. 
AFAIK, school property is prohibited property for everyone except police in most states (in Wisconsin, even having a cased firearm locked in your car in a school parking lot is a felony). 

 

I also doubt it would be a deterrent. The shooter in those situations is not thinking rationally or logically. They're going to go to work/school/wherever and pull out their gun and shoot everyone they can. Typically they have a few 'specific targets', but often times they just want to go out in a 'blaze of gunfire'. Many either expect to be killed or plan on committing suicide.

I've had this conversation a few times (AggieDave on here maybe?). Balancing the prevalence of carry permits with the actual frequency that they are utilized, I would make a guess (and it's mostly that) that there's somewhere between a 25% and 50% chance that there's a concealed firearm on someone in the immediate area anytime you are out in public (and in a 'carry permitted' area). Posted prohibited areas are going to see a lower number (although not zero) , depending on the consequences for getting caught. Most private 'prohibited' areas will just make you leave. Public areas will see stronger consequences, depending on the circumstances (helpful hint: Don't get caught with a gun in a school, court house or police station). 

That's a good question. The 'standard' response for civilians is 'run, hide, fight'.  Escape if you can, take shelter if you can't escape, fight back if you have no other choice.

As a 'non-cop' I have no obligation to 'protect and defend' anyone. How willing I would be to put myself in danger in a situation like that has a lot of 'depends'. Who is in danger? What tools do I have? What options do I have to escape? What kind of threat (how many, what kind of weapons, what sort of behavior) is being presented. 

As a 'for instance', if I'm in the hangar, and I hear shots coming from the lobby, and I know where a gun is in a gear bag (generally, unsecured in a gear bag is a really bad idea) or a car or something, I would likely go for it, keeping an eye on the door to the lobby. Presuming I can get to the gun before the shooter appears, I would then either take cover/concealment or escape from the hangar. Depends on who is still in there, what kind of cover I can get to, how far the door is, what kind of noise is coming from the area being shot up, and on and on. 

In a 'building situation', getting out is the best choice. Hiding in a room is next. If that's what ends up, barricading the door, hiding in a closet or behind furniture, having most of the people hide in one area while anyone with a weapon takes up a position covering the door, and on and on.

 

I remember the VA Tech shooting had a situation like this. A professor held the door closed against the gunman, at the cost of his life when the shooter opened fire through the door. 

There have been other 'hiding in a room and could have ambushed the shooter if we had been armed' situations. 

The question then, in my mind, is "Why would you give up the right to have that protection if you could?"

Even if it is a 5% chance that you might have your weapon available?

Even if it was a 1% or fraction of that - 

Why is it OK to limit my choices because someone else is an idiot?

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by turtlespeed

[DJL 232]

20 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The question then, in my mind, is "Why would you give up the right to have that protection if you could?"

Even if it is a 5% chance that you might have your weapon available?

Even if it was a 1% or fraction of that - 

Why is it OK to limit my choices because someone else is an idiot?

 

Everyone deals with those odds every moment of their life yet chooses not to have a firearm nearby.  If that's the order of magnitude then metal detectors and trained dogs at every door.

Edited June 3, 2019 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

Everyone deals with those odds every moment of their life yet choose not to have a firearm nearby.  If that's the order magnitude then metal detectors and trained dogs at every door.

Everyone is different.  That is their right.  if you want to put a metal detector at your door - I won't be going in to be a customer of your business. <Shrug> I'm sure there are plenty of people that gun owners and concealed carry won't impact your business.

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Everyone is different.  That is their right.  if you want to put a metal detector at your door - I won't be going in to be a customer of your business. <Shrug> I'm sure there are plenty of people that gun owners and concealed carry won't impact your business.

I'm saying a place like the Va Beach Govt Building.  They don't want people to bring weapons in but you feel as if there's even a chance then why not have a gun.  But we've already established that someone can take out an entire room full of people before anyone can react so why not go to metal detectors and security?

[billvon 2,384]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The question then, in my mind, is "Why would you give up the right to have that protection if you could?"

Even if it is a 5% chance that you might have your weapon available?

Even if it was a 1% or fraction of that - 

Why is it OK to limit my choices because someone else is an idiot?

Same for - pretty much every law ever.

There's a law against drunk driving.  Why is it OK to say you can't drive your friend to the hospital to save his life just because you had two beers?  Why should your choices be limited because someone else can't hold their liquor?

There's a law against flying in most US airspace without a pilot's license.  You might be a great pilot and just never bothered to get a license.  Why is it OK to limit your choices because other people are idiots?

There's a law against practicing medicine without a license.  Again, why is it OK to restrict your choice to perform lifesaving surgery on someone just because other people can't?

All involve you losing your rights to do something, to protect other people.  Even if the law doesn't really protect people because you are a really great drunk driver/unlicensed pilot/amateur surgeon.

 

[Coreece 189]

7 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

Thanks

[airdvr 197]

So what's the answer?  How do you restrict access to people with mental problems?  This guy doesn't really fit any category of mental illness.  

Seems as though the media isn't concentrating on this one like they have in the past.  Perhaps the gunman doesn't fit the typical white male conservative description?

 

 

[billvon 2,384]

24 minutes ago, airdvr said:

So what's the answer?  How do you restrict access to people with mental problems?  This guy doesn't really fit any category of mental illness.  

By giving courts better tools to disarm people with mental problems, for one thing.  Several states have passed red-flag laws that allow them to disarm people showing indications of impending violence - things like suicide threats, online threats of violence, or cruelty to animals.  It would likely not have helped in this case however.

Quote

Seems as though the media isn't concentrating on this one like they have in the past.  Perhaps the gunman doesn't fit the typical white male conservative description?

More likely they are just so frequent they're not really news any more.  There was another one a few days before; there will likely be another one next week.

[turtlespeed 212]

23 hours ago, billvon said:

Same for - pretty much every law ever.

There's a law against drunk driving. 

Why is it OK to say you can't drive your friend to the hospital to save his life just because you had two beers?  Why should your choices be limited because someone else can't hold their liquor?

>>>>>  Its not. - But there is a law we have to follow until it is otherwise.

There's a law against flying in most US airspace without a pilot's license.  You might be a great pilot and just never bothered to get a license.  Why is it OK to limit your choices because other people are idiots?

>>>>>  Its not. - But there is a law we have to follow until it is otherwise.

There's a law against practicing medicine without a license.  Again, why is it OK to restrict your choice to perform lifesaving surgery on someone just because other people can't?

>>>>>  Its not. - But there is a law we have to follow until it is otherwise.

All involve you losing your rights to do something, to protect other people.  Even if the law doesn't really protect people because you are a really great drunk driver/unlicensed pilot/amateur surgeon.

>>>>>  Its not. - But there is a law we have to follow until it is otherwise.

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

By giving courts better tools to disarm people with mental problems, for one thing.  Several states have passed red-flag laws that allow them to disarm people showing indications of impending violence - things like suicide threats, online threats of violence, or cruelty to animals.  It would likely not have helped in this case however.

More likely they are just so frequent they're not really news any more.  There was another one a few days before; there will likely be another one next week.

Are you all talking about Drunk Driving deaths?

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Seems as though the media isn't concentrating on this one like they have in the past.  Perhaps the gunman doesn't fit the typical white male conservative description?

Oh good, "thoughts and prayers" is being replaced with "Hey look, the libtards don't care unless it's a right wing nutjob".

[wmw999 2,116]

There was a good editorial in last Sunday’s NY Times by Gregory Gibson. It’s behind a paywall, but you can read the first little bit here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/opinion/sunday/shooting-laws-guns.html

The author is the father of a college student killed in 1992 in a very early “whack job shoots up a school” scenario. Only a couple of fatalities, including his son. 

Anyway, after plenty of gun control activism, he decided to get one, and learn from the inside what they’re about. He enjoys shooting, has found (and bought) the gun of his dreams, and said that he understands a whole long better now how complicated this is, what with the differences between rural and urban America, the huge installed base (why, it’s like the NRA tried to make it harder ). 

So anyone with access who actually wants an independent viewpoint, there’s one to be had there. 

Those who don’t, well, whatever

Wendy P. 

[yoink 321]

23 hours ago, Coreece said:

Thanks

Would you willingly accept ANY change that limited your rights to own and use a gun in some way? 

Edited June 4, 2019 by yoink

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, yoink said:

Would you willingly accept ANY change that limited your rights to own and use a gun in some way? 

I know you didn't address this to me, but...

 

That depends. Would the 'change that limited rights' have any real effects?

 

The problem with most (all?) of the proposals so far is that they limit the rights of those who don't break the laws while having little or no effect on the ones who commit these acts.

They fall under the "Do something, do anything!!! Make me feel safer!!" type of action. Very similar to the TSA making everyone remove their shoes, it's usually "security theater".

 

Australia did a pretty good job of stopping these kinds of attacks (maybe*). They took away almost all of the guns. But they had a fairly small population and the guns were all registered with the government, so they knew exactly who had what.
As I posted before, that sort of solution would have a very hard time of it in the US. The destruction of a variety of other civil rights that would have to happen in the process would get ugly.  New Orleans in the wake of Katrina is a pretty clear example of this. Search house to house. Beat up little old ladies who had a revolver to keep the looters out. Ignore pretty much the entire 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. Because of an 'emergency'.

 

* - I say 'maybe' because Australia took the extreme measure of banning virtually all repeating firearms in the wake of a single shooting incident. It was the first one in their history. Would they have had another one had they not banned the guns? Perhaps. 

[Coreece 189]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Quote

Seems as though the media isn't concentrating on this one like they have in the past.  Perhaps the gunman doesn't fit the typical white male conservative description?

More likely they are just so frequent they're not really news any more.  There was another one a few days before; there will likely be another one next week.

Shootings like the last one in Virginia Beach don't happen as often as that.  Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there were 150 mass shootings so far this year, but about half of those didn't have any fatalities - and that's why you don't hear about them in the news.

[Coreece 189]

7 hours ago, yoink said:

Would you willingly accept ANY change that limited your rights to own and use a gun in some way? 

Like what?  I wouldn't just accept ANY change just for the sake doing something and/or sticking it to the conservatives.

Unless you're talking about an outright ban/confiscation, then I don't really see any change that would limit my rights anymore than I already do myself, but that doesn't mean I should impose that standard on everyone else.