The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 15, 2017, 10:35 PM   #26
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,241
If you say ban all semis - you are saying more than a statement on mass shootings. Also, banning such is clearly a proposal of the total gun banner segment of the body politic. You can't escape that. Your call agrees with their suggested program. How do you reconcile that?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:37 PM   #27
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
I think the scary thing about mass shootings, and the heart breaking thing, is that they happen to completely innocent people enjoying a completely innocent event. Like a lot of fatal situations can be avoided. My girlfriend and I can avoid a lot of gun crime by staying out of sketchy areas. We can avoid natural disasters by evacuating. There's been plenty of things over the years that have been regulated after they've caused casualties and been safer after.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:50 PM   #28
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,241
It seems you see no benefit of owning such weapons. Is that the case?

Do you see any benefit of alcohol? Should we ban it? I'm in danger on the roads because if its availability. I know of completely innocent people dead because of it.

What else should we ban?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:52 PM   #29
CalmerThanYou
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2017
Posts: 269
Think for just a minute Justin.

Without getting to detailed(I dislike discussing in detail how bad people or groups can take advantage of soft targets) a sick mind intent on killing innocents has many options that would produce much higher fatalities than using a firearm.

To think what could happen if the evil spend time and plan is not a pleasant thought.
CalmerThanYou is online now  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:54 PM   #30
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
Glenn,

I would say this is just a thought after reading about Australia's gun legislation and also thinking about our current situation. The thing that stands out to me is this happens because of the absolute efficiency of the firearms used.

I'd also say, I'm willing to discuss compromises too.

I think saying they'd just use bombs is interesting because bombs are highly illegal and if caught with even the materials and intent you can do hard time which is why I think we have few people making bombs.

Shooterdownunder, care to elaborate? I talked to an Australian here once that found our gun culture to be intense. He also said it was funny cause here we have all these military grade weapons and he said in Australia they'd have a "huge" bust and it'd be some bikers with a sawed off shotgun and some rusted revolvers. Hardly an armament.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 11:00 PM   #31
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
The constitution guarantees you a lot of things Justin. Rights and frredoms
It doesn't guarantee you safety.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 11:05 PM   #32
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,241
If you study the TX Tower incident, you see mass causalities. Not as many as Vegas. However, the shooter in Vegas had a bolt gun, he might have killed many. Would you ban them if the toll was 25 killed and 100 wounded? A rampage killer walks into a school class room with three 8 round revolvers. He shoots 24 kids. Should revolvers be banned?

What's your cut-off for banning?

You need to get beyond the moral panic if you want to defend your suggestion. All modern guns can be dangerous to many folks. Australia took out everything that would be useful for personal self-defense and they have no concealed carry of any sort. Is that your position?

The shooter had many rifles. If he had twenty lever action guns, say 10 round Marlins in 44 magnum, so that many were shot - would you ban these?

Cut to the chase, you oppose civilian ownership of firearms if your fear of harm is followed to its logic conclusion.

That's a legit position to discuss but cut to the chase. You don't think the reasons for firearms ownership outweigh their potential for misuse.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 15, 2017, 11:12 PM   #33
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T View Post
I live in Nevada. One of my customers had to bury her 30 year old cousin with a family cause she was at the concert and took a bullet to the brain. I just am really tired of these events and playing through the idea that could happen to my girlfriend and what it'd be like to have to live with.
She is more likely to die in a car, on a plane , heart attack, heck her doctor is something like 20 times more likely to kill her accidently than she is to die of being shot at some event.
She's more likely to die in a home invasion.
Is she carrying a gun at home to protect herself from that? If not better get her one.

This nation's full of semi autos and full of people who ain't gonna turn em in


Check out how well it has gone for NY to just get folks to register them.
Not very well.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 11:19 PM   #34
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T View Post
Glenn,

I'd also say, I'm willing to discuss compromises too.

All due respect, regardless of a few you see on forums talking about trades and deals,,,,,,,,,most gun owners in America are not willing to compromise one more inch.
If the backlash at NRA and those proposing gun control bills is any indication.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 11:35 PM   #35
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
Glenn,

I just read your very long post and your most recent one. You really seem like an intelligent and well read guy. Lots of logic and reason behind your words. I appreciate that.

I'm absolutely not for a complete ban of firearms. I mean im even for lawful conceal carry. Im for self defense, hunting and sporting. I wish our "gun culture" would chill out and be less "Wild West" and "tacticool" but ya know that's just me.

There has just got to be something we can do about this. I live in a city with casinos and this week I've looked up and just imagined gun fire coming down at my girlfriend and it makes me really sad to think about. You know all is good until it's you or yours it happens to.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 11:39 PM   #36
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
And like Tom said, saying hey I don't have the answer is ok too. If we all had all the answers we wouldn't be here.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 12:57 AM   #37
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,320
Justin,

I think it would be a mistake to ban all semi-automatic firearms. I think it would be a mistake to ban them if the only purpose for them was as a fun hobby and they had no useful purposes at all. The reason is that even if that were the only purpose for owning them, they would provide a lot of enjoyment and are still relatively safe compared to other purely recreational activities and susbtances which are not banned.

For example, alcohol consumption results in approximately 90,000 deaths every year in the U.S. but it is not banned even though the consumption of alcohol is done purely as recreation. ALL unlawful firearm deaths in the U.S. (not just those involving semi-automatics) total 11,000.

Tobacco is not banned although it results in approximately 480,000 deaths annually in the U.S. and it is purely recreational. But, you say, people who choose to use tobacco pay the consequences, not others. In fact, 41,000 people die each year in the U.S. from second hand smoke. Almost 4x more than die as the result of unlawful firearm use.

That's a fact based analysis that looks at semi-automatic firearms purely from a recreational standpoint and finds that they are less dangerous than other things that are readily tolerated, even embraced, as recreation.

And, of course, semi-automatics are not purely recreational. They are very useful for self-defense because they tend to be easier to shoot, easier to reload, and tend to have more capacity which is a tremendous benefit if facing multiple attackers.
Quote:
I think saying they'd just use bombs is interesting because bombs are highly illegal and if caught with even the materials and intent you can do hard time which is why I think we have few people making bombs.
That is incorrect. The fact is that you can legally buy the components to make explosives and can legally possess them in most places. Do an internet search on tannerite or binary explosives.

https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
"Therefore, ATF does not regulate the sale and distribution of these component chemicals, even when sold together in binary "kits." "
Besides, crazy people don't even need firearms or explosives to commit mass murder. The Nice truck attack killed and injured more than Paddock did with his rifles. Anyone with a drivers license and a credit card can rent a truck.
Quote:
There has just got to be something we can do about this.
Freedom comes with risks. Some people will misuse their freedom to do bad things. You can take away freedoms to try to reduce the risks, but it is a futile strategy because the problem is PEOPLE.

Take away firearms and people crash airplanes into buildings killing almost 3000. Restrict air travel and someone kills 96 people and injures over 400 by running a truck into a crowd. Take away guns and people release nerve gas in the subway, injuring over 5000 people. Take guns and knives and trucks away, and someone kills 87 people with a gascan and a match in a nightclub.

In fact, people are regularly killed with weapons in prisons even though ALL weapons are banned in prison.

The problem is clearly PEOPLE, not things. Restricting things is a misguided "solution" which can not hope to succeed since it does not address the actual problem.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 01:19 AM   #38
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 829
First, let me offer my condolences to you and your customer. Four friends of mine were supposed to go to that concert (I was even invited to go), but fortunately for my friends and myself, none of them ended up being able to go.

In response to your OP, I can't say I have the perfect answer to solve the problem of what to do about mass shooters like Mr. Paddock. But I don't believe adding a few more restrictions to the books is going to work, and I'll try to tell you why.

The fact is, depending on who you ask, there are anywhere between 300 and 20,000 existing gun laws on the books right now, and not one of them would've have stopped the events in Vegas. Now you say that you think we should all give up our semi-automatic rifles and pistols in some national mandatory gun buy back program (confiscation, in other words) to make our country safer. Someone already did the math, I won't repeat that here. But we are talking about billions of dollars. Just where is the government supposed to get that money? More taxes for us? Good luck with that.

Not to mention the fact that the buy back wouldn't get all of those guns. No buy back program ever has. And with literally tens of millions of semi-automatic weapons out there, it's more than likely after such a buy back there would still be tens of millions of them 'in the wild.'

I could keep going on in this vein but hopefully my point is made. More laws aren't the solution. The truth is, the government doesn't come close to enforcing all the laws that are on the books now. If they can't enforce the laws we already have, then what on God's green earth makes anyone think that they'll adequately enforce a few new ones?

And we have some pretty tough laws on the books as it is, and the government isn't taking advantage of any of them. Here a short list of some of those laws that we already have, that the government isn't enforcing at all:

(from a NRA-ILA article, "Not Enforcing Existing Gun Laws—That's a Crime")
"So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user … And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Sen. Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.

5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(a)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.

15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.
"

According to the DOJ, these laws are enforced at a rate of less than 2%. In spite of the fact that every year they come across tens of thousands of potential prosecute-able cases. The next question is obviously why? Their answer has always been that they don't have the money or the resources to follow up on these cases. So instead they try to focus on big cases or sting operations like the infamous failure, "Fast and Furious."

The bottom line, I believe, is this: everyone wants to try to make sure things like Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora don't happen again. I don't think there was any realistic way to stop Paddock, but we may have been able to stop Sandy Hook and Aurora. Using the laws that are already on the books.

It's also interesting to note that both the left and the right as well as 95% of gun owners are in favor of better enforcing existing gun laws more stringently, according to several polls conducted by both the left and the right, as well as by the NRA itself.

Of course, in order to enforce our existing laws, we'd have to get Congress to at least increase funding to the BATF, NICS, and the DOJ. Agencies that most gun owners view with a wary eye, at best.

But there seem to be other issues as well, such as the vagueness of the existing laws. How to handle the mental illness question is another. I could try to go on, but I feel I'm drifting off-course as it is. Instead I'll leave this with some links to articles that discuss these issues, by those that are not only better writers than myself, but also better informed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politi...gap/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ct-study-finds

http://www.newsweek.com/american-gun...nforced-390456
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 04:21 AM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,876
Quote:
I just want to say, I'm not pushing anyone's agenda, I'm just a guy and these were some of my thoughts. Also, again, I'm just talking about mass shootings
You say you're not pushing anyone's agenda, and yet, you bring more than a few of the anti gun bigot's wish list, practically verbatim.

You said you were a cop, tell me, is it right to punish people who have committed no crime, and broken no laws, because someone else did break laws and commit crimes??

Because that's what every one of these gun control proposals is.

Most of the points I was going to cover have already been mentioned, some, several times.

BTW, you do realize that you are part of the "gun culture" too? To some people, that makes you a ticking time bomb, just waiting to go off and murder as many people as you possibly can.

Are you?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 06:03 AM   #40
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,621
I can only answer by quoting a man much wiser than any of us today" Those who would trade Liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither." Ben Franklin Take a close look at the history of gun control in the 1900s the millions that were killed by corrupt governments. American civilians donating rifles to send to England to arm their Home Guard You will never be able to stop sick evil people from committing mass killings. There are to many tools out there for them to use and if you eliminate 1 tool they will find another type of tool to use. That is just a plain hard fact. .
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.
tony pasley is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 07:07 AM   #41
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,247
Quote:
I would say this is just a thought after reading about Australia's gun legislation and also thinking about our current situation.
I provided two links showing that Australia's gun legislation did nothing useful. Few of the "efficient" "military" weapons were actually turned in. They're still in circulation. The 1996 NFA didn't really do anything for gun crime.

You're operating on feelings, and that's a horrible impetus for major social policy, especially one that would turn thousands, if not millions, of law-abiding citizens into felons and do little to address the supposed inspiration for that policy.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 08:10 AM   #42
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,932
Justin T.,
I believe:
The reason firearms are utilized is an empowering fantasy. It creates a situation where they will be in absolute control for a period of time, at least in the fantasy. That is part of the reason any sort of challenge to the shooter usually causes them to shut down.
I am really fearful that if access to firearms is limited it will push the crazies to concentrate on other devices which can be far more devastating. I was going to send you a PM as to how UAVs could be used in some situations to much more devastating effect without any more skill or money, but you don't accept PMs or e-mails. Like another poster I won't post such ideas publicly. A well educated person spending years of their life, all of their savings, and be willing to die in the event; is very difficult to stop and could be much much worse.
ONe can still download explosive manufacturing guides on the internet.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. Second Amendment Foundation is a solid alternative.
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 09:00 AM   #43
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
I think as it stands, if the government wants to try new restrictions I certainly would not oppose it. I also understand that possibly they won't and maybe because of some of the reasons you stated that is the right move.

John W,

I find that to be a fascinating theory. I wondered myself, do you think that its possible that these crazies that do this stuff are psychologically inspired more by these "black" rifles or assault weapons or whatever you want to call them. I think it could easily be true. Compare these say to Browning BAR or Remington 750 thats seems it would be less psychologically inspiring. I certainly think fantasy has a lot to do with this.

As far as PM's go, I didnt know they were off. I'll look at my settings.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 09:18 AM   #44
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,241
Since we cannot own Browning BARs easily, that is irrelevant. There is a claim in the literature that EBRs may prime actual aggression. That is debated. There are negative findings and some of the positive findings only demonstrated short-lived responses.

We do know that gun appearance can influence juries in some circumstances. However, recall that we have had rampages with nice guns also. It is hard to separate out the effects of availability. If you could buy a BAR - why do you think that is nice?

I do have to suggest that you are just throwing out gun ban suggestions as that is your core principle.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 16, 2017, 09:24 AM   #45
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,037
Quote:
I think the scary thing about mass shootings, and the heart breaking thing, is that they happen to completely innocent people enjoying a completely innocent event.
.........

So does a drunk driver hitting a school bus.......that type of similar event happens every day

Current deaths from the fires in CA stand at 40 and will continue to climb - this was entirely preventable had folks done what was needed prior to the fire - both at the homeowner and state level - where's your outrage?

Compared to all of the other things that cause huge losses of life here and elsewhere, mass shootings are WAY down on that list. Where's your outrage about the hundreds of deaths in Chicago's ethnic neighborhoods every year? (Of course, were is the outrage from certain preachers and other groups?) Banning/confiscation of guns from law-abiding people does nothing to stop these types of events.
__________________
FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse. http://www.fitasc.com/uk/home/view
FITASC is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 09:25 AM   #46
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
I meant the BAR like the deer rifle isn't it called that? Not the ww2 gun.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 09:45 AM   #47
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,241
Justin, by now - isn't it clear that you don't know what you are talking about from an evidential base? You are just going on moral panic without reference to what is actually known about the issue.

If you want to ban and confiscate all the guns, you suggest to prevent their use, just say so and justify the costs and violations of rights that you would suspend.

You personally could start by using your own finances to buy back semi guns at an attractive price. Get your friends and neighbors to contribute. I see no reason for my tax money to contribute to your crusade. You can raise the needed billions on a Go Fund Me page.

You are correct that if all guns disappear no one would be shot. If all knives disappear, no one would be stabbed. BTW, the UK has draconian knife laws - do you support them?

The major gun violence is not from EBRs but from smaller handguns, BTW. The causality for that violence is most likely due to the destruction of opportunity for segments of our society caused by the elimination of good jobs for working class folks. Lots of literature on that. Stable economic societies eliminate the major types of violence we see here.

Again, if you only offer moral panic - you are not convincing at all.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 16, 2017, 09:51 AM   #48
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
I am really fearful that if access to firearms is limited it will push the crazies to concentrate on other devices which can be far more devastating.
Maybe we should have a waiting period for pressure cookers.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 10:13 AM   #49
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 130
Justin, while the concept of a gun free society has its attraction from a safety standpoint, you are a bit too late. If you could go back 240 years and convince our founding fathers that an armed citizenry was a bad idea you might get your wish, but having just won their liberty because of armed citizens I suspect you would have a hard time of it.

In any case, we have been an armed society for centuries now and there are currently over 300 million guns in circulation in the USA, many if not most of which are semi-automatics. Concepts are easy, but practical solutions are not. Since laws only affect law abiding citizens, attempts at banning firearms will only swing the balance of power to the non law abiding criminals, gangs, drug addicts, terrorists, fanatics, and sick people. If you can figure out a way to take all of their guns away first, I might let you have mine, but somehow I don't see them lining up at the local police station to turn in their already illegal weapons. Until then I need my guns to protect my family from them, and semi-automatics are the best protection, especially from multiple bad guys.

It is unfortunate that some people abuse their right to self-protection with firearms and hurt others, but that is not unique to guns. Banning the tool is the wrong approach. Steps in the right direction might be more efficient detection of twisted minds, better enforcement of existing laws and tougher sentences to keep people who use guns in crimes off the street. Wish I had a cleaner, simpler, easier solution, but this is a complex problem that doesn't lend itself to knee-jerk emotional reactions.
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed.
TomNJVA is offline  
Old October 16, 2017, 10:48 AM   #50
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,247
Quote:
I think as it stands, if the government wants to try new restrictions I certainly would not oppose it.
Sure. So, if those restrictions turn out to be failures, do they get repealed? Do the people who had to surrender lawfully-owned property have it returned to them?

Because that's what the whole raft of post-Las Vegas proposals will be: failures. All that stuff has been tried before, some on the state level and some on the federal level, and supporters can point to no verifiable evidence that it's done one bit of good.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09458 seconds with 8 queries