Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

[44 AMP]

Another thing to consider, the buzzwords and terms being thrown around...

Just what IS an "extended" or "enhanced" background check???

NO one seems to know.

I have spoken to several people including security investigators, and their answer is, there is no such thing. It does not exist.

There is no "deeper" background check possible than checking existing records, until you get to the level of doing a background check for security clearances, and those involve investigators, going into the field, interviewing people, face to face about their knowledge of, and interactions with the person being investigated. Friends, neighbors, relatives, even the ex-wife all get interviewed. (one investigator did tell me that information from ex-spouses is not taken at face value without independent, unbiased confirmation)

This process takes WEEKS, or longer, even months sometimes, and costs many thousands of dollars. And, it is not infallible, either.....

SO, when they tell us that we will all be safer if they pass a law requiring enhanced background checks, what they are really saying is we will be safer if they pass a law requiring something that does not exist....
Catch-22, anyone??

I feel safer now, don't you?

[cdoc42]

Tom, there is also the issue in Canada about being able to get a gun: From Wikipedia:

"Firearms in Canada are federally regulated as outlined in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977. Regulation is largely about licensing and registration of firearms, including air guns with a muzzle velocity of more than 500 ft/s or 150 m/s and muzzle energy greater than 4.2 ft⋅lb or 5.7 J.[1]

Handgun registration became law in 1934, and automatic firearms registration was added in 1951. In 1969, laws classified firearms as "non-restricted," "restricted," and "prohibited." Starting in 1979, people who wished to acquire firearms were required to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) from their local police agency. From 1995 to 2012, all firearms owners were required to possess a firearms licence—either a possession and acquisition licence (PAL), a possession-only licence (POL), an FAC, or a minor's licence—and all firearms were required to be registered. In April 2012, the Parliament of Canada enacted the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to eliminate the requirement to register non-restricted firearms. The requirement for all firearms owners to possess a valid firearms licence remained law.[2]"

The significance of this, in my mind, is that even though licensing and registration are required in Canada, it obviously has not had an effect on gun violence and/or crime, otherwise, there would be no reason for Trudeau to impose yet more restrictions on gun ownership. Unless, of course, the real target is the total abolition of any gun ownership, which as we know, would only leave the criminals with guns. At that point, they will change the target to abolition of the criminals. All of which suggests to me that we should start at that point here in the USA: permanent removal of all people involved in gun-related criminal activity. Change the focus from the tool to the user.

[cdoc42]

Re: Biden’s call for removal of the 9mm caliber, perhaps he should be reminded it is also a “weapon of war” which may provide him with increased emphasis for his agenda.

But he should also heed the history of the caliber: the 9mm Luger or “Parabellum.”

The name Parabellum is derived from the Latin motto of Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken (DWM), Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you want peace, prepare for war").

Does he want peace?

[cdoc42]

I'm sorry for the duplicate posts, it is clearly explained by the arrival of a senior moment and I unsuccessfully tried to remove the duplicates using the "edit" feature.

[Duplicate posts removed. -- Moderator]

[Rob228]

There is no "deeper" background check possible than checking existing records, until you get to the level of doing a background check for security clearances,.......... This process takes WEEKS, or longer, even months sometimes, and costs many thousands of dollars. And, it is not infallible, either.....

We are counting by years these days which means most commanders who have a requirement for people with security clearances are "assuming the risk" of granting interim clearances until the background check is adjudicated (mine took just shy of two years). So if this is the standard that the government is okay with, it means someone somewhere is going to have to assume the risk of people purchasing a firearm on an interim check OR they get to wait over a year for the investigation to be completed.

[Big_Eight]

I guess more will die in mass shootings before there is change. Even people that have guns aka the cops in Uvalde don't have the balls to defend their own.

Here's some Daniel Defense advertising. Keep putting your guns before people's lives... An ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN is needed! I say this as a gun owner and a conservative and not one of the ones that lies and twists crap aka a lot of the right these days. Some people do care about others lives and public safety over their guns.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Big Eight

Here's some Daniel Defense advertising. Keep putting your guns before people's lives... An ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN is needed! I say this as a gun owner and a conservative and not one of the ones that lies and twists crap aka a lot of the right these days. Some people do care about others lives and public safety over their guns.

Okay. For starters, what's you definition of "assault weapon"? If you want to ban them, you have to be able to describe them accurately. Several states surrently have "assault weapon" bans in effect, and most of their definitions don't agree.

What's your definition?

[gbclarkson]

A coherent definition of an "assault rifle" requires Congressional intra-cooperation. This will not happen.

But, if an assault weapons ban were to happen, I would expect all centerfire, self-loading rifles to be including under this broad umbrella definition.

And, yes, even if the Uvalde shooting never happened, DD's advertising post is rather stupid and irresponsible.

[chadio]

... Even people that have guns aka the cops in Uvalde don't have the balls to defend their own...

You get in there and get the job done without hesitation.

This is inexcusable.

[Big_Eight]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Okay. For starters, what's your definition of "assault weapon"? If you want to ban them, you have to be able to describe them accurately. Several states currently have "assault weapon" bans in effect, and most of their definitions don't agree.



What's your definition?

I would say ban the armalite 15 design and it's offshoots.

At a minimum the marketing needs regulating much like the tobacco industry.

To much death not try and come to an agreement on something.

[chadio]

... I would say ban the armalite 15 design and it's offshoots....

... as if each and every one, owned legally and illegally, would disappear.

This is laughable.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Big Eight

I would say ban the armalite 15 design and it's offshoots.

Okay, so you want to ban AR-15s, but not AR-10s.

Why?

[Big_Eight]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Okay, so you want to ban AR-15s, but not AR-10s.



Why?

I knew this is what the counter would be. Bills are hundreds if not thousands of pages long add them too.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Big_Eight

I guess more will die in mass shootings before there is change.

The question is, what change? I'm very wary when politicians jump in right after a tragedy with a readymade solution at hand. I'm even more wary when that solution has been tried before and proven to be a failure.

All the gun-control proposals they're advancing are old legislation. They're not responding the Uvalde and Buffalo: they're exploiting those shootings to push an agenda they've had for years.

Here's an actual assessment of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Skip to page 106, which reads:

Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement. A 5% reduction in gunshot victimizations is perhaps a reasonable upper bound estimate of the ban’s potential impact (based on the only available estimate of gunshot victimizations resulting from attacks in which more than 10 shots were fired), but the actual impact is likely to be smaller and may not be fully realized for many years into the future

And that's part of the problem. If they want to bring something new and novel forth, I'm all ears. But this is just lazy political theater and virtue signaling. What's more, it distracts us from the possibility of coming up with solutions that might actually address the problem.

Originally Posted by Big_Eight

Some people do care about others lives and public safety over their guns.

There's a huge fallacy at work here. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I can care about both. I can also continue to own and acquire guns without being any kind of danger to public safety.

However, I do agree that an AR-15 is a poor choice for a child's first rifle. Much better something simpler to operate, like a 10/22. Then move him up to a Garand later.

[Big_Eight]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The question is, what change? I'm very wary when politicians jump in right after a tragedy with a readymade solution at hand. I'm even more wary when that solution has been tried before and proven to be a failure.



All the gun-control proposals they're advancing are old legislation. They're not responding the Uvalde and Buffalo: they're exploiting those shootings to push an agenda they've had for years.



Here's an actual assessment of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Skip to page 106, which reads:







And that's part of the problem. If they want to bring something new and novel forth, I'm all ears. But this is just lazy political theater and virtue signaling. What's more, it distracts us from the possibility of coming up with solutions that might actually address the problem.







There's a huge fallacy at work here. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I can care about both. I can also continue to own and acquire guns without being any kind of danger to public safety.



However, I do agree that an AR-15 is a poor choice for a child's first rifle. Much better something simpler to operate, like a 10/22. Then move him up to a Garand later.

If your kids were in there and they were now deceased hypothetically what would you do?

For the record I like my guns too but there needs to be a compromise here.

[44 AMP]

Keep putting your guns before people's lives... An ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN is needed! I say this as a gun owner and a conservative and not one of the ones that lies and twists crap aka a lot of the right these days. Some people do care about others lives and public safety over their guns.

I emphatically disagree with the need for an Assault Weapons Ban (or any other ban). I find your logic horribly, hugely flawed and incorrect.

Either you have not thought things through or you have blindly accepted and are parroting the gun banner advocate's talking points. Or you're just trolling for a response...

Give us a cogent, rational argument how ownership of an inanimate object by millions of people means we are all potential murders who value our guns over the lives of others?

Frankly, I am insulted by the concept. Many MILLIONS of "assault weapons" shot no one yesterday, or the day before, or EVER....
And millions will shoot no one, tomorrow, or ever.

This is one of my biggest issues with gun control/ban rhetoric, they're not interested in an actual discussion, and they don't want any compromise all they want is your agreement with their methods, and goals and if you don't
then you are a cold, heartless SOB who cares nothing for the lives of others,

That's the only choice they offer us. Literally, if you don't agree, you're evil incarnate, in their eyes.

The entire concept of the gun being at fault, being too easy to get, and all the rest is bovine excrement being trolled as a red herring.

Even their preferred phrase (now sadly entrenched in both the media and political use) "gun violence" is a misnomer. AKA "a lie" The entire problem is not guns, it is PEOPLE using guns criminally, And we have lots and lots of laws prohibiting that already and have had for generations.

when some member of an identifiable political, ethnic, or religious group commits a criminal act, we are constantly told not to blame everyone in that group. Why then are gun owners treated differently???

Do you actually believe the NRA and the Second Amendment condone murder?? If you do, I suggest a combination of proper education and professional help to free you of those delusions.

If you truly believe that guns, (or any inanimate object) is evil and capable of overcoming human free will, then I suggest you get together with some of the billionaire's who claim to also feel that way, pool your money and BUY the gun companies and shut them down.

Spend some more money and buy up the guns people already own and are willing to sell (buy-back is yet another misnomer). But don't expect everyone to give up their property for a pittance. No rational person will exchange something they paid hundreds or thousands of dollar for, to get a $50 gift card.....

In simple terms, guns are not evil, guns don't do evil, PEOPLE DO. Yes far too many people are shooting others because they feel like it. That needs to be stopped. Banning a particular style of gun, or even banning all guns will not stop people who want to harm others from doing so.

Go plant your cot in a prison. No inmates there have guns. Will you feel safe???

I wouldn't...

[Big_Eight]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I emphatically disagree with the need for an Assault Weapons Ban (or any other ban). I find your logic horribly, hugely flawed and incorrect.



Either you have not thought things through or you have blindly accepted and are parroting the gun banner advocate's talking points. Or you're just trolling for a response...



Give us a cogent, rational argument how ownership of an inanimate object by millions of people means we are all potential murders who value our guns over the lives of others?



Frankly, I am insulted by the concept. Many MILLIONS of "assault weapons" shot no one yesterday, or the day before, or EVER....

And millions will shoot no one, tomorrow, or ever.



This is one of my biggest issues with gun control/ban rhetoric, they're not interested in an actual discussion, and they don't want any compromise all they want is your agreement with their methods, and goals and if you don't

then you are a cold, heartless SOB who cares nothing for the lives of others,



That's the only choice they offer us. Literally, if you don't agree, you're evil incarnate, in their eyes.



The entire concept of the gun being at fault, being too easy to get, and all the rest is bovine excrement being trolled as a red herring.



Even their preferred phrase (now sadly entrenched in both the media and political use) "gun violence" is a misnomer. AKA "a lie" The entire problem is not guns, it is PEOPLE using guns criminally, And we have lots and lots of laws prohibiting that already and have had for generations.



when some member of an identifiable political, ethnic, or religious group commits a criminal act, we are constantly told not to blame everyone in that group. Why then are gun owners treated differently???



Do you actually believe the NRA and the Second Amendment condone murder?? If you do, I suggest a combination of proper education and professional help to free you of those delusions.



If you truly believe that guns, (or any inanimate object) is evil and capable of overcoming human free will, then I suggest you get together with some of the billionaire's who claim to also feel that way, pool your money and BUY the gun companies and shut them down.



Spend some more money and buy up the guns people already own and are willing to sell (buy-back is yet another misnomer). But don't expect everyone to give up their property for a pittance. No rational person will exchange something they paid hundreds or thousands of dollar for, to get a $50 gift card.....



In simple terms, guns are not evil, guns don't do evil, PEOPLE DO. Yes far too many people are shooting others because they feel like it. That needs to be stopped. Banning a particular style of gun, or even banning all guns will not stop people who want to harm others from doing so.



Go plant your cot in a prison. No inmates there have guns. Will you feel safe???



I wouldn't...

Yeah no biggie just a school here and there for years to come.

For the record I think the ones that are unwilling to compromise in the firearms world are the truly scared ones.

At the very least some control on marketing would help.

[mehavey]

If your kids were in there and they were now deceased hypothetically what would you do?
For the record I like my guns too but there needs to be a compromise here.

First thing I'd do is assess whether he had gone through all the hoops to get the weapons.
He had. Nothing showed up in the System that would have flagged him.
1st problem right there.

2nd -- the fact that "an AR" was used is a red herring.
Any modern 9mm would have been just as destructive in the end

3rd -- Toothpaste is out of the tube are far as firearms go. 20,000,000 'assault rifles'
in public hands. `400,000,000 firearms overall. No one is going to put a dent in that
which would affect the minuscule number of nut cases that make the headlines.
...Nor the street gangs/criminals who make a living by these weapons. Fool's errand.

4th -- We do have a socialization problem... wherein we are raising an increasingly
dangerous number of unstable young males.

Riddle me that as the problem to solve.


,

[Big_Eight]

Originally Posted by mehavey

First thing I'd do is assess whether he had gone through all the hoops to get the weapons.

He had. Nothing showed up in the System that would have flagged him.

1st problem right there.



2nd -- the fact that "an AR" was used is a red herring.

Any modern 9mm would have been just as destructive in the end



3rd -- Toothpaste is out of the tube are far as firearms go. 20,000,000 'assault rifles'

in public hands. `400,000,000 firearms overall. No one is going to put a dent in that

which would affect the minuscule number of nut cases that make the headlines.

...Nor the street gangs/criminals who make a living by these weapons. Fool's errand.



4th -- We do have a socialization problem... wherein we are raising an increasingly

dangerous number of unstable young males.



Riddle me that as the problem to solve.





,

Yeah I tell my wife all the time the boomers on up are absolutely atrocious when it comes to parenting not all of them but the majority.

[chadio]

... If your kids were in there and they were now deceased hypothetically what would you do?...

Hmmm... maybe we should be asking why we protect our government and court houses and banks with guns, but not our children. How and why is this ok?

[Big_Eight]

Originally Posted by chadio

Hmmm... maybe we should be asking why we protect our government and court houses and banks with guns, but not our children. How and why is this ok?

Yes, I absolutely agree.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Big Eight

If your kids were in there and they were now deceased hypothetically what would you do?

Roughly half the parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting are NOT in favor of more gun control. They recognize that guns are not the problem.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Big Eight

I knew this is what the counter would be. Bills are hundreds if not thousands of pages long add them too.

That doesn't address the question.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Big Eight

For the record I think the ones that are unwilling to compromise in the firearms world are the truly scared ones.

Gun owners have been compromising (allowing Second Amendment rights to be gradually eroded) since the National Firearms Act of 1934. I think we have already compromised too much.

[rickyrick]

There’s no wording about compromise in the second amendment. There are methods in place for changing the constitution, that’s the only proper recourse. But as mentioned, we’ve already stepped beyond the bounds of the Bill of Rights with the gun laws that are on the books now.
What other constitutional rights are we willing to give up? Free speech, freedom of religion, allow unwarranted searches, seizure of property.
Murder is illegal, buying a gun with intent to commit murder is illegal. What new gun law is going to stop a murderer? This murderer already violated several gun laws.