are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

[Spats McGee]

Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms. . . . .

First, to which "specific collected attributes" do you refer?
Second, self-defense or defense of others is not a "legitimate civilian activity?" I disagree.

. . . .The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

I do not dispute that firearms are weapons with lethal potential, but millions of gun owners own, possess, and shoot firearms without the "military's filters," and they get through the day without shooting anyone. Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands, yet no firearm was used in either incident.

. . . . The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

I'll grant you that there are some folks who really shouldn't have access to firearms. However, I'd be curious to know whose hands you would define as "such inappropriate hands." Also, see my post above about the undemocratic nature of rights.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The attractive nuisance argument was used in Austin, TX to make the gun show move away from one location. The cops called it that, IIRC.

I hate to argue the anti side, Spats - but assembly is different from a commercial transaction. Does the state have the legal ability to regulate such? If you sell a car to someone, you have to go through a registration song and dance, if they are to drive it on city streets.

My point is how to you convince folks (if that is your position) that private sales don't go through a check. That is the rule in some states.

So, someone says - I understand the technical nature of the gun show loophole argument. I just want private sales to go through NICS if the sale occurs at a show venue.

Is it unconstitutional? Has it been challenged as such in the states that have such rules?

I might also speculate that the move to allowing carry without permits will slow and perhaps stop. Open carry - the same.

Just a guess. The state of TX couldn't pass campus carry (Gov. Perry aided in that defeat - bah).

If I were to bet, I'd say private sales going through NICS at organized gun shows has the best chance of being put in place.

The antis in the bastions of gun control want the feds to reverse CCW laws and confiscate EBRs. I doubt we would see that.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

Just because you say you're using the "tenets of critical thinking" and "reasoning without including emotion", doesn't make it so.

What you have there, is a predetermined conclusion worked backwards to a starting point that makes it seem logical.

You make numerous assumptions with no specified factual basis. None of the "logic" behind your conclusions is spelled out.

There is no logic in that sequence.

I'm not aware of a single mass murder in American history that was perpetrated with "combat military small arms". Newton certainly wasn't.

Claiming logic is not the same as using it.

 

[Spats McGee]

Glenn, yes, assembly is different than a commercial transaction. But if the argument is that "gun shows are a nuisance because they bring lots of gun foiks together (including some prohibited persons)," then we're talking about an assembly issue. OTOH, if the claim is that all firearms transactions should go through background checks, that's a different issue, and (to some degree) unrelated to gun shows.

. . . .So, someone says - I understand the technical nature of the gun show loophole argument. I just want private sales to go through NICS if the sale occurs at a show venue. . . . .

The question then becomes, "Why? What does a gun show have to do with it?" IMO, it's important to educate the public about this so-called gunshow loophole. For years, the gun show loophole has been (IMHO) one of the biggest lies of the anti-gun movement.

 

[MLeake]

Thanks, Brian, you beat me to it. Uncle Billy tried using the anti trick of presenting his position as the logical, reasonable one - thereby implying that any disagreement must be illogical and/or unreasonable.

Needless to say, I do not agree with him, almost across the board, and yet I do not consider myself to be illogical, unreasonable, nor even unduly emotional.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think we will clarify the loophole phraseology and then move to the private sales debate.

About assembly - in San Antonio, I recall hearing about court decisions or laws that gang members can't congregate.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Gang-targeted-on-the-East-Side-3796277.php

So is that a kind of precedent to use against the shows?

 

[Uncle Billy]

First, to which "specific collected attributes" do you refer?

Light, easy to handle even with one hand while engaged in the athletics of "boots on the ground" combat, lethal but low recoil caliber to maintain aim while shooting in dynamic situations, at least semi automatic for rapid fire, large capacity magazine avoiding having to reload at short intervals, all collected in one weapon meant to engage with numerous armed enemy personnel equally or better equipped.

Second, self-defense or defense of others is not a "legitimate civilian activity?

Yes it certainly is, but weapons meant for small unit combat against numerous armed enemies aren't required, there are other less competent crowd-killers that are still competent anti-personnel weapons in personal defense situations. I have a number of them, and I'm licensed to CC in New York. A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

I do not dispute that firearms are weapons with lethal potential, but millions of gun owners own, possess, and shoot firearms without the "military's filters," and they get through the day without shooting anyone.

If the military demands that its recruits demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence before they are handed an M-16 of their own, and limits their use of their weapons to combat situations, what makes it reasonable that there's no such requirements on civilians who want to possess and control exactly identical firepower? You can't legally fly an FA-18 with a loaded and armed M61 Vulcan aboard by just buying one no matter how much money you have.

Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands, yet no firearm was used in either incident.

So what? Many more have died from wanton use of combat arms in civilian hands than from trucks full of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

I'd be curious to know whose hands you would define as "such inappropriate hands."

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

 

[MLeake]

Uncle Billy, the Murrah bombing killed 168 and injured hundreds. The truck bombing at the WTC only killed six, but injured thousands. Those are only two cases. Please provide stats to back up your claim about EBRs making such numbers pale, or else admit that the emotional and illogical one is you.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

So, a Buckmark 22 pistol with a big magazine would be a "combat small arm".

What is the source of your definition, besides making a definition that fits your forgone conclusion?

What you're doing is the opposite of reason and logic. Defining and redefining words/objects to fit the desired end result, or using the desired end result to define objects/words so as to point to that result.

 

[MLeake]

BTW, as a military reserve retiree and current overseas defense contractor, I am of the opinion that the military hierarchy is, in general, paranoid about possible AD/ND, to the point that weapons restrictions pose a safety hazard.

 

[sigcurious]

There are at least 3 blatant problems with the "military qualifies people or vets them as stable" argument that Uncle Billy is making. Lee Harvey Oswald, Marine, Charles Whitman, Marine, Nidal Malik Hassan, Army Major and psychiatrist.

They all met the requirements of the military, they all committed atrocities. One of them even was a mental health professional. These are only the high profile shooters, not to mention the countless other people who had been in or were in the military when committing crimes that would seemingly indicate the lack of "discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence".

 

[Spats McGee]

First, to which "specific collected attributes" do you refer?

Light, easy to handle even with one hand while engaged in the athletics of "boots on the ground" combat, lethal but low recoil caliber to maintain aim while shooting in dynamic situations, at least semi automatic for rapid fire, large capacity magazine avoiding having to reload at short intervals, all collected in one weapon meant to engage with numerous armed enemy personnel equally or better equipped.

So almost every semiautomatic firearm known to man . . .

Second, self-defense or defense of others is not a "legitimate civilian activity?

Yes it certainly is, but weapons meant for small unit combat against numerous armed enemies aren't required, there are other less competent crowd-killers that are still competent anti-personnel weapons in personal defense situations. I have a number of them, and I'm licensed to CC in New York. A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

So you'll at least concede there is some legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that at least requires firearms, even if you disagree as to what is needed? As to what types of firearms are needed, do all criminals in NY stick to single-criminal activities, or have they been known to commit crimes in larger groups? Are those larger groups occasionally armed?

. . . .A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

You're right, but so what? I hope that I never, as long as I live, have to defend my home or family against any sort of armed attack. It does not follow, however, that I should be prohibited from possessing effective tools for doing so, based on the actions of third parties.

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

This sounds awfully close to "only the police and military should have guns."

 

[Spats McGee]

Glenn -- On the gang members, I note that the article that you linked states:

Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed filed a petition Thursday seeking a temporary restraining order — a civil court measure — against 16 documented members of various sects of the “Bloods” gang.

So these are "documented members" of the Bloods gang. What we don't know is what "documented" means. Have they been convicted of gang-related crimes? Are they felons? I don't know the answer to those questions, but they do have a bearing on the permissibility of a prohibition on their assembly. Arguably, if they're convicted felons and known gang members, they're not exercising a right to peacably assemble, they're assembling for criminal purposes.

 

[spaniel]

"Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry."

The only person ever to deliberately point a gun at my head was a high school classmate who subsequently went into the Marines. The rumor at the time was that it was a deal cut to avoid serving time for the multiple crimes he had already committed. He was in prison within two years of getting out of the service.

What about the several who have deliberately gone around killing Afghan civilians?

Spare me.

Mentally unstable or ill people should not have firearms, IMHO. But we need to be very thoughtful and explicit on how that is determined, otherwise it is just another tool to be manipulated by the antis to nefariously limit ownership.

And as for training classes, I believe Chicago has now gone to requiring a training class, but does not allow them to be held in Chicago. Like the honest poor people in the South Side, the ones who really need to defend themselves the most, have the resources to both pay for the class and find a way to get 40 miles out into the suburbs to attend one. The politicians know this.

 

[spaniel]

I think it should be blindingly obvious that the root cause is cultural. The guns in question have been around for roughly 50 years yet these mass shootings have become common only recently. But don't try to bother those acting on blind emotion thinking they live in Pollyana-land with annoying facts or basic, common sense reasoning.

 

[BGutzman]

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

Your entitled to your opinion but history does not share your opinion. The 2A was specifically so you could provide for your family, your defense, the defense of our nation and ultimately overthrow any government that became tyrannical. See the Declaration of Independence if you have even the slightest doubt. See the quotes by George Washington and the other founding fathers, there is no room for doubt. The founding fathers IMHO though that weapons could be restricted in churches and a few other places but in general weren't regulated. If you wanted to own cannon, or blunderbuss or swords or knives it was up to the citizen.

Your also off base on military training and stability. I spent a majority of my adult life in active military service and I can tell you the military has its share of ill people. I even had a military roommate once who the shrink said to never bring back to her office without a armed escort. My roommate was very bizarre and yet it still took 6 months to identify he was sick and then thankfully he was put out in weeks. I have seen many sick people identified and put out over the years and many more who I thought needed treatment. (Im no doctor)

My overall point is the Bill of Rights is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to military and SCOTUS has recently ruled that we citizens have a right to defense... Group violence does exist... some future government may be tyrannical.. for all these reasons we have a right to military grade weapons.

 

[K_Mac]

Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

I have read and heard some version of this argument stated many times over the last few days. I will add my two cents worth:

1. If my reading of the 2A and the writings of the Founding Fathers is correct, then firearms with the "specific collected attributes" mentioned are exactly what they had in mind when the Bill of Rights was passed. Our right to keep and bear arms was premised on the belief that the people have the right to defend against any threat to liberty, whether foreign or domestic. The notion that an AR15 with a 30 rnd magazine is too dangerous for law abiding citizens to own is contrary to that principle.

2. Any weapon in the wrong hands represents a risk to the public at large. That is an uncomfortable reality that will not change by additional laws restricting or banning firearms.

3. Vetting firearms owners to determine mental stability, discipline, and responsibility is a tricky thing in a free nation. The increase of violence and mental health issues, financial and political uncertainty, and the break down of societal norms in general all contribute to a world that is a dangerous place. That is an uncomfortable reality that will not change by additional laws restricting or banning firearms.

Many more have died from wanton use of combat arms in civilian hands than from trucks full of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

4. I challenge you to provide evidence to support this statement unless you expand combat weapons to include all semiauto weapons, including handguns. The problem is we are talking about criminals who cannot legally own guns now (see point number two). Restricting or banning firearms will not change this reality and violates the 2A (see point number one).

 

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Light, easy to handle even with one hand while engaged in the athletics of "boots on the ground" combat, lethal but low recoil caliber to maintain aim while shooting in dynamic situations, at least semi automatic for rapid fire, large capacity magazine avoiding having to reload at short intervals, all collected in one weapon meant to engage with numerous armed enemy personnel equally or better equipped.

So you only want to disarm civilians from owning effective firearms. That's not authoritarian at all.

Yes it certainly is, but weapons meant for small unit combat against numerous armed enemies aren't required, there are other less competent crowd-killers that are still competent anti-personnel weapons in personal defense situations.

The concept of need is entirely irrelevant to a right.
You fail define crowd-killers.
I would like you to google revolver speedloaders and stripper clips and then tell me that someone truly bent on destruction can't use whatever means necessary.

I have a number of them, and I'm licensed to CC in New York.

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.

A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

irrelevant

If the military demands that its recruits demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence before they are handed an M-16 of their own, and limits their use of their weapons to combat situations, what makes it reasonable that there's no such requirements on civilians who want to possess and control exactly identical firepower?

So someone should decide for an individual and autonomous citizen their own capability based on a centralized and politicized program meant for warfare? Not only do crazy people slip through the cracks as already established, but more importantly a lot of the screening process is to stem lawsuits.

You can't legally fly an FA-18 with a loaded and armed M61 Vulcan aboard by just buying one no matter how much money you have.

Completely irrelevant. One is a small firearm and the other is a plane. The M61 Vulcan attached to it is a separate issue to the comparison as well.

So what? Many more have died from wanton use of combat arms in civilian hands than from trucks full of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

More people die from overeating, smoking, drinking, automobiles, and .22lr caliber firearms.
Do you want to ban .22's?

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

Military state. That's good.
I really hope I dont need to explain why this is bad

 

[Uncle Billy]

None of the "logic" behind your conclusions is spelled out.

I wrote: There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. What's left are recreation, entertainments, in short, hobbies - targets, combat arms competitions, collections, re-creation of modern combat dress and equipment. etc. Justifying unlimited access to M-16- like capabilities at mass killing to maintain a hobby is nearly pathological indifference to the harm such weapons can do when the hobby gets out of hand. Too bad you can't ask Mrs. Lanza whether she agrees.

I wrote: The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

Reasoning: The weapons and their imitators and clones are made to be lethal in combat situations where quick, accurate killing fire is available to engage with and eliminate multiple personnel. No one has to go through combat arms training and psychological assessment, which would filter out those not mentally equipped to handle that firepower to access them in the civilian world.

What is the source of your definition, besides making a definition that fits your forgone conclusion?

The source of my definition is an accurate analysis of what missions modern combat weapons were designed and built to perform, and one thoughtful, unemotional look at them points out the attributes they were built to have that meet that mission. There are obvious reasons why the arms of an infantry platoon aren't Model 94s or M-1s or Remington shotguns or M-1 carbines. Any effort to make M-16s and their clones and imitators disappear among hunting rifles and target rifles will fail even when done to an uninformed public. Those of us who have spent a lifetime with guns of all sorts ought to be able to see the differences (caliber is NOT among the differences) and clearly understand the mission the combat weapons were designed to meet that hunters and target shooters can't perform.

So almost every semiautomatic firearm known to man . . .

I have a number of semi auto rifles none of which meet all the parameters that M-16-configured rifles do. None of them, for example, have or need large capacity magazines to meet their intended uses including defense, only one has a pistol-grip stock but it fires .22 LR cartridges which aren't nearly as deadly as .223s are; if they were there would be no need for the increased power, bullet mass and thus the downrange energy of 5.56X45s or other light but lethal calibers.

So you'll at least concede there is some legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that at least requires firearms, even if you disagree as to what is needed?

Absolutely. I carry a Ruger LC9, a S&W Model 36, a Walther PP in .32 or a Baretta 21A when I carry; I have a Rossi open-choked 12 Gauge double and a loaded .44 Magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk in the bedroom (no kids in there); I have a family heirloom Model 94 and a .30-'06 BSA barrelled action in a stock I carved from a Rienhart-Fagen blank for deer, a pre- '64 Model 70 in .300 H&H Magnum if I ever get the chance to go for elk or moose, a Model 12 trap gun for pheasant and other upland birds (ok, hunting is recreation but it also provides healthy "organic" meat and I won't shoot anything we can't eat); none of these are better met by a modern military combat weapon or a weapon copying all of its functions.

This sounds awfully close to "only the police and military should have guns."

Only if you're trying to hide modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators among all other guns. It ought to sound exactly like "Only police and military should have modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators".

Restricting or banning firearms will not change this reality and violates the 2A

Not all weapons, just those that in the wrong hands present a unique and greatly increased hazard to innocent civilians. Machine guns have been so designated, why is there no big push to get them legalized? Trying to scare gun owners into believing that ownership of all guns is at risk is no less ridiculous than claiming that no one ought to own any weapon.

 

[BGutzman]

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. What's left are recreation, entertainments, in short, hobbies - targets, combat arms competitions, collections, re-creation of modern combat dress and equipment. etc. Justifying unlimited access to M-16- like capabilities at mass killing to maintain a hobby is nearly pathological indifference to the harm such weapons can do when the hobby gets out of hand. Too bad you can't ask Mrs. Lanza whether she agrees.

Really? Interesting because when Hurricane Katrina and Rita destroyed the areas around my home and then my town reality was far different that what you are saying.... We had reports of people killing people simply to get a vehicle with gas and trucks were high on the priority list. So we had a whole city and dozens of towns that were all trying to get out of plugged artery roads... No AC in Louisiana heat, people fist fighting in stores over crazy things that couldn't even help them survive it was pandemonium. All manner of infrastructure broken or down, no water, no sewer.... And now in your dreams you say Id have no right to a high capacity weapon?????

Not to mention as I have already said the historical requirement and necessity of having arms necessary to fight some future tyrannical government...

And lets get real about it... the only difference between a traditional semi auto hunting rifle and a AR is:

1. Traditional hunting rifles tend to be much more powerful than the 5.56mm.
2. The AR has mean looking plastic and places to hang things off of..