October 17, 2017, 12:25 AM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
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. |
October 17, 2017, 06:58 AM | #77 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||||
October 17, 2017, 08:33 AM | #78 |
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. |
October 17, 2017, 08:41 AM | #79 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
I don't like to pile on, but I found the following striking.
Quote:
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:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
October 17, 2017, 08:48 AM | #80 |
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. |
October 17, 2017, 08:58 AM | #81 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
Is that really the issue? Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
October 17, 2017, 09:05 AM | #82 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 5, 2017
Posts: 32
|
The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people.
|
October 17, 2017, 09:20 AM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
October 17, 2017, 09:21 AM | #84 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||
October 17, 2017, 10:01 AM | #85 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
|
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. |
October 17, 2017, 11:50 AM | #86 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,446
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
||
October 17, 2017, 12:14 PM | #87 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Quote:
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:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
October 17, 2017, 05:43 PM | #88 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
|
|
October 17, 2017, 06:19 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,313
|
Quote:
(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. |
|
October 17, 2017, 06:57 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2017
Posts: 323
|
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. |
October 17, 2017, 07:04 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,446
|
Ya think?
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
October 17, 2017, 07:27 PM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
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! |
October 17, 2017, 07:43 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 123
|
"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. |
October 17, 2017, 07:49 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
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." |
October 17, 2017, 07:50 PM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
|
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 |
October 17, 2017, 09:47 PM | #96 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
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. |
|
|