Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chichaldo)
    In my ideal world I would have a complete ban, disadvatages far outweigh the advantages imo
    If you are imagining an ideal world, why not just imagine one with no crime instead?

    Fact is - that's not going to happen. You can only deal with what is realistic and possible.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    What exactly to you mean by 'gun laws'?
    If you mean tighter restrictions on the type you can own and for whom can own them i find few people tend to object to these
    If on the other hand you mean a unilateral ban [or near enough] on all types of fire arm probably because quite a few people need them for their livelihoods, sport, entertainment.

    Its also worth bearing in mind that half of the americans who rattle on about guns being a universal right are terrified of the government suddenly deciding to turn the place into a police state so need their guns for the coming revolution - which is ironic considering most of them also preach the sanctity of law enforcement etc.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    This number of weapons cannot be simply removed. It's impossible. The closest analogue I can think of would be getting rid of the NHS. There would be widespread civil disorder, violence and the fall of the government.
    There are other ways of getting rid of guns beyond just saying "we want all the guns back" and going door to door. Admittedly some of them could end up rather time consuming and expensive, but it's not completely beyond feasible over a reasonable course of time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    This is the biggest problem with the debate. Too many people are virtue signalling and doing the usual thing of conflating anyone who disagrees with them with a whole bunch of negatives.
    Not really sure which bit of my post you're referring to here?

    I am personally indifferent to guns. If handguns were legal in Britain again, I very much doubt I would seek to own one.

    However, this is completely different from believing that there is a brainlessly simple solution to gun violence in the US - which in true political fashion is the suggestion. The suggestions from celebrity and concerned parties that there is a simple solution to this is utterly moronic.

    This number of weapons cannot be simply removed. It's impossible. The closest analogue I can think of would be getting rid of the NHS. There would be widespread civil disorder, violence and the fall of the government.
    I haven't said the simple solution is to get rid of all firearms. However, most of the pro-gun lobby oppose any tightening of firearms legislation and most of their arguments are at best disingenuous and at worst downright illogical. The US certainly couldn't impose strict controls overnight, but they could at least start recording and licensing guns with a view to reducing the number in circulation gradually.

    Funnily enough, if handguns were legal here I'd probably buy one. However, I'm more than happy to give up the ability to own one in return for virtually everyone else to be unable to have them too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    There are other ways of getting rid of guns beyond just saying "we want all the guns back" and going door to door. Admittedly some of them could end up rather time consuming and expensive, but it's not completely beyond feasible over a reasonable course of time.
    For example?

    There are people all over the place making a lot of noise and crying a lot and making all sorts of demands and accusations -but I have not heard a single practical suggestion.

    The Australians tried purchasing guns back. It cost millions and they only got a fraction of the firearms held by people - that policy has to be looked at as a failure.

    I think it might eventually be possible to make the US a non-firearms society very gradually over a long period of time - I'm thinking maybe 200 years, which isn't far off the current age of the United States. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that in 200 years, firearms as we know them would be defunct in any case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)

    I haven't said the simple solution is to get rid of all firearms. However, most of the pro-gun lobby oppose any tightening of firearms legislation and most of their arguments are at best disingenuous and at worst downright illogical. The US certainly couldn't impose strict controls overnight, but they could at least start recording and licensing guns with a view to reducing the number in circulation gradually.
    In practical terms - what are you actually suggesting? Pretty much not a single suggestion I have heard or read goes any way to preventing mass shootings - which is apparently the objective. All the crying and wailing and tub thumping in the media is apparently about "saving children". Well - no one has tabled a single suggestion that would accomplish that, except those that want an outright ban on all firearms.

    What would have prevented the Florida school shooting? A ban on semi-automatic rifles? I doubt it. Surely the shooter would have just used a pistol.

    What would have prevented the shooting would have been more competent policing by the FBI - which is not a matter of gun control.



    Funnily enough, if handguns were legal here I'd probably buy one. However, I'm more than happy to give up the ability to own one in return for virtually everyone else to be unable to have them too.
    I'm not sure what this means? You're pro-gun? Or indifferent to them?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    In practical terms - what are you actually suggesting? Pretty much not a single suggestion I have heard or read goes any way to preventing mass shootings - which is apparently the objective. All the crying and wailing and tub thumping in the media is apparently about "saving children". Well - no one has tabled a single suggestion that would accomplish that, except those that want an outright ban on all firearms.

    What would have prevented the Florida school shooting? A ban on semi-automatic rifles? I doubt it. Surely the shooter would have just used a pistol.

    What would have prevented the shooting would have been more competent policing by the FBI - which is not a matter of gun control.
    I don't claim to have the answers. That doesn't make it unreasonable for me to point out fundamental flaws used in arguments against (or indeed for) gun control.

    If I had to formulate a plan, it would be for a phased reduction in gun ownership. Start off by registering all changes in ownership and building up a comprehensive picture of privately held firearms. Limit the number of firearms that can be held (weapons held as a collection can be deactivated, possibly temporarily, e.g. by having the firing pins held by a local gun dealer). Institute laws on storing firearms in locked safes with the ammunition separately locked. Get away from the notion that firearms should be held for self-defence (with possible exceptions for areas which are particularly remote or have dangerous wild animals in the vicinity). Change the law so that firearms can only be carried in public for a specific reason, such as travelling to a gun range. Repeal the second amendment and replace it with something that explicitly reserves the right to bear arms to organised, state militias (i.e. the National Guard). Make firearms laws federal, so there isn't the wide variation in laws depending on which state you're in.

    I'm sure there are holes that can be picked in that, but fundamentally my approach would be to transition from the current position, where being surrounded by firearms is entirely normal, to a situation more like that in the UK where firearms are available when needed but are safely secured when not. I'm not naive enough to think there's a magical solution, but to resist gun control legislation on the basis of 'muh constitutional rights' or 'freedom' is to tacitly agree that dead schoolchildren is a price worth paying to allow people to play with guns.

    I'm not sure what this means? You're pro-gun? Or indifferent to them?
    Indifferent. I enjoy shooting and I appreciate the engineering that goes into making firearms. However, I also enjoy not being shot at so I'm quite happy for restrictions on who can have access to firearms, and when.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    It's a cultural/societal issue, in my view - most of us are based in countries with rigid gun laws, and can see the benefits to them as a result. Those beliefs are compounded by the similar views of those around as, reinforcing them. Contrastingly, the USA has had the opposite in place, with support for the notion that owning a gun can increase personal security instead of putting it at risk.

    There does seem to be a slow drive towards more support of gun control, but it will take time before it gets to the point of actually being put into practise, unfortunately.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    For example?

    There are people all over the place making a lot of noise and crying a lot and making all sorts of demands and accusations -but I have not heard a single practical suggestion.
    Well as you've sort of mentioned the whole society around guns in America is pretty much ****ed, so you need to go about dismantling that first. In a similar way to what was done with smoking, way back when it was considered cool, these days even most school kids by and large think you're a bit of a loser if you smoke.

    Now I'm not a sociologist/psychologist so I'm not really qualified to make suggestions as to how this would most effectively be done. I imagine by trying to one by one breaking the bonds between the images of freedom, manhood etc that guns currently portray. Essentially spamming out anti-gun propaganda, forcing gun shops to display statistics of school shootings, of gang warfare, hell, even pictures showing gunshot wounds, images of mass shootings where no privately own gun stopped them. Even go so far as to promote something like bow hunting, make it clear that's a "man's sport" and anyone resorting to a gun is just a weakened wuss.

    As for what could practically be done now to stop some of the gun crime, as you mention restricting guns doesn't necessarily solve much. You can get/make bump stocks for rifles, get high capacity magazines for pistols etc, and as I said in a previous post, the restrictions on things such as sawn offs and silencers is completely nonsensical, as they're the two things that are best for home defence. The common denominator with all this though is the amount of ammo people have access to, and I think that's where the restrictions need to be. If you want to have a few loaded magazines in your bedside table next to your pistol then w/e, you're probably more likely to be shot by it anyway, but very, very few people have need for any more than that. Force people to buy any ammo they want to shoot at a range at that range. If people want to go hunting, then sure, let people buy more, but only suitable ammunition, with licence applications, only in hunting season etc. If they need to resupply the small stock they have at home, force people to provide either spent shells, or even better a police report on the incident which required them to fire their gun.

    It's estimated the Las Vegas shooter fired over 1,000 rounds. No-one has need for that much ammunition.

    Oh, and one other thing, force people to actually take lessons on how to use their gun, how to care for it, precautions to take, what you can and can't expect to do with it. A car is essentially a deadly weapon and you need to show competence to use it, but you can pick up a gun with virtually no clue. Sure, this won't change the criminals having them, but at least it might reduce the accidental shootings by toddlers, people might have a bit more respect for guns in general, and this armed populace America is so proud of having might actually be able to do something, rather than just being a bunch of deadly bumbling monkeys who couldn't hit the ground their standing on... No honest gun loving American should be against being better with their gun.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Well as you've sort of mentioned the whole society around guns in America is pretty much ****ed, so you need to go about dismantling that first. In a similar way to what was done with smoking, way back when it was considered cool, these days even most school kids by and large think you're a bit of a loser if you smoke.

    Now I'm not a sociologist/psychologist so I'm not really qualified to make suggestions as to how this would most effectively be done. I imagine by trying to one by one breaking the bonds between the images of freedom, manhood etc that guns currently portray. Essentially spamming out anti-gun propaganda, forcing gun shops to display statistics of school shootings, of gang warfare, hell, even pictures showing gunshot wounds, images of mass shootings where no privately own gun stopped them. Even go so far as to promote something like bow hunting, make it clear that's a "man's sport" and anyone resorting to a gun is just a weakened wuss.

    As for what could practically be done now to stop some of the gun crime, as you mention restricting guns doesn't necessarily solve much. You can get/make bump stocks for rifles, get high capacity magazines for pistols etc, and as I said in a previous post, the restrictions on things such as sawn offs and silencers is completely nonsensical, as they're the two things that are best for home defence. The common denominator with all this though is the amount of ammo people have access to, and I think that's where the restrictions need to be. If you want to have a few loaded magazines in your bedside table next to your pistol then w/e, you're probably more likely to be shot by it anyway, but very, very few people have need for any more than that. Force people to buy any ammo they want to shoot at a range at that range. If people want to go hunting, then sure, let people buy more, but only suitable ammunition, with licence applications, only in hunting season etc. If they need to resupply the small stock they have at home, force people to provide either spent shells, or even better a police report on the incident which required them to fire their gun.

    It's estimated the Las Vegas shooter fired over 1,000 rounds. No-one has need for that much ammunition.

    Oh, and one other thing, force people to actually take lessons on how to use their gun, how to care for it, precautions to take, what you can and can't expect to do with it. A car is essentially a deadly weapon and you need to show competence to use it, but you can pick up a gun with virtually no clue. Sure, this won't change the criminals having them, but at least it might reduce the accidental shootings by toddlers, people might have a bit more respect for guns in general, and this armed populace America is so proud of having might actually be able to do something, rather than just being a bunch of deadly bumbling monkeys who couldn't hit the ground their standing on... No honest gun loving American should be against being better with their gun.
    Some good points - I agree entirely that some kind of competency test for gun ownership would be desirable - however I'm not actually sure what form that takes and how it would be implemented. It's not at all clear that this would prevent any shootings. Being insane and using weapons with murderous intent is different from handling weapons safely. I also don't know how this would manifest itself. Would only licensed people be allowed to use weapons in self-defence?

    Ammunition quantity is a good point, but completely impractical. Ammunition is by its very nature a consumable. It wouldn't be possible to know how much a person is stockpiling or shooting, and restrictions on purchase would essentially be a restriction on activity. Let's just say a person is only allowed to purchase 50 rounds per month. What if the person has three guns in different calibres?

    As for buying at the range - you can immediately see the scope for abuse. You'd be creating a monopoly - and ranges could charge whatever they like for ammuntion. Huge numbers of people "plink" or shoot outdoors on their own land. How would they purchase ammunition for this?

    The elephant in this particular room would of course be handloading. Can't police that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Having given it some thought - these would be my suggestions:

    1. 5% Federal tax on ammunition
    2. Tax on guns starting at 0% for first gun in certain categories for self-defence / agricultural guns with low capacity - rising to 15% on subsequent high capacity weapons
    3. Proceeds to go part way to paying for guards at schools / increased school police (admittedly it won't go far)
    4. Heads roll at FBI
    5. Move responsibility for spree killers to Homeland Security and access to whole Federal Budget for domestic terrorism. Give spree killers same priority as "other" terrorism.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Some good points - I agree entirely that some kind of competency test for gun ownership would be desirable - however I'm not actually sure what form that takes and how it would be implemented. It's not at all clear that this would prevent any shootings. Being insane and using weapons with murderous intent is different from handling weapons safely. I also don't know how this would manifest itself. Would only licensed people be allowed to use weapons in self-defence?

    Ammunition quantity is a good point, but completely impractical. Ammunition is by its very nature a consumable. It wouldn't be possible to know how much a person is stockpiling or shooting, and restrictions on purchase would essentially be a restriction on activity. Let's just say a person is only allowed to purchase 50 rounds per month. What if the person has three guns in different calibres?

    As for buying at the range - you can immediately see the scope for abuse. You'd be creating a monopoly - and ranges could charge whatever they like for ammuntion. Huge numbers of people "plink" or shoot outdoors on their own land. How would they purchase ammunition for this?

    The elephant in this particular room would of course be handloading. Can't police that.
    I don't think a competency test would be hard. Day at a range showing basic principles, day in a classroom showing basic maintenance and maybe a bit of a slideshow like they have to scare people out of drink driving that shows what happens to people who don't use their guns responsibly. Sure, it might not stop mass shootings, but it will hopefully stop idiots dying for YouTube videos or because their toddler got hold of it. Show them that the AR15 or 44 Magnum they're eyeing at the local gun shop really isn't good for home defence, and encourage them to buy a nice sensible Glock. If they want to feel like G.I.Joe then they can deck it out with a sensible and practical silencer, tactical light and have a weapon that's actually good for home defence, but won't be of as much use for their teenage kid to go on a rampage with.

    With ammunition, as mentioned, require some form of proof that the ammunition they had has been legally spent and that they require more. If they have different gun calibers then it's their choice as to which they want more ammunition for. Healthy competition should take care of prices at ranges, I could see plenty of places that would do package deals etc. If it really doesn't work then have government set prices.

    Plinking just shouldn't be allowed, simples. If you want to practise on your land, register as a range (with appropriate paperwork, safety checks on your setup etc), if you own a smallholding and require shooting for pest control or whatever then there should be a suitable license. Some states don't allow fireworks on private land, god knows why firing a deadly weapon in an uncontrolled environment is considered acceptable.

    And yes, you can always hand load, but you still have to get the casings/bullets from somewhere. I don't know if you've ever hand-loaded ammunition. I have and I started to get bored after a few of dozen. Could you imagine doing over 1,000?

    Yes, is someone was determined enough to carry out a mass shooting they could fill in all the suitable paperwork to have a range, a high caliber rifle, lots of ammunition, but I'm amazed how much the thought of paperwork puts people off an idea. Mentioning silencers again (I've always liked them) to me they should be the number 1 accessory on any home defence weapon, yet virtually no-one has one because you need to fill a form out and wait a few months...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I don't think a competency test would be hard. Day at a range showing basic principles, day in a classroom showing basic maintenance and maybe a bit of a slideshow like they have to scare people out of drink driving that shows what happens to people who don't use their guns responsibly. Sure, it might not stop mass shootings, but it will hopefully stop idiots dying for YouTube videos or because their toddler got hold of it. Show them that the AR15 or 44 Magnum they're eyeing at the local gun shop really isn't good for home defence, and encourage them to buy a nice sensible Glock. If they want to feel like G.I.Joe then they can deck it out with a sensible and practical silencer, tactical light and have a weapon that's actually good for home defence, but won't be of as much use for their teenage kid to go on a rampage with.

    With ammunition, as mentioned, require some form of proof that the ammunition they had has been legally spent and that they require more. If they have different gun calibers then it's their choice as to which they want more ammunition for. Healthy competition should take care of prices at ranges, I could see plenty of places that would do package deals etc. If it really doesn't work then have government set prices.

    Plinking just shouldn't be allowed, simples. If you want to practise on your land, register as a range (with appropriate paperwork, safety checks on your setup etc), if you own a smallholding and require shooting for pest control or whatever then there should be a suitable license. Some states don't allow fireworks on private land, god knows why firing a deadly weapon in an uncontrolled environment is considered acceptable.

    And yes, you can always hand load, but you still have to get the casings/bullets from somewhere. I don't know if you've ever hand-loaded ammunition. I have and I started to get bored after a few of dozen. Could you imagine doing over 1,000?

    Yes, is someone was determined enough to carry out a mass shooting they could fill in all the suitable paperwork to have a range, a high caliber rifle, lots of ammunition, but I'm amazed how much the thought of paperwork puts people off an idea. Mentioning silencers again (I've always liked them) to me they should be the number 1 accessory on any home defence weapon, yet virtually no-one has one because you need to fill a form out and wait a few months...
    I can't disagree with anything you've said.

    This is the problem.

    None of these measures prevent spree shootings.

    First - there's nothing to suggest a spree killer wouldn't pass a competency test.

    Second - how many rounds does a spree killer need? Not thousands. Probably not even hundreds.

    Third - encouraging people away from impractical weapons toward practical ones is encouraging the toward spree killing weapons. I find it much more likely that a school shooter would use a weapon like a Glock or a Sig rather than a carbine or a large calibre revolver.

    Also - all this is within the realms of fundamentally changing law- with no reason to believe it would prevent the acts its intended to.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    I can't disagree with anything you've said.

    This is the problem.

    None of these measures prevent spree shootings.

    First - there's nothing to suggest a spree killer wouldn't pass a competency test.

    Second - how many rounds does a spree killer need? Not thousands. Probably not even hundreds.

    Third - encouraging people away from impractical weapons toward practical ones is encouraging the toward spree killing weapons. I find it much more likely that a school shooter would use a weapon like a Glock or a Sig rather than a carbine or a large calibre revolver.

    Also - all this is within the realms of fundamentally changing law- with no reason to believe it would prevent the acts its intended to.
    Yes, an adult spree killer would likely pass a competency test. Quite often though spree killers don't use guns in their name, but in their parents etc. Maybe if those parents were forced to take a competency test, their guns wouldn't be in places accessible by their teenage children.

    Most spree killers were found with hundreds, if not thousands of rounds. The Las Vegas shooting involved the active firing of over 1,000 rounds. I don't know how many were actually fired at Sandy Hook, but the guy had enough assault rifle magazines to hold well into the hundreds.

    Killing spree weapons are largely assault rifles. These aren't practical weapons. Glocks normally have sub 20 round magazines, so you kill at max 20 people then get floored, rather than having a large enough magazine to clear a room then reload whilst you move onto the next. They are also less accurate than assault rifles.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I don't understand it. If people have less access to weapons, there is going to be fewer attacks with that weapon. Austrailia before their ban had high gun attack rates, but they have dropped dramatically afterward. It shouldn't be this easy to buy something that could kill so many.
    Because the state has guns.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I don't understand it. If people have less access to weapons, there is going to be fewer attacks with that weapon. Austrailia before their ban had high gun attack rates, but they have dropped dramatically afterward. It shouldn't be this easy to buy something that could kill so many.
    Most crime is committed with guns that are illegally possessed

    Because something works in one country that doesn’t mean it’ll work in another; many states in the US that have abolished the death penalty have seen murder rates drop yet the murder rate has been rising in several Central and South American countries that also abolished the death penalty.

    A car is capable of killing just as many people as a gun and is even easier to buy.

    You're applying the same false argument as every other opponent of the 2nd amendment: claiming that there are people who are opposed to 'gun laws' or, more commonly, 'gun control', I don't think you could find a single sane person who is opposed to gun laws.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I don't understand it. If people have less access to weapons, there is going to be fewer attacks with that weapon. Austrailia before their ban had high gun attack rates, but they have dropped dramatically afterward. It shouldn't be this easy to buy something that could kill so many.
    Because of an economical interest.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    School shooters do exactly this. They walk through schools shooting people. Why would it be more difficult with a knife than with a gun?
    So are you saying the military should just use knives rather than wasting money on firearms?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Most crime is committed with guns that are illegally possessed

    Because something works in one country that doesn’t mean it’ll work in another; many states in the US that have abolished the death penalty have seen murder rates drop yet the murder rate has been rising in several Central and South American countries that also abolished the death penalty.

    A car is capable of killing just as many people as a gun and is even easier to buy.

    You're applying the same false argument as every other opponent of the 2nd amendment: claiming that there are people who are opposed to 'gun laws' or, more commonly, 'gun control', I don't think you could find a single sane person who is opposed to gun laws.
    Except there is a clear need for motor vehicles, especially in America where public transport is rather poor. There is absolutely no reason at all why anyone would ever need an Assault Rifle.

    Also when it comes to cars, there isn't a powerful car lobby that fights car safety laws tooth and nail. We don't have people complaining that their rights are being curtailed when there are restrictions on the speed you can go, or on whether you can drive drunk or imposing laws on seatbelts, for instance.

    I could maybe, maybe understand people having a pistol which they kept at their home or maybe even used for recreational activities - with a license.

    But the idea that anyone needs or should have an assault rifle is mad.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Except there is a clear need for motor vehicles, especially in America where public transport is rather poor. There is absolutely no reason at all why anyone would ever need an Assault Rifle.

    Also when it comes to cars, there isn't a powerful car lobby that fights car safety laws tooth and nail. We don't have people complaining that their rights are being curtailed when there are restrictions on the speed you can go, or on whether you can drive drunk or imposing laws on seatbelts, for instance.

    I could maybe, maybe understand people having a pistol which they kept at their home or maybe even used for recreational activities - with a license.

    But the idea that anyone needs or should have an assault rifle is mad.
    Well to suggest a gun has no other purpose than to shoot your classmates or any innocent people for that matter is ridiculous. Guns have uses beyond killing people. Besides, the point I was responding to was that you shouldn’t be able to get something that can kill so many people so easily, the overall utility wasn’t mentioned.

    Can you clarify what you mean by ‘assault rifle’, it’s quite a vague term that I suspect is used to make people have particular thoughts about the weapon. The real meaning of assault rifle is a selective fire rifle which is, of course, illegal in the US for virtually all civilians (unless you’re rich and can afford an automatic weapon registered before the ban).

    In 2016 General Motors spent $8.5m lobbying and the Alliance of Automobile Manufactures spent nearly $7.5m whilst the NRA spent just over $3m so that’s wrong; the car industry spends far more lobbying than the gun industry.

    What difference would it make if people had a pistol instead of a rifle? The overwhelming majority of murders and ‘mass shootings’ are carried out using semi automatic pistols. Add to that you can buy high capacity pistol magazines
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.