|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 15, 2021, 01:33 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2020
Posts: 1,177
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2021, 01:48 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2006
Posts: 626
|
I suppose if we executed every person that eats junk food, we could significantly decrease obesity and heart disease. Think of how many lives could be saved that way.
I appreciate a good debate, but trying to use logic to win an emotional battle is just as effective as using a fishing net to catch rain water. |
April 15, 2021, 02:10 PM | #53 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Quote:
We need to be prepared when those people ask why we are opposed to gun control. "Because I like guns" is not a good answer. We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
April 15, 2021, 02:23 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2006
Posts: 626
|
I agree. I think we already make a good case for those capable of being persuaded, and we should continue to do so.
That said, in the age of social media and hashtag activism, emotion rules. Exploring wild theoretical ideas in an effort to appease the angst of the ignorant is a waste of time. |
April 15, 2021, 03:21 PM | #55 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,795
|
There is another solution, besides executing "gun criminals" or total banning of firearms, but it is also unacceptable to the public in general.
That "solution" would be a simple complete "hands off" by the legal system of the people who SHOOT BACK! It would be messy, it would be, for a time, bloody, and yes many innocent people would suffer (but aren't they suffering today??) But consider this, that over time, if it were allowed (let alone encouraged) bad guys would learn that if they went out shooting people for fun or profit, someone would shoot them. Not try and arrest them, just shoot them dead. Maybe shoot them in the back, or from cover, or...?? Maybe multiple someones would shoot them.... And THEN call the police to "police up the body"... It would be bad, nd the streets would run with blood...for a time AFTER that, I think we'd see a lot less of gun violence or any other kind. Can't do it today, but it did work in the past, and there's even evidence it would work today, if we, as a people, were willing to pay the cost. Consider that the majority of the killers are not willing or interested in doing their killing where people are armed and could shoot back. (death seeking jihadiists are a different matter) After Florida passed its "shall issue" carry permit laws, there was an interesting change in the crime rate. Crimes against Florida residents decreased, crimes against tourists went up. Seems the bad guys were watching people's license plates and could be sure that out of state plates meant the people were unlikely to be armed, while Florida plates meant they couldn't be sure... These people, overwhelmingly target people they believe cannot defend themselves. If we change that, we change everything.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 15, 2021, 09:39 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,687
|
Aguila said: "We need to be prepared when those people ask why we are opposed to gun control. "Because I like guns" is not a good answer. We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools."
OK. Let's come full circle. I started this post with a two-pronged suggestion regarding gun control because that was the focus of those who oppose guns. I was eventually criticized for focusing on guns as an argument against "violence," yet your post above says NOTHING about anything but guns when that issue of control is raised. Which direction should we go? |
April 15, 2021, 11:51 PM | #57 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
April 16, 2021, 07:02 AM | #58 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2020
Posts: 1,177
|
Quote:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s.../violent-crime Quote:
Last edited by ghbucky; April 16, 2021 at 07:07 AM. |
||
April 16, 2021, 01:58 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,687
|
Aguila said: "You really can't see that I'm talking about the people who commit the acts, rather than about the tools they use?"
Yes, I certainly understand the position taken. My #2 suggestion specifically dealt with the people, and not the tool, who commit the singular cause of violence that is constantly debated.. Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs? That is the dilemma providing an escape from the resolution. |
April 16, 2021, 02:40 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 632
|
Quote:
Something like this: The minority report (2002) Or.... a system of surveillance and "social credit" like they have in China nowadays: China's social credit system By the way, I don't think your option #2) would work for this: Today's FedEx shooting in Indianapolis or https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/04/s...-shooting.html or https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-murder-s...ders/10490396/ In previous posts I said that regardless of what option 1) does in relation to "gun violence", I do not think it would reduce violence in general which is what Aguila, 44AMP and others have been saying is the real issue. So maybe we have to accept that in a free society, some will abuse and misuse their freedoms and it is up to US to protect ourselves from such folk... unless we want to live in a "big brother" kind of directed society. We don't want to live in the HIVE, do we?
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization. Last edited by Pistoler0; April 16, 2021 at 02:56 PM. |
|
April 16, 2021, 03:41 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,447
|
Quote:
You can take guesses about the identity of potential criminals, and for much of our history we did that. POs engaged in profiling. Many places had vagrancy laws. In some places, POs provided "wood shampoos" to people who did look as if they belonged. Students of use of force by the state generally regard those acts as police misconduct. While you can't resolve the human condition by guessing who will engage in illicit violence, you can very easily constrict the sphere of freedom in which people legitimately act. To the degree that we want to discourage illicit use of force and encourage or protect legitimates uses of force, we already have more than enough laws. While it may be your intent to offer a reductio ad absurdum to highlight the absurdity of more moderate forms of your proposals, I am not sure that advocates of those moderated measures would see the absurdity of the principles involved.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 16, 2021, 03:42 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,289
|
Regarding opposition to violence, I agree in principle. However,
The number of mass shootings, rampage killing sprees with firearms with high capacity magazines, has increased dramatically in the past years. Something in these evil people tells them to use a firearm. Likewise, something tells other sorts of evil people to use a bomb. We don’t have a lot of bombings in this country, although I have personal experience with one about 50 years ago. Bombs are illegal. Machine guns are highly regulated by the NFA because of street shootouts by prohibition era gangsters. The body count in those days was shy many of the individual shootings we have now. There have not been any crimes committed by fully automatic weapons in this country for... ages. Apparently regulating machine guns was effective. As for “old west” justice, all is fine with that if you accept the number of innocent people killed and lynched by mobs. Mob rule and vigilantism are not justice or order, it’s chaos. The original intent of the second amendment was to have an armed populace to discourage or defend against invasion by the British. One can argue that the Southern States demanded the second amendment for their local militias to hold down any slave rebellions, a valid point, historically. Well, any well regulated militia now needs air power, artillery, surface to air missiles, automatic weapons, etc. etc. We generally accept those items to be highly regulated. For me, the big mistake of the Brady Bill was attacking cosmetic features of firearms that made no difference. Regulating high capacity removable magazines does impact the mass lethality of firearms. That’s why people buy them. Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Lots of bullets kill lots of people. There are many problems right now. It’s too bad we can’t try to find reasonable compromises. If I was king, I would regulate high capacity magazines but trade you an eased regulation for suppressors on single action firearms and bolt action rifles. Good thing I’m not king, huh?
__________________
My book "The Pheasant Hunter's Action Adventure Cookbook" is now on Amazon. Tall tales, hunting tips, butchering from bird to the freezer, and recipes. |
April 16, 2021, 04:04 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 632
|
Quote:
I submit to you that is not only high capacity magazines, but all weapons that are lethal and that that's why people buy them. May I humbly remind you that the biggest mass murder in US history was executed with box opening tools in 9/11. And bolt action rifles, Your Majesty! Of the mass murders committed with firearms, one of the deadliest was committed with a bolt action rifle, the D.C. sniper shootings (2002) where 17 were killed and 10 injured. Likewise with the 1966 University of Texas Tower shootings . Ban high capacity mags, even semi-auto firearms, and your subjects will resort back to these other highly lethal firearms. Why not ban bolt action hunting rifles too? They are highly accurate and long reaching, availing an assailant of the advantage of distance! I think that your majesty's pen should not limit itself to high capacity magazines, but include any conceivable device that could be used by your serfs to raise mayhem in thy kingdom. Learn from your cousin of the House of Windsor, Elizabeth II Queen by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, who controls and limits the access of her vassals to even air powered bb guns! Such wisdom, why give them any chances?!
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization. Last edited by Pistoler0; April 16, 2021 at 04:35 PM. |
|
April 16, 2021, 05:16 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,447
|
Quote:
I'd grant you that making one specific sort of weapon economically unattainable for most people will decrease the use of that specific weapon. That doesn't suggest a decline in violence or murder as a result. We saw well more than a half million firearms deaths from 1861 to 1865. The absence of automatic weapons during that period suggests that such weapons can't be necessary for high death rates, so even fully removing them doesn't remove a necessary precondition to the problem of violent death.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 16, 2021, 05:23 PM | #65 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
The thing is, most people function normally and the little bits inside that tell us that killing other people is bad do what they are supposed to do and, for the great majority of people, any social construct within reason allows those bits to remain functional and people, 99.9999% of people, do not and will not kill other people (Sajous-Turner, et-al, 2019). (When I speak of killing people, I am speaking of innocent people, in the normal, every day understanding of innocence. The definition of innocence on a deeper level is another topic entirely). The problem, is that other 0.0001%. Truth is, many of them would not be inclined to act out either, possibly out of fear but often out of moral compunction which tells them it is wrong even if they don't care. Having morals makes people do (or not do) things that they *really* want (or don't want) to do. For instance... a great many of us, men in particular, would... deep down inside... like to be "more promiscuous" than we are.... but our morals say no, we should not do that, and so we don't. The more "minor" we consider the moral issue at hand, or the more empathy we feel for those effected, the less likely we are to allow a differential between desire and belief to affect our behavior. So if we think cheating on our significant others is only *a little* wrong, we are more likely to override that moral voice than if we think it is REALLY wrong (Decety & Cowell, 2015). We are fools to think that any other form of moral behavior is not similar. Whether it be theft or murder or anything else. Now we have several generations of teaching that we are meaningless, random, purposeless chance in a universe that exists by meaningless, random, purposeless chance. We are taught that morality is subjective, and what is true for you is not for me. We are taught that human life, from pre-birth to old age and any that suffer in between, or are a burden to society (by whose morals?), are expendable. We are taught that if we want it, it is OK, if it feels good we should do it. Again, the majority... the great majority... of us have little bits inside that still function correctly in spite of this onslaught. We know... deep down inside... we *know* that killing people is wrong. Universally wrong, not just wrong for you or wrong for me, but *wrong*, always and at all times and in all places. Because of this, the great majority of us will not kill other people at any time, for any reason.... but, oh, that other 0.0001%. They *don't* know it, they are taught *not* to believe it, the moral compunction is erased and their little bits inside don't stop them. And then something happens to one of those people, something that *doesn't* feel good and their solution is to make other people not feel good and they have no moral compunction or empathy stopping them. Their life is meaningless and so is yours, they believe, and so they will hurt you and anyone else... because it isn't wrong, and maybe it will make them feel good. Either way, they probably expect to die or kill themselves anyway, and it doesn't matter, because it's all meaningless. Taking away guns will not stop these people and may, in fact, make it worse. In places where you can buy full-auto AKs on every street corner, they typically don't use guns.... they use bombs. Sure, they have "real" bombs, but we can't outlaw every possible source of chemical components. If they can't get guns, the killing will not stop. The killing has never stopped before guns and it will not stop after. It will just be all the more indiscriminate. The problem is not guns. The problem is us. References Jean Decety & Jason M. Cowell (2015) Empathy, Justice, and Moral Behavior, AJOB Neuroscience, 6:3, 3-14, DOI: 10.1080/21507740.2015.1047055 Sajous-Turner, A., Anderson, N. E., Widdows, M., Nyalakanti, P., Harenski, K., Harenski, C., . . . Kiehl, K. A. (2019). Aberrant brain gray matter in murderers. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 14(5), 2050-2061. doi:10.1007/s11682-019-00155-y
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 16, 2021, 05:39 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 632
|
Quote:
China with Uyghurs, Nazis with jews, people in every country regarding foreigners, invaders, illegals.... just justify your behavior by thinking that "they are not like us", or "they would do it to us" or "they deserve it" somehow..... and then override your morals and you are good to go! Because your morals don't apply to "them".
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization. |
|
April 16, 2021, 05:53 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,289
|
Try to get a box cutter on an airline these days.
The question is, why airlines? I have a vivid and twisted imagination. I can think of countless creative and destructive ways someone could do horrific violent acts. But they don’t, in this country people use high capacity magazines and semi auto firearms. Most people are not both creative, evil, and science based all at the same times. Yet it’s airlines and running in to some place and shooting it up before killing yourself. Moaning that nothing can be done is no longer effective. I don’t want your gun, I want your magazine. Keep the gun, pop a 10 round magazine in, it’s a start. Because... okay, bump stocks. Then someone goes and proves that someone will use them to mow innocent people down. Okay, phony “arm braces.” Yeah, guess what some knuckle head uses his for. Much of the country lives in an urban setting. They think meat comes from a package and eggs from a carton. But that’s the new reality.
__________________
My book "The Pheasant Hunter's Action Adventure Cookbook" is now on Amazon. Tall tales, hunting tips, butchering from bird to the freezer, and recipes. Last edited by stinkeypete; April 16, 2021 at 06:00 PM. |
April 16, 2021, 05:57 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 632
|
Quote:
And if they didn't have bolt actions, they'd use shotguns. Do you think mayhem at the supermarket would not be possible with a mossberg pump action? or with a Marlin lever action? and with no shotguns or any other firearm? then they break into your house and massacre your whole family with machetes. I don't think that "nothing can be done". But I think that the banning of a class of firearms or accessory would have a very small, if any, effect on total violent crime/homicides.
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization. Last edited by Pistoler0; April 16, 2021 at 06:09 PM. |
|
April 16, 2021, 06:02 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,289
|
Who would win, Bruce Lee or Gandalf?
Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action? Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.
__________________
My book "The Pheasant Hunter's Action Adventure Cookbook" is now on Amazon. Tall tales, hunting tips, butchering from bird to the freezer, and recipes. |
April 16, 2021, 06:15 PM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 632
|
Quote:
But if with the AR they kill 17 and with the lever action they kill 10, why not ban the lever action too? And then maybe with the mossberg they can kill 5, so why not ban it too. Do do you ban something that can kill 30 people, 17, 10, 5.... where is the magic number? Where do you draw the line? What is an acceptable level of risk?
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization. |
|
April 16, 2021, 06:22 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 632
|
Quote:
I mean, who needs a motorcycle that can go faster than say 140 mph, or a car? That is dangerous, illegal, and can definitely kill you and other people. Why not ban those? Who needs to have an attack dog? I think dogs probably kill more people every year than firearms, if I am not mistaken. There's no need for aggressive breeds such as pitbulls, rotweillers, doberman.... lets ban those too, I bet you will save more lives than with the firearms ban. And alcohol? Wine and beer are ok, but what is the purpose of absinthe liquor other than to get drunk dangerously fast? Where is the limit? Which well intended life saving ban is not reasonable?
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization. |
|
April 16, 2021, 06:39 PM | #72 | |||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,795
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One is too many, but banning lawful ownership and use of things we have a natural and constitutionally protected right to own due to the misuse of same by criminal individuals is simply the wrong answer.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||
April 16, 2021, 07:21 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2011
Posts: 667
|
Quote:
__________________
Special Operations Combat Veteran Gunsmith, BS, MFA, Competitive Shooter NRA Certified Firearms Instructor [9 Certifications] |
|
April 16, 2021, 09:05 PM | #74 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Quote:
You can't predict who is going to commit a crime, or when. But having the police do their jobs would be a start. The shooter at the Parkland High School massacre had been "known to the police" for multiple prior incidents, but they let him skate because he had a Hispanic last name and they didn't want to add him to the statistics. There was another, fairly recent incident in which the shooter was "known to the FBI" and yet he was allowed to buy a gun, and he eventually went off the deep end. And now we have the shooter at the Indianapolis FedEx -- I'm pretty sure the reports said he was known to somebody. So either some agencies need to tighten up their procedures, or some rules need to be tweaked. But more background checks aren't the answer. Look at the Las Vegas Harvest Festival shooter. He was squeaky clean. And then you have cases like the Sutherland Springs, Texas, shooter. He was supposed to be a prohibited person, but the Air Force didn't bother to report his conviction to NICS. The best background system in the world is only as good as the data you put into it. What good are background checks if the agencies tasked with supplying the data ... don't?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
April 16, 2021, 09:47 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2011
Posts: 667
|
If politicians wanted to stop shooters, they wouldn't be implementing idiotic laws, and they would be prosecuting those laws already in the books. Most mass shootings [74%] happened in gun free zones. Those that created gun free zones should be held accountable as an accessory to murder. Start holding politicians accountable!
__________________
Special Operations Combat Veteran Gunsmith, BS, MFA, Competitive Shooter NRA Certified Firearms Instructor [9 Certifications] |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|