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 17, 2017, 12:25 AM   #76
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,682
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/re...-control-fail/

Louder with Crowder link dealing with the Australian unilateral personal disarmament scheme and how badly it has actually failed, with graphs.

My personal feelings about the knee jerk reactions after a mass murder event.



And lastly, for the Swiss, I have been told their SIG rifles are converted to semi auto only when they are sent home with the former soldier. Not that that would make much difference to a trained soldier, of course - semi auto fire is going to be more accurate, no matter what.

Last edited by armoredman; October 17, 2017 at 12:42 AM.
armoredman is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 06:58 AM   #77
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,535
I've been watching this thread for a couple of days, and am just now finding time to wade in. Justin.T, we (here at TFL) see posts like yours after virtually every mass shooting. We've even had a few new members sign up, just so that they could post a call for gun control.

Anyway, I'll begin at the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T
. . . .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.
With all due respect, this is THE quintessential opening move for antigun pieces. I can no longer count the number of antigun bits I've seen that start with someone saying, "I'm a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment, but . . . . "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T
. . . .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. . . .
Ah, yes, the "Australian model." Other posters have already touched on this, but if you start with country that has very few mass shootings, then pass a law and count mass shootings afterwards, you may still have a country with few mass shootings, but you cannot honestly claim causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T
. . . .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. . . . .
Justin.T, you are free to give up your semiautos at any time. I'd even offer to send you the name and address of my FFL, if you want me to take them off your hands. It sounds like you'll sleep better at night if you just turn them in to the government, though. That's your right. With all due respect, I decline to join you in doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T
. . . .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." . . .
Let me make sure I understand this: You propose (a) a complete ban on semiautos, (b) with no grandfathering; (c) strict permitting on handguns; (d) ammunition purchase limits and regulation; and yet . . . somehow . . . you conclude that "[t]here's plenty more we could do with out losing our right to own guns for protection, hunting and recreation." Did I understand that correctly? Justin.T, you've just hit virtually every point in the antigunner Wish List.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T
. . . .I think its really selfish to put your hobbies and enjoyment ahead of protecting society from mass shootings. . . . .
You are welcome to think that. You are welcome to think me selfish. Shooting is more than "a hobby," though. The RKBA is also an enumerated constitutional right, one that's been held to be both fundamental and individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T
. . . . 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. . . .
Wait . . . You want to severely curtain an enumerated constitutional right, but make an exception for recreational shooters?!? You have missed the point of constitutional rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.T
. . . .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?" . . . .
No. Just no. I won't deny that shooting is a hobby of mine, but it's more than that. It's how I plan to defend myself and my family, despite hoping that I never have to. Here's a quick & true story: There is evil in the world. I'm a prosecutor. Last week, I had a guy show up on my jail docket. He is accused of taking two runaway, young-teenage girls, holding them in a warehouse for several weeks, and repeatedly raping them. I have a teenage daughter. She's smart, she's gorgeous, and she plays several musical instruments. If you think for one second that I'll give up tools that might be necessary to protect her, all in order to make you feel better, you are sadly mistaken.

Here's the thing about rights: I don't have to compromise on them. The Bill of Rights is a very undemocratic document. It protects the rights of the minority against mob rule. I might lose the vote, but I get to vote any way I please. I'm not going to join you or anyone else in a "compromise" of my RKBA. I don't have to. That's the nature of rights.

(I'm out of time this morning, but if I need to come back and address "protection from tyranny," I'll be glad to do so.)
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 08:33 AM   #78
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
I guess at the end of the day I just to see the point of citizens owning high capacity/high fire rate military grade weapons and I'm against it because of the damage they can do when a person unleashes their power. That's where I draw the line. Thanks for all the perspective and input, some of it I've heard before and it just simply doesn't cause me to agree but some of the perspectives were new and something for me to think about. I think an aspect to study on this is the psychology of the fantasy that inspires these shooters too and how to better recognize when people are experiencing that. I also just wanted to see how people on this forum would feel about what I said. I know there is a lot of disagreement but it seems like some of you at least see my perspective and recognize we are all looking at the same problem. Thanks again, I probably will stay out of the law discussions but I hope if I have any firearms related questions or topics of discussion I will be welcome here.

Another thing, just so you don't think I signed up just to do this, I used to have a previous account when I was a cop several years ago, a staff member could possibly look it up if they were interested, I believe I still remember my user name.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 08:41 AM   #79
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,162
I don't like to pile on, but I found the following striking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin T
Theohazard,

I feel like it's the efficiency. I know assault rifle is kinda a bogus made up classification. I would say it all comes down to high capacity, rate of fire and somewhat range.

I'm not as afraid of handguns because I feel like I'm less susceptible to handgun violence because of my place in this world. Healthy relationship, avoid bad neighborhoods, etc. However I feel like at this point one never knows if and when they will fall victim to the next mass shooting where 20, 30, 50+ people are gunned down with relative ease because the tool they are using makes it that easy.
Emphasis added.

This reads like a frankly stated rationale for many firearm restrictions. It is at its core a denial of efficiency to the individual, while retaining that efficiency for the benefit of state. That is not a classically liberal value.

None of us knows if or when we will be the target of multiple murder, armed mugging, home invasion, etc. A firearm makes resistance relatively easy and more effective. Denying people that ease and efficacy in their defense is not a social good.

Moreover, making state action easier or more efficient is a dangerous goal. Spats is a hell of a fellow, but before a court convicts anyone, I want Spats put through the inefficiencies of due process and evidentiary standards. He and the judge hold great power, and I have little interest in great power being deployed more "efficiently".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin T
I guess at the end of the day I just to see the point of citizens owning high capacity/high fire rate military grade weapons and I'm against it because of the damage they can do when a person unleashes their power.
Do you see any point in police departments having such weapons?
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 08:48 AM   #80
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
One can defend themselves and their family with something less than a high capacity/high fire rate rifle.

Yes, I can see the point of police departments having them but I would argue against the militarization of police departments. Whole other topic, I'm probably going to disagree with a lot of you, I disagree with a lot of what this country does.

I also know that the constitution can be amended to change with time.

Its been good, but I got to go, I'm back in school for a new career and have to study. Don't have time to continue to go around with this. Thanks again for everything, its good to get into civil discussions and think about things from time to time.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 08:58 AM   #81
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin T
One can defend themselves and their family with something less than a high capacity/high fire rate rifle.
One can defend himself with a sharpened pencil.

Is that really the issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin T
Yes, I can see the point of police departments having them but I would argue against the militarization of police departments. Whole other topic, I'm probably going to disagree with a lot of you, I disagree with a lot of what this country does.
That's fine. I perceive problems with aspects of what might loosely be called militarization of civilian PDs. The Hollywood bank robbery probably isn't the best model for police work.

I would note that if you see the utility of "military grade high capacity" semi-automatic rifles in the hands of police, state agents, then you also must see the utility of those items in the hands of an individual. The identity of your principal doesn't change the utility of the rifle.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 09:05 AM   #82
Justin.T
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people.
Justin.T is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 09:20 AM   #83
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,162
Quote:
The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people.
I doubt that is why a PD would have them, since killing people isn't part of their mission, correct application of deadly force and intentional killing being distinguishable.

Since POs don't have a monopoly on the correct use of deadly force, and you acknowledge the utility of these rifles in the hands of POs, it stands to reason that you also see the utlility of these rifles in the hands of individuals.

I agree that the COTUS can be amended, but note that on this point it hasn't been. Good luck with the studies.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 09:21 AM   #84
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,288
Quote:
One can defend themselves and their family with something less than a high capacity/high fire rate rifle.
Perhaps, but needs and circumstances differ. I'm not going to support a massive, expensive, and fruitless ban based on your presumptions.

Quote:
The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people
There are two responses to that. The first is this: yes. Yes, it certainly is. That's what makes it an effective defensive tool.

The second is that it has other utilities. Dealing with packs of coyotes or wild hogs doesn't work out too well with a bolt-action rifle, conditions for which a high-capacity semiautomatic smallbore works fairly well.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 10:01 AM   #85
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,639
There are people who can not physically use a pistol or shotgun for defense. One I know has a ar-15 with bipod beside her bed for home defense because she can pick it up put it on her bed facing the bedroom door. She can handle the recoil of the rifle and the bipod keeps it on the door.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.
tony pasley is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 11:50 AM   #86
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Rifles that US citizens are not allowed to own under current already existing law, found in the majority of Swiss homes!! Yet, one doesn't hear about much violence in Switzerland.
Because the demographics of Switzerland are a lot different than here. Switzerland, like Portugal, most of Scandinavia, and similar locales are fairly homogeneous in their racial/ethnic/religious/cultural makeup

Quote:
I disagree with a lot of what this country does.
So do I, Justin, and knee-jerk emotion-based "do-good" irrational laws are at the top of my list..........along with the elected folks who propose and support them.
__________________
FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse. http://www.fitasc.com/uk/home/view
FITASC is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 12:14 PM   #87
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,549
Quote:
I think an aspect to study on this is the psychology of the fantasy that inspires these shooters too and how to better recognize when people are experiencing that.
I agree, study away! And good luck to you! Just be certain to understand that millions of video gamers are experiencing that fantasy every day, 24/7 zapping uncountable billions of bad guys & monsters in video fantasy, and they do not all turn into mass murders in real life. IF you could come up with an ACCURATE way to tell who will and will not turn their fantasies into real world actions, it would be a valuable tool.

BUT, not a cure for the problem, unless you get laws passed to lock up people because of what they MIGHT DO. Which, at this point in time, is still contrary to our system of justice. Innocent until proven guilty is still largely the basis of our system.

And if you haven't gone out and shot people, the fact that you might think about it isn't a crime, yet. Even the sci fi Minority Report where they COULD see the future and arrested people before they committed the crime didn't work out all that well.

Simply put, locking up people because of what you, I, or somebody with a paper on their wall that says they can call themselves Doctor, THINKS they MIGHT DO with a gun, is the same as locking up people because of what you think they might do because of their age, skin color, religion, sexual preference or any other definable standard you happen to choose.

People who haven't committed any crime are simply not guilty, unless/until they do commit an actual crime, are caught, and found guilty in court.

Quote:
The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people
I agree that is ONE of the utilities of the rifle. What you are missing, or deliberately ignoring, is the fact that sometimes that is a necessary thing. And we have a legal and moral right to own the implements most useful for doing so.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 05:43 PM   #88
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee View Post
I've been watching this thread for a couple of days, and am just now finding time to wade in. Justin.T, we (here at TFL) see posts like yours after virtually every mass shooting. We've even had a few new members sign up, just so that they could post a call for gun control.

Anyway, I'll begin at the beginning.

With all due respect, this is THE quintessential opening move for antigun pieces. I can no longer count the number of antigun bits I've seen that start with someone saying, "I'm a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment, but . . . . "

Ah, yes, the "Australian model." Other posters have already touched on this, but if you start with country that has very few mass shootings, then pass a law and count mass shootings afterwards, you may still have a country with few mass shootings, but you cannot honestly claim causation.

Justin.T, you are free to give up your semiautos at any time. I'd even offer to send you the name and address of my FFL, if you want me to take them off your hands. It sounds like you'll sleep better at night if you just turn them in to the government, though. That's your right. With all due respect, I decline to join you in doing so.


Let me make sure I understand this: You propose (a) a complete ban on semiautos, (b) with no grandfathering; (c) strict permitting on handguns; (d) ammunition purchase limits and regulation; and yet . . . somehow . . . you conclude that "[t]here's plenty more we could do with out losing our right to own guns for protection, hunting and recreation." Did I understand that correctly? Justin.T, you've just hit virtually every point in the antigunner Wish List.


You are welcome to think that. You are welcome to think me selfish. Shooting is more than "a hobby," though. The RKBA is also an enumerated constitutional right, one that's been held to be both fundamental and individual.

Wait . . . You want to severely curtain an enumerated constitutional right, but make an exception for recreational shooters?!? You have missed the point of constitutional rights.


No. Just no. I won't deny that shooting is a hobby of mine, but it's more than that. It's how I plan to defend myself and my family, despite hoping that I never have to. Here's a quick & true story: There is evil in the world. I'm a prosecutor. Last week, I had a guy show up on my jail docket. He is accused of taking two runaway, young-teenage girls, holding them in a warehouse for several weeks, and repeatedly raping them. I have a teenage daughter. She's smart, she's gorgeous, and she plays several musical instruments. If you think for one second that I'll give up tools that might be necessary to protect her, all in order to make you feel better, you are sadly mistaken.

Here's the thing about rights: I don't have to compromise on them. The Bill of Rights is a very undemocratic document. It protects the rights of the minority against mob rule. I might lose the vote, but I get to vote any way I please. I'm not going to join you or anyone else in a "compromise" of my RKBA. I don't have to. That's the nature of rights.

(I'm out of time this morning, but if I need to come back and address "protection from tyranny," I'll be glad to do so.)
Amen.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 06:19 PM   #89
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,143
Quote:
Its been good, but I got to go, I'm back in school for a new career and have to study. Don't have time to continue to go around with this.
Well please don't let us detain you then. Really.
(says Dale with just the tiniest bit of snark.)

It kind of would be nice though if you went through all the points you made, all the questions you asked and all the information you got and listed the ones where you were flat out wrong. Just saying.
DaleA is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 06:57 PM   #90
CalmerThanYou
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2017
Posts: 297
I think this overly polite exchange is pretty much like speaking to the wall. The OP offered nothing of substance, and perhaps came with some sort of agenda.
His personal opinions mean very little to me...Thanks though.
CalmerThanYou is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 07:04 PM   #91
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,474
Ya think?
__________________
FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse. http://www.fitasc.com/uk/home/view
FITASC is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 07:27 PM   #92
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,104
Each time that these type of threads roll around I get the feeling that there are canine teeth beneath the wool that I'm not supposed to be able to see.
None the less, there they are.
I can't stop reading each new post, but always wind up feeling offended.
I don't think it's just me.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 07:43 PM   #93
Prndll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 112
"The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people"

I wonder how many families had dinner on the table because of rifles.
Prndll is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 07:49 PM   #94
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,707
I'm going to give Justin some credit here. He's a member of a gun forum and he was willing to face an onslaught by advocating for gun control, and he did it without trolling or being combative or rude at all. I can't say the same for all the TFL members whose posts have now been deleted.

There's no reason for people to keep piling on, the OP said he was finished with this thread. All of his comments have been refuted many times over. At this point, it's like kicking someone while they're down.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 07:50 PM   #95
NateKirk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 436
Personally, your plan would not bother me much. I only own one semi-auto, and for the type of shooting I do I wouldn't miss really miss it anyway as long as I have my bolt guns.

However,

There are many, many, many people who feel differently.

Firstly, an Australian style gun buyback shouldn't be used as a modal for the rest of the world; the US and Australia have different cultures and histories concerning firearms, and we couldn't necessarily expect the same results here.

Secondly, mass shootings are not really a major problem, just a news worthy problem. The number of people who die from drug overdoses, car accidents, etc, everyday is much greater than those who die from intentional attacks with firearms. It might sound callous to say, but a mass shooting where 10-60 people die is just a drop in the bucket compared to other everyday causes of death. According to the CDC more than 91 people a day die from opioid overdoses alone.
This is not to say that we shouldn't work toward the problem. More openness and acceptance for mental heath treatments, waiting periods, and better qualifications for gun ownership can all help the problem somewhat, but none can completely solve it. There are other detached ways of killing many people at once not involving guns.

Thirdly, a forced gun buyback would be expensive if the American public is to get their money's worth. Who'll determine the value of an individual firearm to be bought back? What do we do with all the guns afterward? Millions tens, or even hundreds of millions, semi automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, equals a lot of money. Are we to rip off the American public by taking their property for far less than it's worth, or are we to spend the money and siphon it from other public works to balance the books?

I would go into the virtues of having a public at a fighting level with the powers that be, however since you stated you are not concerned with the government (now or in the future I assume) I wont argue the point. I will say that, in conclusion, I think a gun buyback like you propose is not worth the effort considering the problem.
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".”

― --Thomas Jefferson
NateKirk is offline  
Old October 17, 2017, 09:47 PM   #96
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,549
well, the OP has moved on, hopefully he has a few points to ponder now.
We're done here.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP 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 10:52 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 0.14279 seconds with 8 queries