Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justin T said:
One can defend themselves and their family with something less than a high capacity/high fire rate rifle.
Click to expand...

One can defend himself with a sharpened pencil.

Is that really the issue?

Justin T said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I perceive problems with aspects of what might loosely be called militarization of civilian PDs. The Hollywood bank robbery probably isn't the best model for police work.

I would note that if you see the utility of "military grade high capacity" semi-automatic rifles in the hands of police, state agents, then you also must see the utility of those items in the hands of an individual. The identity of your principal doesn't change the utility of the rifle.
 
The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people.
Click to expand...

I doubt that is why a PD would have them, since killing people isn't part of their mission, correct application of deadly force and intentional killing being distinguishable.

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

I agree that the COTUS can be amended, but note that on this point it hasn't been. Good luck with the studies.
 
One can defend themselves and their family with something less than a high capacity/high fire rate rifle.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but needs and circumstances differ. I'm not going to support a massive, expensive, and fruitless ban based on your presumptions.

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

The second is that it has other utilities. Dealing with packs of coyotes or wild hogs doesn't work out too well with a bolt-action rifle, conditions for which a high-capacity semiautomatic smallbore works fairly well.
 
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.
 
Rifles that US citizens are not allowed to own under current already existing law, found in the majority of Swiss homes!! Yet, one doesn't hear about much violence in Switzerland.
Click to expand...

Because the demographics of Switzerland are a lot different than here. Switzerland, like Portugal, most of Scandinavia, and similar locales are fairly homogeneous in their racial/ethnic/religious/cultural makeup

I disagree with a lot of what this country does.
Click to expand...

So do I, Justin, and knee-jerk emotion-based "do-good" irrational laws are at the top of my list..........along with the elected folks who propose and support them.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, study away! And good luck to you! Just be certain to understand that millions of video gamers are experiencing that fantasy every day, 24/7 zapping uncountable billions of bad guys & monsters in video fantasy, and they do not all turn into mass murders in real life. IF you could come up with an ACCURATE way to tell who will and will not turn their fantasies into real world actions, it would be a valuable tool.

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

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

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

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

The utility of the rifle is an offensive weapon to kill people
Click to expand...

I agree that is ONE of the utilities of the rifle. What you are missing, or deliberately ignoring, is the fact that sometimes that is a necessary thing. And we have a legal and moral right to own the implements most useful for doing so.
 
Spats McGee said:
I've been watching this thread for a couple of days, and am just now finding time to wade in. Justin.T, we (here at TFL) see posts like yours after virtually every mass shooting. We've even had a few new members sign up, just so that they could post a call for gun control.

Anyway, I'll begin at the beginning.

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

(I'm out of time this morning, but if I need to come back and address "protection from tyranny," I'll be glad to do so.)
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Well please don't let us detain you then. Really.
(says Dale with just the tiniest bit of snark.)

It kind of would be nice though if you went through all the points you made, all the questions you asked and all the information you got and listed the ones where you were flat out wrong. Just saying.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top