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, 02:33 PM   #1
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
Gun Control

I wrote this to a friend of a friend and wanted to see if there are others that think like me. I am a pretty liberal guy, not really the bleeding heart type if you want to try and stereotype, but liberal none the less. I own 3 firearms, believe in the ability to protect yourself on an individual level, believe in hunting for food and enjoy the sport of shooting a couple times a year. I am not scared of the government and believe in regulation to protect society.

"So I get that guns can be cool, interesting, shooting can be fun. I was a cop for 3 years and even owned an ar15 with an eotech halo sight on it. It was fun to shoot. Really easy to hit the target. Also, ballistics and trajectory and all that stuff is fascinating in a really scientific way. You have to be pretty smart to understand it.

However, I've changed my mind on how this should be regulated after seeing tragedy after tragedy and nothing being done to try and make impactful positive changes.

Here is the thing, there is a model at how to address mass shooting and its been completely successful but it would be a huge change in this country and would not go over smoothly. If I was in charge I would do it in a second.

Australia banned certain types of guns after a mass shooting and one hasn't happened since. I think they count a mass shooting as more than 5 people not known by the shooter.

I realize other gun crimes could still happen but you can't compare gun all gun violence and mass shootings. Mass shooting are their own animal and what allows them to happen is the precision and effectiveness of the guns we allow citizens to own in this country.

We would have to outlaw semi automatics, period. I am all for it, I'd gladly regulate my right so that everyone can go to events with out fear. We would have to not grandfather in anything, we would have to have a mandatory gun buy back AND anyone who did no comply must face federal prison time. Harsh penalties, years in prison if you're caught keeping your gun.

I used to say ban high capacity semi autos, but now I just say semi autos. It's what Australia did and its easier that way. It creates a black and white line. If people want to negotiate I'd say maybe I'd be willing to negotiate on handguns. For example, again, ban the semi autos, which, like a glock with high capacity magazines can do tremendous damage, but keep revolvers which are technically double action and not semi auto legal because they traditionally and physically have a lower capacity anyways. I'm also ok with highly regulated carrying options for people that need to protect themselves on and individual level.

Or another idea, and how Australia does it, is still allow for handguns but highly regulate them through strict permitting. I kinda like that idea and passing a federal concealed carry license. I do believe concealed carry helps with the day to day crime prevention.

Also we could regulate and limit ammo sales like we do pharmaceuticals and incorporate psych evals some how.

There's plenty more we could do with out losing our right to own guns for protection, hunting and recreation."

Its like if I have a hammer and you have a nail gun you are going to build a lot more houses than me. Except human lives being taken.

I think its really selfish to put your hobbies and enjoyment ahead of protecting society from mass shootings. It's not easy to come up with an analogy but I'll try. Its like if for some reason explosives were never regulated and people never used them for evil and you and I really got into making bombs and just blowing stuff up because it was fun. Then people started using them to kill large amount of people at events and people were calling for regulation and we were like "but we are having fun and not hurting anyone so don't take this away!"

On top of my recommended gun control above another idea I once had was to do as I said I would like to see done above but then make another exception for recreational shooters. I've done a 3 gun match before (only once, placed second out of 20 some people, not to brag) I know people enjoy it and at the time I even did.

What if you allowed people to own ar15s and whatever military/police grade weapons still, with extensive background checks and whatever else for recreation BUT they had to be kept at a shooting facility in an armory and could only be checked in and out for events and for practice?"

I just wanted to share my thoughts, and am open to listening to yours, whether I agree with them or not we can at the very least discuss. I know some of the thoughts are incomplete and maybe it might be a little all over the place. This was just kind of a brainstorming more or less.

Thanks,

J
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 02:48 PM   #2
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 11,235
Don't understand why you (or anyone) would think that laws and restrictions do anything to change the mind of lunatic murderers?

All of your laws and restrictions and regulations ONLY affect the rational folks who follow laws.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 02:51 PM   #3
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 7,283
The road to nowhere !!!

Your thoughts and opinions are just that and no more. There is no sharing as eventually it gets into a spitting contest and accomplishes nothing.


Wishing you well and;
Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 03:05 PM   #4
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
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.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 03:07 PM   #5
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
Also Pahoo, I'm just seeing what other shooters think. I've been very disturbed by this recent event.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 03:12 PM   #6
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,388
Criminal laws do not prevent crime, they DISCOURAGE crime and prescribe "punishment" for convicted criminals.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 03:27 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,284
Let me break some of this down:

Quote:
However, I've changed my mind on how this should be regulated after seeing tragedy after tragedy and nothing being done to try and make impactful positive changes.
First of all, I'd task you with pointing me to one gun control law in this country that has actually achieved its stated aim: to demonstrably reduce gun violence. This won't be easy. The plain fact is, laws restricting the ownership of certain firearms, or by certain people, are a lazy, incomplete answer.

As long as we're only focusing on the instruments used, we're failing to ask why we keep creating monsters who think it's acceptable to kill strangers. Banning bump stocks or placing arbitrary caps on magazine size will do absolutely nothing. We need a new approach to the problem.

Quote:
Australia banned certain types of guns after a mass shooting and one hasn't happened since.
Australia wasn't really having them before Port Arthur, so that argument is a bit deficient. There has been one mass shooting since then, though Australian authorities moved the goal posts to reclassify it.

While there are claims the 1996 NFA reduced violent crime, it was already on the decline before then, and a 2008 University of Melbourne study struggled to find whether the law had any effect on crime.

In fact, actual compliance with the 1996 buyback was spotty at best. Most of the weapons they wanted "off the streets" are still in circulation.

Quote:
Mass shooting are their own animal and what allows them to happen is the precision and effectiveness of the guns we allow citizens to own in this country.
There has been no major advancement in firearms technology within the lifetime of most people in this debate. Any firearm used in these mass shootings is based on technology at least half a century old. Yet the rise in mass shootings has only been going on for about three decades.

There is simply no technical advancement that suddenly made mass shootings deadlier. Again, we're back to blaming the hardware rather than the act.

Quote:
I think its really selfish to put your hobbies and enjoyment ahead of protecting society from mass shootings.
I've been hearing this quite a bit lately, and sorry, but it's a cheap and dishonest argument. Preventing me from engaging in my "hobbies and enjoyment" is in no way going to protect society from mass shootings.

Here's a fun thought experiment: let's say we took things your way and banned all semiautomatics. If we still have mass shootings, will the law be repealed? Nope. It'll just be an excuse for a law on pump-action shotguns. Then another mass shooting, and a ban on all pistols. Then another, and a ban on all centerfire guns. This is how it goes, and it's how the gun-control lobby wants it to go.

With all due respect, you've been had. It's not your fault. Gun-control advocates have effective control over the narrative, and they've been pushing it for decades. We've all been fed the lie so pervasively and for so long, it takes on a life of its own.

But it's still a lie. They're selling you tollbooths to lower drunk-driving fatalities and banning Judy Bloom books from the school library to stop kids from doing drugs.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 03:41 PM   #8
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
I get your point about having this technology since at least the Vietnam war. I was born in '86, so I can't account for back then, was gun culture different then? Maybe this is more of a gun culture thing. I grew up shooting but not militaryesque weapons. I know the NRA platform has changed, I think it was about safe shooting sports and now it's about making the gun industry bucks. I also know, as silly as it seems, but when the call of duty video games game out people got really into buying accessorizing and shooting military guns.

Back in the 60s 70s and 80s did many civilians own and shoot ar15s etc?
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 04:00 PM   #9
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
The Colt AR-15 was introduced in 1964. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle.
Wikipedia.

Quote:
After Colt's patents expired in 1977,[10] an active marketplace emerged, as other manufactures began to copy the Colt AR-15 rifle's design.
Wikipedia.

I suspect very few civilians owned a semi-automatic version until other manufacturers produced enough of the rifles to get the price down to a point that the civilian market could afford them, i.e., probably the very late 70's or early 80's.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 04:21 PM   #10
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,284
Quote:
I was born in '86, so I can't account for back then, was gun culture different then?
Oh, yeah. Everybody belonged to shooting clubs, which were really more about clubs than shooting. We had a smaller available selection of firearms because there wasn't much demand to drive innovation. Glock hadn't happened yet, so you were still stuck with the same old standbys.

More to the point, the 2nd Amendment was about the National Guard or something back then. Emerson and Heller hadn't happened, so the prevailing "logic" was that there was no individual right. Since everyone got their information from television news, that was an easy interpretation to push.

Quote:
I know the NRA platform has changed, I think it was about safe shooting sports and now it's about making the gun industry bucks.
That's a narrative being pushed by gun-control advocates to drive a wedge. I've often and long challenged them to show some correlation between NRA donations and the "gun lobby." There isn't one. In fact, the organization that most closely fits that definition would be the NSSF.

As for the platform, it hasn't changed. If you have a chance to check out back issues of their magazines from the period, you'll see the same insistence on the RKBA they have now. The idea that they can't be a gun safety organization AND an advocacy organization is silly.

Quote:
Back in the 60s 70s and 80s did many civilians own and shoot ar15s etc?
Some did. The AR-15 in my circle was something of a rich person's toy. The civilian models were expensive, and they had a reputation for unreliability, though that might have been due to the ammunition available at the time. The idea of civilians wanting and having military rifles is by no means some fetish thing that just popped up recently. The military often has sound criteria for choosing the equipment they do, and it's natural that civilians would perceive those products as being of good quality.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 04:48 PM   #11
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
Tom,

So if you can agree with me that mass shootings are their own problem, how do you think we address them?

Thanks for the discussion, I really appreciate it.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 05:11 PM   #12
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,284
Quote:
So if you can agree with me that mass shootings are their own problem, how do you think we address them?
I don't have an answer, and that's really the only honest answer anyone's going to give you right now.

The problem is the people who jump right into the fray, waving a bill they wrote ten years ago, claiming it's the solution, and screaming that we don't care about the victims if we don't accept it. They suck all the oxygen out of the room for other approaches or viewpoints.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 05:20 PM   #13
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
They suck all the oxygen out of the room for other approaches or viewpoints.
Because they do not care for any other view except their own. Feinstein even stated on TV recently that NO law could have prevented what happened.

We need to stop blaming the object - we don't move to ban cars, even though 50,000 a year die from drunk drivers; we also don't move to ban alcohol (that lesson has been already learned) even though deaths, child/spouse abuse and other issues arise from it. We blame the folks who did the crime, not the object. Start THERE.
__________________
FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse. http://www.fitasc.com/uk/home/view
FITASC is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 05:31 PM   #14
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
Tom,

Thanks again for the open and honest discussion, I think it helps us process these things as well as try to move towards solutions.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 05:58 PM   #15
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
The solution would be honor the 2a as written.

If that had been done instead of rewriting it our culture would be more citizens armed now and these lunatics would be put down more often before they can shoot for 5 or ten minutes.

I have as much reason to hate guns as anyone but I'm staunchly unlimited RTKABA .

As Tom pointed out.
No gun law has ever done anything it was created to do.
Other than to infringe the right of the law abiding.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 06:27 PM   #16
Prndll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 112
Gun Control is using both hands.

You can completely wipe the idea/concept of firearms and explosives (which lead to firearms) from the entire history of human collective memory and you would not even come close to making any impact on from murder/mass murder. People killing people has been with us from the very beginning. Banning guns (completely or in part) is not the answer. It never was and never will be. The thing called "gun control" is a lie that actually is an attempt at controlling peoples lives (not guns). If that guy in Vegas had not used an AR, he would have used something else.

What AR did Timothy Mcveigh use? What bump stock? He didn't. Any ban on anything about AR type firearms would have had no impact on the lives he took. To claim otherwise is ignoring the problem.
Prndll is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 07:04 PM   #17
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,687
If a person's true goal is to lower the amount of gun deaths in this country, then starting by addressing the issue of mass shootings doesn't make sense. An article from FiveThirtyEight has this telling line:

"If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work."

Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence


And here's a Washington Post article by a journalist who changed her mind on gun control once she started to actually study the issue:

I Used to Think Gun Control was the Answer. My Research Told Me Otherwise.

The OP brought up Australia. Here's that author's take on that subject:

"I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths."
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."

Last edited by Theohazard; October 15, 2017 at 07:22 PM.
Theohazard is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 07:16 PM   #18
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 7,283
Can't fix people, only help to make it better

Quote:
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
Their loss, is our loss. Last month a neighbor who is a recovering alcoholic, was riding his bicycle because he lost his driver's license and was hit by a drunk driver also had no license. To date, no one is blaming the car, the beer or tavern that served the drunk. .....

When it comes to these shootings, simple minds want to blame inanimate objects. I have yet to see any firearm or bullet, legally prosecuted. ...

Quote:
Also Pahoo, I'm just seeing what other shooters think. I've been very disturbed by this recent event.
Not so, as you are the OP with a focused, set agenda. You are just looking for confirmation. You really need to look deeper as to the problem and see what you can do, on a personal level. Get a plan and start at your local level. Do more that present your slanted view/thoughts. Give it more thought and take positive action. ......

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 08:50 PM   #19
shooterdownunder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Location: sydney
Posts: 135
the buyback did jack all.
shooterdownunder is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 09:17 PM   #20
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,564
Quote:
We would have to outlaw semi automatics, period. I am all for it, I'd gladly regulate my right so that everyone can go to events with out fear.
Because semi-automatic firearms are the only credible threat (or most dangerous threat) to large events?

What about trucks, or bombs or fire. What about fireworks or thunderstorms. Do you realize that some years ago 53 people were killed in a stampede at an outdoor concert when thunderstorms panicked them?

Pyrotechnics at one concert started a fire that caused 100 fatalities.

Are you going to make a list of things that have caused mass casualties at events and prioritize them by how common and deadly they are, start at the top and then keep working down the list until some pre-determined balance of personal freedom and regulation is reached, or are you just going to pick the most sensational/most aligned with other agendas and ignore the rest? In other words, is this really about preventing casualties or is it about using circumstances as a rationale to further an existing agenda?
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 09:48 PM   #21
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
Are you going to make a list of things that have caused mass casualties at events and prioritize them by how common and deadly they are
Then start with hurricanes, wildfires, and floods......... - oops, can't do that. More people die from medical malpractice but we don't outlaw doctors. The whole concept is a tad absurd.
__________________
FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse. http://www.fitasc.com/uk/home/view
FITASC is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:13 PM   #22
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,442
If one discusses the issue, consider that scholarly analyses of the AWB and mag bans found that they had no noticeable effect on any of the known crime indices. This was research funded by the DOJ - not a particularly friendly group.

They pointed out the reasons beingL

1. The existing supplies are such that the demand for those who truly wanted them could easily find grandfathered weapons and mags.

2. There was easy substitution of firearms with equal efficacy. The cosmetic changes to the ARs did nothing. Mini-14s were exempt and they have been used in massacres in relatively gun controlled nations (Canada and Norway). Massacres have occurred with 10 round magazine handguns (NY and VT are two). Some of claimed that you can charge the shooter when reloading. That assumes the shooter is close up. Not relevant to many rampages.

3. The gun world concluded from the studies that we should thus abandon gun control laws. Other studies have shown that any of the current laws have no impact on gun violence, BTW.

4. The authors and discussants concluded that only bans with mandatory confiscations of existing stocks and total bans on semi auto of all types plus higher capacity pump shotguns, lever action rifles would work.

Now such would entail cooperation of the population. That has not been clearly shown to be the case in Australia, Canada and USA states with such. Would the bad people turn them in? Surely, you jest. So good people do. You might argue that eventually attrition from the bad stocks will take them out. However, how long do guns last? We have seen antigun folks say that attrition will be a strong force because once you shoot the rounds from a higher capacity mag, that mag is used up. Make sure you ban the thing that goes up.

Compliance would entail turning neighbor against neighbor and totalitarian level searches of houses to eliminate the guns.

Now such a ban would of course remove them from all the competition and hunting venues and plinking and square range practice, etc. But does that do anything?

Next you have to discuss compensation. It is estimated that there are about 10 to 12 million semi auto long arms out there. No one knows how many semi auto handguns. You can estimate that with 2 million handguns sold a year - over the years thats quite a bit. Gun estimates range from 100 million that would have to be confiscated to 300 million total guns in circulation.

Assume that you compensate people - which is probably the only Constitutional way to do it (assuming the 2nd Amend. is trashed).

Let's say each gun is worth $300 for gun.

$300 x 10,000,000 long arms = $3,000,000,000

$300 x 100,000,000,000 = $30,000,000,000

There are also the costs of running the program, which would be substantial. Check out the Canadian debacle - more expensive than thought and ineffective anyway.

I would suggest that those in favor of such a move - be compelled on their income tax to pay for such.

I understand the OP is a moral panic response that we have to do something. However, the costs of doing something and the violation of rights by a mandatory confiscation are staggering. We lose many more folks to cigarettes, cars, opiods and alcohol. The moral panic to ban them totally isn't there. That's because of the political dimension of gun banning. First folks don't buy into the need to have efficacious means of SD and they don't buy into defense against tyranny. Second, guns have become unfortunately totemic of the political right and thus the political left must want to destroy them independent of rational argument. Not that the right doesn't have its own totemic stupidity on issues, BTW.

There is nothing to stop folks like the OP from destroying their own guns and campaigning their friends and neighbors to do the same.

Now as far as defense against tyranny. That is poo-poo'ed by gun rights opponents. They are basically ignorant. Unfortunately gun rights advocates don't make the case well. They seem to support gun rights to fight against the tyranny of Obamacare or something else trivial.

However, if you know history - it was state militias that formed the core of the resistance to the British. Thus, forces outside of the governmental authorities of the time (the Crown) were instrumental to liberty.

In the precursors to the Civil War, private individuals fought against the legally empowered agents trying to seize runaway slaves. They even fought Federal troops that tried to seize such slave and even Black freemen. That is a defense against tyranny.

In more modern times, scholarship has clearly demonstrated that privately owned civilian firearms were crucial in protecting Civil Rights activists against the agents of the government (state and local police, night riders protected and encouraged by said states). Today, you find African-American activists suggesting the 2nd Amend. is necessary for them to protect themselves against the state. This is controversial as you may disagree with their analysis but it is clearly in the defense of tyranny vein. In the '60s and 70s, black activists carried firearms to protect themselves and suggest that they would fight against what they saw as tyranny. Again, you may not like their cause and the correlation of political polarization may make the current NRA unlikely to trumpet such incidents. However, the NRA has pointed out their contribution to fighting the Klan (which existed with the collusion of the state in many places).

Studies of genocide indicate that they occur if the target population is unable to defend itself. You may think that genocide is unlikely in the USA. Think again. In 1913, Germany was a civilized country. Historians were asked to predict which countries might go genocidial if you didn't know what happened in WWII. They said it would probably be France. It had a strong history of Anti-Semitism. In twenty years, Germany lost its civilized aspect to become one of history's greatest monster. Now, you may say - that will never happen here. We haven't faced the disruption Germany did. But what if we did?

We have some hints with the internment of the Japanese. Certainly our treatment of Native-Americans wasn't stellar. For historical buffs:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-garden-215522

I know folks who hide their religion to get jobs during the Depression because Jews weren't hired. One told me of her boss listening to the Nazi actions on the radio and saying that should happen here. There was a resultant altercation.

Some will say that you cannot fight the government as it has tanks and planes. They know little of such kind of warfare. It isn't 1000 nut jobs facing Abrams tanks. God forbid - warfare of such across the country assumes cooperation of the armed forced. You sure about that. Also, we have 5000 tanks. That's 100 tanks per state. You going to conquer the continental USA with such.

The existence of 10's of millions of long arms precludes thinking about such. Would the OP like to ride an APC through a large TX city to confiscate the existing gun stock?

To conclude, in the abstract if a celestial being removes all guns no one would be shot. Sure, before gun there were no massacres or genocides. Machete rampages like occur in modern Africa - so what - won't happen here.

There is no solution with any practical or conceivable confiscatory scheme. Suggesting such is just a political totem for cynical politicians of both sides to raise money and keep them getting elected. Sincere people should study up on the history, criminological and psychological literature before just shouting in moral panic.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:15 PM   #23
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,564
Quote:
Then start with hurricanes, wildfires, and floods......... - oops, can't do that. More people die from medical malpractice but we don't outlaw doctors.
Precisely. If this was done out of a true desire to eliminate casualties, the rational approach would be to pick the most likely/most deadly to deal with first.

The fact is that the casualties from mass shootings are a convenient (and necessary) rationalization used to promote an existing agenda which has little or nothing to do with the proposed "solution".
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:18 PM   #24
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
I was at a lobbyist/special interest group meeting some time ago concerned with the UAV regulations FAA is taking their sweet time expanding.
Someone said 'I don't see why DHS is involved with this. These drones aren't dangerous. No one is going to crash one into Air Force One" Or something similarly short sighted. The lunatics will find a way and bump fire stocks are not the most terrifying to me.

I love nothing more than when I hear a statistic that "gun violence" dropped following some regulation in another country. Gun violence will drop on occasion, but the murder rate and similar general rates don't drop.

The problem is media glorifying these idiot lunatics. Here is the reality. It seems he spent YEARS coming up with this and considerable financial resources. This is all he came up with? What a loser. Same as all the rest of 'em.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:31 PM   #25
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
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
Justin.T 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 01:35 AM.


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 0.10122 seconds with 8 queries