The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 16, 2019, 03:22 PM   #26
berettaprofessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Firearms with a high capacity/high rate of fire would require the buyer to have more friends condone the purchase.

This would work well for gang members
Well it's certainly unique. But the latter points out that you could get any group of people together, gun club or gang, who agree to back each other and render the whole idea mute (except for the increased PITA of having to do it).

Not a solution.

How about let's not find other ways to inconvenience me, who is sitting here not causing a problem with my guns except for the poor paper targets at which I try to shoot multiple bullets through single holes?
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old August 16, 2019, 04:16 PM   #27
Sluggederbore
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Posts: 3
I think it would help to have more armed guards in crowded places, like shopping centers, festivals, etc. And maybe anyone under 26 years old who owns semi-autos should be required to have a psychiatric evaluation every year, to make sure they're stable enough.
Sluggederbore is offline  
Old August 16, 2019, 07:30 PM   #28
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,463
Quote:
I think it would help to have more armed guards in crowded places, like shopping centers, festivals, etc. And maybe anyone under 26 years old who owns semi-autos should be required to have a psychiatric evaluation every year, to make sure they're stable enough.
And who will pay for these armed guards? Those shopping centers and festivals will have to increase their prices, so the rest of us who patronize these places will pay for it. Do you want to pay more money? Do you want to have to pay to attend events that until now have been free to attend? But now that the venues have to provide armed security, they will have to charge admission?

Why is 26 the magic number for psych evals? Why not 21? or 40? or 65?
And aren't psych evals based how on the person being tested answers the questions? So theoretically, a person could give false answers to fool the evaluator, right?

How many lives would this save? Can you guarantee that the annual deaths from homicides with guns would be reduced by half? 25%? 100%? Or perhaps it would not have any impact at all because EVIL CANNOT BE LEGISLATED OUT OF EXISTENCE.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old August 16, 2019, 08:11 PM   #29
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,302
sluggederbore:
Quote:
And maybe anyone under 26 years old who owns semi-autos should be required to have a psychiatric evaluation every year, to make sure they're stable enough.
.
I once dated a clinical psychologist. Her brother was a police officer. She thought it was funny that the psychological profile of police and criminals had lots of points of overlap.
So, would the police department get a different test from the general run of citizen? Are you sure the test wouldn't miss a lot of people that should be caught or catch a lot of people that are committed to the general good?

The problem of the solutions that attempt to stop criminal use of guns (from 0 to mass shooting) at the purchase point (e.g. UBC) is that no one can predict the future. Testing every year helps, providing you had an accurate test to prove that this person was "probably" or "highly likely" to use his firearm against others this next 364 days, as it shrinks the windows of official observation, but no such test exists, and if it did why would you not take away the knives, scissors, ball point pens and put said person in the clink? Why is this about guns at this point? "Being stabbed really hurts," a friend of mine who was stabbed once told me.
The other option is to stop a crime after it has started. This is less "clean," as there's already a victim of some degree, but there's a clear cut bad guy and bad action.

But does there need to be guns at all? If semi-auto rifles were banned and then congress passed a law banning hunting in all 50 states, after a generation or two, barring social catastrophe, the majority of guns would be out of circulation and common use. Mass shootings would decline for sure, much as incidents of people slipping on horse manure declined after the Model T replaced the horse as the primary means of personal transport, but would they all go away? I like to look at Brazil, a nation that had strict laws (a military dictatorship doesn't like competitors) and no gun culture at all. It still has mass shootings. It also has well-armed criminals. Many of them that are willing and able to shoot it out with other gangs and against heavily armed police with all sides using "weapons of war." Looking at this example, it's safe to assume that guns will not go away b/c they are banned; it's also safe to assume that criminals will always have a need for equipment to help them overcome other armed criminals as well as probably unarmed citizens.

A question of comparison might be "have OTHER violent crimes involving weapons gone down as guns have been removed from general availability? If the statistical answer is "no," then all you're doing is using a grater with smaller holes to slice your same pound of taco cheese.
Or we could balance these two questions:
1) "How do we know that people who want to behave violently would NOT do so b/c they couldn't have a gun?"
2) "How do we know that some people wouldn't act violently b/c they know that their opponent DOESN'T have a life-threatening weapon of self-defense?"

1: We don't. As many violent crimes are crimes of passion and circumstance, I would bet that having no readily available guns might not change the rate of crimes; it might change the scope of damage in a very narrow percentage of events, those already using guns.
2: This is a squishier topic b/c one has to imagine that a certain percentage of people who find physical bullying of smaller people satisfying and rewarding will decide to make this regular behavior. One also has to imagine that some slice of the population, handicapped people confined to wheel chairs, for example, that might have been able to defend themselves with a weapon are now defenseless. Is this number something to balance against the other like a math equation? I think not. Or you can refer to several q & a sessions with imprisoned criminal offenders who mentioned that they would be less likely to rob a house with someone home b/c that person might have a gun. It appears that there is some deterrent effect to criminal behavior due to generally available firearms. I"m not looking up the links for these; you can.

Another weird hiccup of human psychology is that even in places that have become safer by all/most statistical measures, people will obsess with ferocity about the still-extant dangerous scenarios in their head (real or imagined). I remember growing up in the 80s and 90s. Those were some very, very violent times. The news papers always had headlines of violent crimes. Statistically, things have generally improved in all violent crime statistics in the past 30 years, but we feel no safer. (To clarify: this isn't to downplay the horrible tragedies of mass shootings as events. People killed violently is nothing easy to look at. It's a shock for all involved: wounded or unwounded survivors, responders, relatives of victims, et al. ) This appears to be a constant of human nature. One of the weird takeaways that I had from my time in Japan was how much the Japanese considered "scary." Here they were in a really, really safe place and they were still conjuring up boogie men for themselves. My not-so prediction: if all guns were banned tomorrow, it wouldn't make anyone feel safer, except criminals.

Ramble off.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old August 17, 2019, 07:43 AM   #30
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 904
Quote:
I think it would help to have more armed guards in crowded places, like shopping centers, festivals, etc
Quote:
And who will pay for these armed guards? Those shopping centers and festivals will have to increase their prices, so the rest of us who patronize these places will pay for it. Do you want to pay more money? Do you want to have to pay to attend events that until now have been free to attend? But now that the venues have to provide armed security, they will have to charge admission?
I would pay more..I recently went to a play for gradeschool kids..in an offsite auditorium, and they hired armed security..I would pay for armed security at my grand kids school..since it's a 'gun free' zone..which I find troubling..A guy walking across the big field next to the school, holding a rifle, doesn't care about that..
Quote:
How many lives would this save?
Don't know but if the unthinkable happened, the death toll wouldn't be HIGHER because armed, trained security was there....
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old August 18, 2019, 09:40 PM   #31
poing
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2019
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 4
First off, I would like to thank the moderating staff for moving this to the appropriate discussion area.

Right off the bat, my attempt to communicate my idea faced a lot of backlash when I said it "did not" infringe against Second Amendment rights.
Where blurring the line between a collective right versus an individual right probably was not the best way to describe the idea.

What I was hoping to present, was something that would be considered a reasonable burden for the gun buyer, one that doesn't involve approval from a government authority.
Since already know that background checks and "red flag laws" are not going to address the underlying issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal
The problem isn't guns - nor is it knives, or explosives or large trucks or pump up garden sprayers filled with gasoline/dishwashing liquid mix or gasoline spread on the stairway of an upper floor after hours club and lit with a BIC lighter.....

The problem is - - the whacked out people that commit these acts of sensless violence.

Stamp out the source of the problem and it goes away. Concentrate on the symptoms of the problem & they'll just change to something else.
I reside in a Country with very strict gun laws, where convenience stores are robbed at knife-point.
There will always be whacked out individuals that will commit senseless acts of violence, regardless of the tool that's used.

How do you suggest stamping out the source of the problem?
Perhaps a psychological battery of tests and sign-off from a mental health worker before an individual can purchase any item that could theoretically be weaponized?

I am trying to address the source of the problem, not the symptoms.
While remaining cognizant of the intention of The Second Amendment and not allowing the U.S. Government decide who can and can not posses firearms.

But I do have to say that the "a firearm is just a tool" argument can only be taken so far...

There are knife carry laws, metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs, bollards, and building codes that address the symptoms of a problem.
Smoke detectors, sprinklers, fire escapes, and fire exits don't address the source of the problem, since it's nearly impossible to stamp every risk of a fire.

Firearms with a high capacity/high rate of fire can only be considered tools of defense, war, or violence.
At a minimum, there are better tools to remove unsightly shrubbery than a barrage of lead.

I would like to think that every responsible gun owner would condemn senseless acts of violence that involve firearms.
poing is offline  
Old August 18, 2019, 10:11 PM   #32
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by poing
What I was hoping to present, was something that would be considered a reasonable burden for the gun buyer, one that doesn't involve approval from a government authority.
You presented it, and I think you can see that what you consider to be a "reasonable burden" is not acceptable to most Americans who respect the Constitution. Speaking only for myself, I don't think your proposed system is even a little bit reasonable, and I have explained why in a previous post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poing
I would like to think that every responsible gun owner would condemn senseless acts of violence that involve firearms.
You lost me right there, by mentioning firearms. Why should I be incensed about senseless acts of violence that involve firearms, but not incensed (or less incensed) about senseless acts of violence involving knives, bombs, U-Haul rent-a-trucks, gasoline and matches (i.e. arson), hammers, large rocks, broken beer bottles, or ___?

The problem is violence. Guns do not commit violent acts; people commit violent acts. In the United States, orders of magnitude more people are killed every year by drunk drivers than by firearms, and especially by mass shootings. Why aren't we talking about banning cars, or requiring five relatives or neighbors to sign off before a person is allowed to buy or rent a motor vehicle? By focusing on the instrument rather than on the perpetrator, you are not helping resolve the problem, you are only distracting attention from the problem.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 18, 2019, 10:58 PM   #33
poing
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2019
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Or maybe they're perfectly stable, but have a thoroughly despicable personality. Some days, that describes me.
I would hope you had enough friends to reconize that you're not the type of person to go on a shooting spree.

I'm a recluse, introvert, and don't even live in the U.S. right now.
It would a challenge for me to buy an AR15 under this proposal. At least until I settled into a community, made new friends, etc..

It takes me years for me to connect with neighbors or co-workers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainah
This would work well for gang members.
Let's not forget, cults, extremists, political parties, militia groups, or any other group some may might consider unsavory.

The goal is not about the group on an individuals views, just that they're part of a community. Like-minded or otherwise.
I like to think that even members of some crazy backwoods splinter group would be able to spot a whacked out individual that might take things a little too far.
poing is offline  
Old August 18, 2019, 11:29 PM   #34
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by poing
I like to think that even members of some crazy backwoods splinter group would be able to spot a whacked out individual that might take things a little too far.
With all due respect ... you've been out of the country too long.

Have you heard about gangs? MS-13? Antifa? These are all groups who each specialize in taking things too far.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 18, 2019, 11:44 PM   #35
poing
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2019
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozak6
Are friends/family exposed to any liability? Would friends/family be authenticated? Would it be illegal to pay someone? Would it be possible to form a "buyer's club"? Would employees of a particularly large FFL be excluded?
These are all great questions, but I don't have all the answers.

Not sure about liability, but having a list of friends/family might be helpful to LEA's.

Paying someone really depends if it's implemented as some form of federal legislation, where it could be treated as document fraud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kozak6
Are derringers or "six shooters" used in less crime? Are $1329.00 (MSRP) TRR8's used in so much crime that we need more people to vouch for their buyers?
The formula is based on the firing rate, capacity, and to make it necessary to reload.

I selected six rounds (or less) to lower the requirement for most bolt-fed, pump-action (hunting restricted) rifles, and low capacity handguns (for personal protection).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kozak6
Why are full autos included? It's so difficult and expensive to lawfully own fully automatic firearms that they have only ever been used in a small single-digit number of crimes. Does that matter?

How are bump stocks included? They are generally illegal for a common person to own and have only one been used in one, single, very high profile crime. Are you now proposing some degree of legalization if I can round up some shooting buddies?
I simply included for the possibility of fully automatic or bump-stocks. Guess it depends on the current legality.
poing is offline  
Old August 19, 2019, 12:02 AM   #36
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,093
Aquila Blanca, just how many people have members of Antifa gunned down? Its white supremacists that have blood on their hands, isn't it?

The OP almost has something. Just flip from friends and community to militia command structure. Our right to bear arms includes a militia clause.
If that militia is to be well regulated it is important that the organization know what firearms its members can produce if needed and whether each member is fit for service and fit to own a firearm that can be used for militia service.

It ain't going to happen but at least there's a constitutional argument there.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old August 19, 2019, 12:49 AM   #37
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzcook
Aquila Blanca, just how many people have members of Antifa gunned down? Its white supremacists that have blood on their hands, isn't it?
Although I have seen videos showing antifa members arming themselves with guns, my comment was to the point that "gun violence" is not the problem, violence is the problem. And antifa is violence personified. Did you watch any of the video clips of the recent love fest in Portland, OR? Like when masked antifa thugs attacked a bus load of unarmed demonstrators with hammers? Did you watch any of the videos from Portland that showed antifa thugs beating people unconscious? Or pepper spraying journalists and then threatening them with severe physical harm?

White supremecists ain't got nothin' on antifa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzcook
The OP almost has something. Just flip from friends and community to militia command structure. Our right to bear arms includes a militia clause.
As I have posted before (including, I think, earlier in this discussion), the Supreme Court Heller decision established that the Second Amendment RKBA is unrelated to the prefatory militia clause. But ... if you want to tie the Second Amendment to the militia argument, then logic would suggest that instead of making it more difficult for me to acquire a semi-automatic AR-15, the government and the system should make it easier for me to acquire a full-auto M16 or M14.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 19, 2019, 02:14 AM   #38
TruthTellers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 2,723
I don't think it's a reasonable to require others to basically okay the purchase of arms that are fundamental rights in the USA, it's a clear infringement.

What I've been proposing, because I'm recognizing patterns with mass shooters, is an age restriction on all centerfire (.17 and .22 rimfire wouldn't be applicable) semi auto rifles for those under the age of 25. Bolt, lever, pump, and single shot long guns would still be available to those who are 18 or older, all handguns with the magazine in the pistol grip (meaning no AR/AK pistols) to those 21+.

Does it stop every mass shooting? No. Does it put up barriers that make it more difficult for disturbed young men to carry out a mass shooting with deadlier weapons? Yes. Does it have the potential to work and protect the rights of others over the age of 25 (which is a large majority of the population) from being penalized with a broad stroke gun control measure? Absolutely.

If we're okay with the 21 year old age restriction on handguns, then I don't see why an age restriction on semi-auto rifles is such a terrible idea. It doesn't leave those 18-24 completely defenseless (last I checked handguns and shotguns are still really good home defense guns) and it still allows them to exercise their constitutional right whilst attempting to minimize deaths from mass shootings by young men.

The alternative, eventually, will be a complete semi-auto ban within 10 years.

The lesser of two evils.
__________________
Any good revolver > Any good semi auto

"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
TruthTellers is offline  
Old August 19, 2019, 08:38 AM   #39
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,454
Everyone's had their say on the idea. We're veering off into discussions on Antifa and such, and that's beyond the scope or mission of this forum.
__________________
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 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.08300 seconds with 9 queries