NOT Gun Control

[RC20]

Since the ban didn't accomplish anything in the past, why would it now?

You could make that same argument for oil well regulations.

Except BP then went and violated them all and blew out the Madonda well.

You can't necessarily prove a negative but you can gather data and do some analysis.

Like breaking down regulating, high capacity magazines were overturned, they were not overturned based on they did not work, they were overturned because people wanted to sell high capacity magazine and hitched onto the gun movement to do so.

How many legal machine guns have been used in committing crimes?

They are severely restricted and people keep them under lock and key because they are worth big bucks.

The Vegas shooter could have bought as many as he wanted. He would also have attracted attention. So he went with the current alternative.

Any single item is not going to stop this. Combined they likely would reduce it.

But then of course someone says, well they got around it and X number of people died, so it doesn't work and everyone should be armed.

What if 66% of the population does not want to be armed?

When conscripts (your general and male population) were the military, about 10% of them were combat effective. The other 90% to varying degrees were not.

So if you are lucky, maybe 10% of the population would be capable of handling a gun in a crisis.

It may very well not be the ones that currently own or want to own a gun.

[RC20]

Because you haven't likely examined it from the point of view of the Constitution, many gun owners do not and never have understood that the SOLE purpose of the second amendment is so that The People can throw off massed tyrants, like our own government if it becomes power mad (A litte late for that).

Well I considered what Wall street did to us Tyranny and what the corporation are doing now the same but no one has done anything about it have they? We now have mandatory arbitration and can't do anything about it, our data is stolen and the agency that is supposed to address that will not prosecute. The press is under attack like I have never seen, but that is ok, its all fake news.

Jefferson thought there would be bloody revolutions every twenty years enforcing the role of the people over their servant government instead of what it has become, our master.
So, under the BOR's the supposition is that the People have the means to overthrow said tyrants, which includes foreign invaders too. Do those invaders limit their magazine capacities? Heck no!

We have been invaded twice. Once by Pauncha Via and once by the Japanese who took two desolate islands in the Aleutians.

In both cases it was the organized Army that Jefferson was so against that kicked them out.

So far all our wars have been fought by that Army that Jefferson so loathed.

And I know some of will say the armed citizens could never win a war against a modern military, well, 60 years ago a third world country threw the mighty United States Military out of their country! (And bought themselves communism, a very poor outcome for them.)
But even if it were not so that an armed people could fight a modern military (It clearly IS true) all that means is that we give up the entire second amendment, and all the rest soon follow.
As for me, I'd rather die fighting tyrants than giving my country all pristine and pretty over to them.

Whoops, it was the NVA that won the war, the Viet Kong did not.

But please consider the truth about the reason behind the second amendment before you talk about giving up your rights to people who haven't got a clue about why we HAVE them!

I do, I read history, I am familiar with how the country came to be and the plus and minuses of it all. You may disagree with my conclusions but you are badly mistaken that I don't know, understand it or know what I am talking about.

If we don't have the right to own weapons Of any type we should just call our congressmen and tell them we want to become communist slaves, and throw the Bill of Rights out entirely

!

Well we don't. I can't buy a 20mm 6 barrel cannon, I can buy a mortar. I can't own a number of guns that were declared illegal back in the 30s (short barreled shotgun pistols)

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by RC20

It may be a shock, but non gun control people like myself think magazine limits are not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by RC20

At least Half the shooters I see should not be allowed to have a gun. They are a danger to us, their families and themselves.

You do write like a gun control proponent.

Originally Posted by RC20

What if 66% of the population does not want to be armed?

Then permit them to remain unarmed.


Do you believe that the 2d Am. describes a valid and current individual right? If so, what is the scope of that right, i.e. who has the right and what does it guarantee him?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by RC20

.It may be a shock, but non gun control people like myself think magazine limits are not a bad thing.

For a "non gun control person", you sure favor a lot of gun control intended to burden law-abiding gun owners instead of being directed at people who show they cannot responsibly own a firearm.

[BBarn]

I always found the idea of magazine limits silly. Even with a 6 rounder and a few extra mags a nut job could easily kill eight or ten unarmed people. No one wants a school shooting with eight deaths either. Same could happen without a semi auto; with a six shot revolver and a few speedloaders.

It's amazing how short sighted some can be.

[Kimber84]

Originally Posted by BBarn

I always found the idea of magazine limits silly. Even with a 6 rounder and a few extra mags a nut job could easily kill eight or ten unarmed people. No one wants a school shooting with eight deaths either. Same could happen without a semi auto; with a six shot revolver and a few speedloaders.



It's amazing how short sighted some can be.

The caveat of this argument is that the assumption is being made that the shooter is trained to efficiently and effectively use the weapon, and reload it.

Some nut job like in Florida, who I highly doubt was ever trained in optimizing the effective firing rate of an AR is always going to run for a higher capacity mag.

I'd say if you were thoroughly trained in the use of an AR and had developed muscle memory then to your point it wouldn't matter if it were 10,20, or 30 round mags, either way a lot of lead is coming down the barrel.

I'm not advocating for restrictions, not at all. Just fleshing out two different sides to a point of view.

The issue at hand, mass shootings is far more complex than just guns, or just mental illness. It's not black and white unfortunately, if it were we'd have had a solution in place long ago. Obviously I think we can all agree that we want ourselves and our loved ones to come home every night.

Until this country can boil down the issues and discuss things in a civil manner, on both sides of the aisle we'll continue to see these things pop up.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[K_Mac]

RC20 you use tactics that are very popular with anti-gun folks. You claim to support the right to arms, while advocating for changes that would gut our 2A. You dismiss our Founding Fathers, Constitution and our system of government as the flawed and imperfect compromise of a different time. You rail against the tyranny of Wall Street and big corporations. You assert that most of us who carry guns are incompetent and too dangerous to ourselves and others to have them.

You are confident that a standing army makes any talk of protection from tyranny by armed citizens nonsense, while at the same time claiming that you know and understand history.

You can claim to be pro-gun, but your rhetoric doesn't support your claim.

[NateKirk]

Why does this have to start to boil down into finger pointing? People are beginning to throw around the title of anti-gunner like "witch" and "communist."

There's a broad spectrum of beliefs when it comes to the subject of guns and the second amendment, and different reasons for those beliefs. Lets not paint those with differing opinions as traitors.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Why does this have to start to boil down into finger pointing? People are beginning to throw around the title of anti-gunner like "witch" and "communist."

There's a broad spectrum of beliefs when it comes to the subject of guns and the second amendment, and different reasons for those beliefs. Lets not paint those with differing opinions as traitors.

Your diagnosis is incorrect. RC20 made an assertion about his position that appears to contradict his own writing.

No one painted him as a traitor.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BBarn

I always found the idea of magazine limits silly. Even with a 6 rounder and a few extra mags a nut job could easily kill eight or ten unarmed people. No one wants a school shooting with eight deaths either. Same could happen without a semi auto; with a six shot revolver and a few speedloaders.

It's amazing how short sighted some can be.

True.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgdq1FBYTUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d2VdaiIodo

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

There's a broad spectrum of beliefs when it comes to the subject of guns and the second amendment, and different reasons for those beliefs. Lets not paint those with differing opinions as traitors.

You're pro-gun control. You've repeatedly said so in this thread and others. So is RC20. So is Colorado Redneck. It's a little late to be bashful about it now.

[Al Norris]

I'm still waitng to hear of any proposal that somehow will at least slow down these maniacs from attacking our kids!

Not may....
Not might...

WILL

Until then, I'll entertain ways to fix what is so obviously broken. A fix, might I remind you, that will not add more red tape or other silly complexity to the current laws.

No amount of fist pounding, screaming or hand-wringing will convince me that something has already been proposed in this thread that meets the criteria above.

[NateKirk]

You're pro-gun control. You've repeatedly said so in this thread and others. So is RC20. So is Colorado Redneck. It's a little late to be bashful about it now.

I'm not bashful about it at all. I thought it was clear by voicing the measures I supported, that I approved of certain aspects of gun control legislation. It's not an all or nothing thing though and a few of the latest posts seem to be devoted to pointing fingers, and discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion.

I'm still waitng to hear of any proposal that somehow will at least slow down these maniacs from attacking our kids!

Not may....
Not might...

WILL

Until then, I'll entertain ways to fix what is so obviously broken. A fix, might I remind you, that will not add more red tape or other silly complexity to the current laws.

This is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee that a positive outcome will be reached. Not increased background checks, not magazine restrictions, not bans... Nothing is certain.

However you can also turn this around.

There is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee that a positive outcome will be reached. Not arming teachers, not increased training, not GVRO's, not improving mental health care, not fixing the NICS system... Nothing is certain.

You can pick any one of these ideas and it's still going to be trial and error. What's important is that we at least try one of them.

I've already made my arguments for what I think needs to be done and why some things shouldn't be done, so I'm not going to reiterate. I think most of them were on page 4 and 5.

I will say though that I think it's a bad idea to arm teachers, which is the current thing the leadership seems to be harping on. On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence.

Another point is that a productive society cannot be centered around and worry about the preservation of their own lives. Arming schools, proposing that kids be issued body armor, metal detectors, armed guards, increased patrols... All of this skews the center of daily life towards violent conflict which I think is perverted; this isn't a third world country. We carry guns to deal with outlier negative situations when they arise but they're not a solution to the problem, they are a temporary salve to help remedy specific problems. They don't solve an issue, they resolve a conflict. The focus shouldn't be on escalation.

What was it that Montesquieu thought, "government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another?" I think that's a good case idea against escalation.

[HisSoldier]

Well I considered what Wall street did to us Tyranny and what the corporation are doing now the same but no one has done anything about it have they?

Hmm, sounds like the existence of one set of bad apples has you discarding all baskets. The structure of this nation rests on the Constitution.

Frankly I doubt that many of the founding fathers would have agreed with the liberals imposition of the FED in 1913 and the fiat currency we have now, but that's a Whole different matter! Having said that I personally know in my bones that socialism is based on envy and theft, while true marketpace capitalism is based on industry and saving, and competition that benefits everyone.

The press is under attack like I have never seen, but that is ok, its all fake news.

It does appear to me that leftist "news" organizations spin every story, they need to be corrected.
But are you implying that liars on CNN deserve our attention or sympathy? I know who is under attack sir, the Patriotic America gun owner, that's who! Did any of the readers here murder a school full of kids? No? Then Why are we being punished?

So far all our wars have been fought by that Army that Jefferson so loathed.

So since you have so little respect for our Bill of Rights change it. You may have considerable opposition however. BTW, Yamamoto disagreed with Japan's war plans because he reasoned that no invasion of our lower 48 would succeed, because so many Americans were armed, he wasn't as concerned about the military in that. So it could be argued that our second amendment has already deferred an invasion.

Whoops, it was the NVA that won the war, the Viet Kong did not.

Would the NVA have come had not the VC first acted? How many wars were started by a few brave men who died and won the sympathy of other nations? If you are afraid of our military then that in itself is a an argument for more weapons of all kinds in civilian hands, not less. I don't believe we have much to fear from our military, most of them are good people, it's just people who listen to fake news like CNN who attack us, and most of them hate America anyway.

Well we don't. I can't buy a 20mm 6 barrel cannon, I can buy a mortar. I can't own a number of guns that were declared illegal back in the 30s (short barreled shotgun pistols)

And that is because Someone in the system either didn't understand the Constitution or didn't care about it, someone a lot like people today who want to disarm Americans right now. There should be no infringement on any good citizen's right to own any arms, that is what the second amendment implies. How can an army of volunteers be mustered when we don't have the weapons we need to fight?

But it sounds to me like you have no respect for the second amendment. Why not be honest and admit that?

[HisSoldier]

I think it's a bad idea to arm teachers, which is the current thing the leadership seems to be harping on.

Another example of how people automatically bash president Trump. He's not proposing, to you, he's "Harping".

All a kid who carefully plans ways around safety measures to enter a school and murder kids deserves is a body full of bullets. That is the correct result, and that is what Mr. Trump is proposing. That little beast should have had to pass a background check to buy a rifle,,,,,oh, yeah, he did! It didn't stop him, How about we fix That? The little beast should have been taken into a mental facility, but again, it didn't happen, so I should lose my rights?
That piece of garbage shouldn't have been able to get into the school with a backpack, but he did! The police had to go to his house 39 times, shouldn't that have had some effect on his purchase of a firearm?

We need as many armed good guys as it takes inside schools to stop these outrageous. I don't understand what the objection is to that. Depriving the many of their rights for the violations of a few is not right! And it's not the answer.

[NateKirk]

Hissoldier,

My personal opinion of the president aside, the rest of my statements still stand. If you want to discuss the arming teachers then offer a rebuttal to my reasoning above.

For the sake of convenience however here is the rest of what I said without searching for it:

"On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence."

[44 AMP]

I can't buy a 20mm 6 barrel cannon, I can buy a mortar. I can't own a number of guns that were declared illegal back in the 30s (short barreled shotgun pistols)

Yes you can. You can't get them at WalMart, and you can't get them at your local gun shop (most likely) but you can get them, if you have the $$$$. And $$$$$$ is what it takes. And a clean record, and a lot of patience, and living in a state that does not have a state law prohibiting ownership.

Registered NFA weapons are not banned. Heavily restricted, but not completely banned.

"Might as well be" is true, in the practical sense for most of us without huge amounts of disposable income, but its not true in the legal sense. If you're willing to pay $40,000 for a Tommy Gun, you can legally own one.

I'm not in the crowd that thinks doing something means passing a new law. I'd rather see NO new law than a bad new law. And a bad new law is almost guaranteed to be what's our representatives will be voting on, if/when it comes to that.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by RC20

So far all our wars have been fought by that Army that Jefferson so loathed.

Not really.

Prior to our entry into World War 1, the strength of our standing Army was just 98,000 (plus 27,000 National Guard). Source At the height of our involvement in WW1, our troop strength went up to 4 million -- 2.7 million of whom were draftees.

In 1939, two years prior to our entry into World War 2, our army numbered just 187,000 and was only the 19th largest army in the world. At the peak of our involvement in WW2, our troop strength went up to 12.2 million. By 1947 we were back down to 1.6 million.

I think it's fair to argue that, while the U.S. did technically have a standing army, both world wars were fought by men who could rightly be considered to have been called up from the militia (since that's what they were).

[5whiskey]

On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence."

I will happily rebut every point. First off, no one here that I know of is suggesting that bubba hillbilly redneck who barely hits paper at 5 yards taking "DAT dere concealed carry class" should just be given a gun and a teacher certificate and start packing in schools with no additional training. Law enforcement mandates yearly firearms in-service classes and qualification. Law enforcement has to provide this to their officers. At least in my jurisdiction, it would not be a drain on resources to simply allow teachers WHO VOLUNTEER to attend this training. This could be a mandated requirement for any teacher who chooses to carry a firearm.

On to the SWAT team shooting the teacher argument... Well this is a risk. It can be mitigated. For one, said armed teacher could immediately drop their weapon when they see LEO presence. That's what everyone else who encounters police and doesn't want to die does. There could be discreet identifying cues utilized, known only by local LOEs, to also help identify the teacher.

The SRO was a coward. So what!?!? I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan as an infantry marine. I've seen folks that most doubted respond well under fire, and I've seen "hard chargers" hide out. The Sutherland springs shooter was engaged by a neighbor to the church and apparently hit at least once by him. One lone police officer with barely a years experience, the only one on duty in southern pines, nc, stopped a mass shooting in a rest home about 7 years ago. There are numerous examples of teachers, coaches, and other staff sacrificing themselves to save students, tackling gunmen, and committing other acts of bravery. Do you think they would act differently? Yeah in this case the "good guy with a gun" hid outside. Doesn't mean that is the norm.

Lastly, I will agree that many teachers may be slightly more liberal, but that's painting with a broad brush. Are you sure the Ag teacher, mechanics teacher, every janitor, football coaches, and every other staff member is so liberal that they couldn't imagine using violence to stop a threat against their students? I dont believe it.

[5whiskey]

On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence."

I'll even one up the argument. Statistically, mass shooters often commit suicide at the first sign of armed resistance. This is well documented. I don't know why. My supposition is they don't want to face consequences (in this life at least) and would rather off themselves instead of risk being incapacitated but captured alive. Using this statistically significant outcome, you could argue that an armed teacher doesn't even have to engage a mass shooter with superior firepower, or superior tactics. They just have to engage them.

[LogicMan]

The idea that because a person being armed could confuse a SWAT is ridiculous IMO. I mean yes, there's a risk, but I'd much rather take that risk and be armed so I can shoot back at the mass shooter as opposed to be disarmed and thus at the mercy of the mass shooter and thus probably get killed all so that I don't maybe get shot by a SWAT team.

As for the term "high-capacity" magazine, that was made up by gun control proponents. No where in the world of firearms was it ever considered that anything over ten rounds constituted "high-capacity." What they are really talking about is banning what are standard-capacity magazines and limiting people to what are arbitrarily-determined reduced capacity magazines. As for why people would use standard-capacity magazines outside of fighting a tyranny, well a few reasons:

1) Criminal or criminals who break into your home who are on a drug-fueled rage and need multiple shots to bring down

2) Due to adrenaline, you could miss a lot more easily

3) There could be multiple criminals

Regarding resistance to tyranny, the idea that an armed populace couldn't stop a tyranny is nonsensical too IMO. If you had a tyranny form that had a military of the same capability as the U.S. military, and it was tasked with oppressing the entire United States, that would be virtually impossible. Some people say, "Your AR-15 is not going to make a difference against an Abrams tank/Apache helicopter/drone/etc...yeah, well if it's a small force of people, then yes, they will get clobbered. But if it's the whole country, or a massive portion of the country, then the government is going to be SOL.

Because there are only so many places that you can send tanks, troops, aircraft, drones, etc...and only a portion of your military are the actual infantry troops. The rest of it are not going to be a whole lot better trained than ordinary civilians in the usage of firearms. And those civilian forces will be able to do things like mess up supply lines, attack military bases, and so forth. Tanks and helicopters can't move without fuel.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

This is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee that a positive outcome will be reached. Not increased background checks, not magazine restrictions, not bans... Nothing is certain.

You're correct, there is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee. Do you have one that might reach 50%? Before you answer, read on...

Seems to me that common sense would dictate enforcing current law, before adding more untried law. I mean, if the current laws aren't being enforced, how do we know if they work or not? And what makes anyone think adding a new law, or laws, would be enforced, if we aren't enforcing what we have now?

So again, how do we go about fixing the current broken system?

[s3779m]

The NRA and probably 5% of the US population also has an agenda.

I see the press being attacked on a regular basis (and no they are far from perfect)

A free press his what makes a functioning democracy than does gun ownership.

I can name a dozen countries that have functioning democracies that have severe gun restrictions.

First off, we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, it is our constitution that ensures us our gun rights will not be taken away, not some vote. Second, the "agenda" that the N.R.A and the 5% are pushing is our constitutional rights and they are protecting them. Third, had the laws on the books been enforced, the last two shootings should not have occurred. Before we look at removing rights and banning objects, we need to look at why the laws were not enforced and how to correct that. Fourth, there is nothing in common with today's lame stream media and the term "free press".

[s3779m]

The caveat of this argument is that the assumption is being made that the shooter is trained to efficiently and effectively use the weapon, and reload it.

Some nut job like in Florida, who I highly doubt was ever trained in optimizing the effective firing rate of an AR is always going to run for a higher capacity mag.

I'd say if you were thoroughly trained in the use of an AR and had developed muscle memory then to your point it wouldn't matter if it were 10,20, or 30 round mags, either way a lot of lead is coming down the barrel.

I'm not advocating for restrictions, not at all. Just fleshing out two different sides to a point of view.

When no one is firing back at you, you have all the time needed to exchange mags. Which makes for another good reason teachers should be allowed to carry.

[NateKirk]

First off, no one here that I know of is suggesting that bubba hillbilly redneck who barely hits paper at 5 yards taking "DAT dere concealed carry class" should just be given a gun and a teacher certificate and start packing in schools with no additional training.

I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that, I'm talking about current teachers.

At least in my jurisdiction, it would not be a drain on resources to simply allow teachers WHO VOLUNTEER to attend this training. This could be a mandated requirement for any teacher who chooses to carry a firearm.

That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants. That's pretty much a worst case scenario, and I'm sure if one was to ask a SWAT officer they would agree.

My point is that even if those who elected to use the new option of carrying to school decided to go through rigorous, repeated training, I don't think they would be prepared, even if they had the mental discipline to ensure that they stayed practiced.

Personally, were I a teacher I would carry to work to defend myself if need be and those around me. But I would not expect myself or any other non professional to be effective in actually seeking and engaging the killer. Carrying in a school might save the one carrying, but it doesn't make the overall situation any better. And, to repeat something I said earlier:

"Another point is that a productive society cannot be centered around and worry about the preservation of their own lives. Arming schools, proposing that kids be issued body armor, metal detectors, armed guards, increased patrols... All of this skews the center of daily life towards violent conflict which I think is perverted; this isn't a third world country. We carry guns to deal with outlier negative situations when they arise but they're not a solution to the problem, they are a temporary salve to help remedy specific problems. They don't solve an issue, they resolve a conflict. The focus shouldn't be on escalation."

Lastly, I will agree that many teachers may be slightly more liberal, but that's painting with a broad brush. Are you sure the Ag teacher, mechanics teacher, every janitor, football coaches, and every other staff member is so liberal that they couldn't imagine using violence to stop a threat against their students? I don't believe it.

We're both right. Here's a fun tool.

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

Using this statistically significant outcome, you could argue that an armed teacher doesn't even have to engage a mass shooter with superior firepower, or superior tactics. They just have to engage them.

That's not something one can count on though. Plans and policy are not made to account for best case scenarios.

So again, how do we go about fixing the current broken system?

By holding law enforcement accountable for following up on concerns, providing them ways to act on concerns (GVRO's,) and better inter agency reporting of disqualifiers for ownership making NICS effective. This would make the current system more effective.

Personally, I would add background checks for all transactions and transfers (UBC,) raising the age to purchase to 21, requiring training and education before ownership, etc, but I already went over what I would add in pages 4,5,6