The Perception of Gun Owners

[Tony Z]

Last week, a friend's daughter committed suicide. I'm 66, soon to be 67 and grew up with this guy and, in fact, he does handyman chores for me at my manufacturing plant. He is not a gun owner, nor a hunter.

His daughter was 28, and in front of the local police department (1/4 mile from where we live), live streamed on FB, shooting herself in the head. She was gainfully employed at a local hospital in marketing. She was not a drug user. She graduated from UNC, maybe 5 years ago, and was not what could be called "a person that should be watched", but evidently was suffering depression. One of the worse funerals I was ever at.

Where did she get the gun? My point is, no law would have prevented the act she committed. It could have been poison, vehicle or knife. Why in front of a police station? If someone would have tried to stop her, would others have been injured?

By laws, we're trying to rationalize, irrational acts. There is a deeper, multi-faceted problem here that all are failing to grasp.

 

[5whiskey]

Our nation has a hell of a problem. One component of that problem is firearms. Gun people resisting any opportunity to participate in productive coalitions to curb this problem does paint gun owners as self serving ludites. Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings. Colorado's Red Flag Law is one glaring example. Most of us seem to agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of deranged lunatics. The Red Flag Law is aimed at doing exactly that. The responses of some herein have been heated opposition. So evidently that isn't the preferred means of approaching this issue. Mental health is trotted out time after time but a law that allows removing guns from lunatics is "unconstitutional." What I get from that is, people getting killed by guns is just a tiny downside to the rights of all people that want to buy any gun ever made. Where does that leave us? Doing absolutely nothing.

I hear you Colorado redneck. TFL is definitely an echo chamber for pro 2A sentiment, but I will say I appreciate some who are long time members who have differing views. While I may not agree with their particular views, I don’t mind hearing them. Plus I consider such things. Seriously, I loathe hearing about mass shootings. The loss of life, the depravity of some (typically) young man... I hate it. I want it to stop. If there was a way to drastically reduce the number of mass shootings, I would be all ears. Even if it’s a firearm restriction.

The devil, though, is in the details. The only sincere proposals that may, might curb mass shootings that I have seen in the past few years are the red flag laws. I have personally seen those laws abused before, but I also have seen most instances of abuse stop cold once the target of the ex parte hearing has their opportunity at due process during the full court hearing. I don’t have quite the knee jerk reaction against those laws that most here have. If there was any other proposal that could be articulated, with good supporting data and evidence, to drastically reduce these mass shootings I would consider it...

... well, I would consider it with caveats. See I could give up my ARs. Honestly, if it could be shown that doing so would end mass shootings I would be ok giving mine up. But there are several problems. A law banning ARs could not be proven to work, because there are already millions (10s of millions probably) in circulation. In addition, the AR also is the very current rifle that the 2nd amendment seeks to protect (an arm suitable for militia service), and that protection serves an important purpose. So whatever law proposed may could reduce the number of mass shootings where a hundred or so people die a year (which is tragic), but does it create potential problems down the road in removing a general deterrence to government oppression? It may sound silly but that is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place. How many more lives would be on the line should a despot gain populist support, ignore Supreme Court decisions, and begin oppressing minority populations (and don’t think it could never happen, you can look in the past 100 years of American history and find examples).


For me, I’m beyond “shall not be infringed” and “cold dead hands.” We are at a point where catchy slogans just sound ignorant. It’s important to articulate why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place. And I, for one, would be open to a restriction that could be shown to have a high likelihood of saving lives yet preserves the spirit of the constitution. Even if it was a restriction that personally affected me. I just don’t see where a restriction/law has been proposed that will serve that purpose. Other than possibly RFL, but even then any real “evidence” of their effectiveness is thus far lacking.

 

[USNRet93]

Some, maybe most, discussions about gun rights and regulations here in the Firing Line eventually devolve into divisive discourse that tends to label anyone that sees value in some form of regulation as a "gun grabber." For some of us (me in particular) that results in reluctance to participate. But here goes, anyway.

Our nation has a hell of a problem. One component of that problem is firearms. Gun people resisting any opportunity to participate in productive coalitions to curb this problem does paint gun owners as self serving ludites. Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings. Colorado's Red Flag Law is one glaring example. Most of us seem to agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of deranged lunatics. The Red Flag Law is aimed at doing exactly that. The responses of some herein have been heated opposition. So evidently that isn't the preferred means of approaching this issue. Mental health is trotted out time after time but a law that allows removing guns from lunatics is "unconstitutional." What I get from that is, people getting killed by guns is just a tiny downside to the rights of all people that want to buy any gun ever made. Where does that leave us? Doing absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't describe you as a 'redneck'...
-Another CO guy, who has a CCWP and agrees with you.

We just have to figure out a way for real due process to also be a part of any red flag law

Agree with that too.

PLUS...more than a few people, who cannot pass a background check, go to places where they can buy a firearm(or many firearms), because they cannot pass a background check...I really don't see the problem with trying to end this 'loophole'..If you are a law abiding citizen, then go get a BGC and buy the thing..I just bought a shotgun, the BGC took all of 10 minutes and $20..

BTW-most places, like CO, have provisions about transferring guns w/o a BGC between relatives..I'm good with that.

but does it create potential problems down the road in removing a general deterrence to government oppression?

Meaning the AR type platform firing a .223/.556 or 7.62 type round..

hmm, I know a LOT of people who own these and at least 2 who are FFLs who sell them and I have never heard of anybody saying they buy it cuz 'it's a deterrent to government oppression...

IMHO

 

[USNRet93]

I'll make a prediction..and No, I don't support this or anything like that BUT I'll predict that some sort of restriction on .223/.556 ammunition will be coming nationally. With 10 MILLION+ AR type platforms now in existence, that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Remove the ammunition and the 'platform' essentially becomes obsolete...

 

[Tom Servo]

Our own community here applies peer pressure to that effect if members aren't staunchly against any type of legislative attempt to stop mass shootings.

There are two problems here. The first is that these legislative attempts are often a poor (if any) fit to the problem they claim to address. As others have mentioned, many of the proposed "red flag" measures trample due process and carry a huge potential for abuse.

(By the way, people under a protective order are already prohibited from possessing firearms.)

Proposals like background checks actually have no relation to the problem, and they're just a prepackaged agenda waiting for a convenient crisis. This brings us to the second problem: the fact that gun-control advocates operate in poor faith.

The stuff they're marketing is about restricting, and ultimately outlawing, gun ownership. The Brady Act was a stepping-stone to a registry, and all the abuses that entails. Schumer made that clear the very day it was signed, and it's why the Tiahrt Amendment gets them so hot and bothered. Likewise, the "Assault Weapons" Ban was a dry-run to see if they could get away with categorical, incremental bans. It was pushed as a way of protecting law enforcement, but the weapons banned weren't the ones used to harm law enforcement officers. They were simply the guns the ban's advocates could demonize. And again, the day it was signed, we were told it was just the "first step."

Neither the Brady Act or the AWB had any real effect on the crimes they were supposed to prevent (and boy, did they make some extravagant promises). Now they want to reinstate or expand those laws. If they were really intent on reducing mass shootings, they'd come up with something new.

But they won't because they've spent decades marketing those proposals. Ultimately, it's not about reducing violence. It's about making a big show for the cameras by doing something, even when something entails purely superficial and empty gestures.

 

[stinkeypete]

We accept the NFA. If high capacity magazines were made an NFA modification it seems there are only two positions:

1. We don’t accept the NFA and think civilians have a right to all weaponry
2. We don’t accept that high capacity magazines are part of these mass shootings

 

[zukiphile]

There are two problems here. The first is that these legislative attempts are often a poor (if any) fit to the problem they claim to address. As others have mentioned, many of the proposed "red flag" measures trample due process and carry a huge potential for abuse.
***
Neither the Brady Act or the AWB had any real effect on the crimes they were supposed to prevent (and boy, did they make some extravagant promises).

This illustrates a third problem, an overconfidence in the influence of laws on behavior. Remember when concealed carry permits were the new thing, we were warned that gun fights would break out like in a western film and the streets would be blood soaked?

Of course, that didn't really happen. It isn't the lack of a concealed carry law that keeps one from being shot for not holding a door open, and having a prospective legal firearm owner play an ever more complex and expensive game of Mother-may-I will not stop a terrible person from doing terrible things.

We already have laws in every state that permit a dangerous and incompetent person to have a number of his rights suspended. It doesn't stop terrible people from doing terrible things because these laws rely on human foresight, just as red flag laws do.

I don't generally place great confidence in the ability of legislators to accurately foresee the effects of their actions.

...Congress passed a "fair share" luxury tax (30%) on airplanes, cars and yachts (as part of an Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990), and promised it would bring in $9B over the next 5 years. What actually happened is:
Sales dropped 56% in the first month, and got worse from there -- the larger tax package cooled the economy and contributed to a mini-recession
≈25,000 workers in American Yacht Building lost their jobs, 75,000 more jobs were lost from companies supplying parts and materials to those yacht companies
There was also another thousands more lost in small aircraft, and other jobs
The government not only didn't come close to target, they had to pay out billions in unemployment and lost income taxes instead
We went from net exporter to importer, as the rich just bought their boats made in other countries, and listed their livery in the Bahamas, to get around the taxes: and the industry has never recovered

http://igeek.com/w/1990_Yacht_Tax

The other evergreen faux remedy is UBCs. Even of you believe that proponents of UBCs only want to end what they incorrectly deem a loophole, why would we expect their efforts to be any more accurate than the congressional supporters of the 1990 yacht tax?

 

[zukiphile]

We accept the NFA. If high capacity magazines were made an NFA modification it seems there are only two positions:

1. We don’t accept the NFA and think civilians have a right to all weaponry
2. We don’t accept that high capacity magazines are part of these mass shootings

There is at least a third position:

3. Weapons in common use are protected by the 2d Am., and dissuading people from acquiring or keeping weapons and their parts in common use by making them NFA items infringes on that right.

 

[rickyrick]

My viewpoint is that I see laws that get passed that seem to violate the constitution but are allowed to stand until struck down by a court. Taking years to get removed but some never.

Consensus dictates that “shall not be infringed” cannot be construed or interpreted mean “shall not be restricted and regulated”

That ship has sailed, we accept the regulations and follow them.

We as a nation has allowed the government to cross the boundary into infringement but we all have different views on how much infringement by the government should be allowed.

National Red flag laws will dramatically change social media and online activities. I feel that initially they will only effect those domestic abusers and similar creeps, but red flag will open the door for abuse. Online activities will soon be included, no more memes and posting opposition viewpoints.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We accept the NFA. If high capacity magazines were made an NFA modification it seems there are only two positions:

1. We don’t accept the NFA and think civilians have a right to all weaponry
2. We don’t accept that high capacity magazines are part of these mass shootings

First, those two options are not mutually exclusive. I don't think the NFA is constitutional and I do believe the 2A [supposedly] guarantees me a right to possess and carry and use any weapon I choose. That doesn't cancel out my opinion regarding "high capacity" magazines ... regardless of which way my opinion blows on the magazine issue.

As to the "high capacity" magazine issue, many recent mass shootings have involved what are being called "high capacity" magazines. But, like "assault weapon," the definition of what constitutes a "high capacity" magazine is fluid, and subject to change. A great many handguns today are designed to accept a flush-fit magazine with a capacity of up to 18 or so rounds. Yet several states have declared that such are illegal, "high capacity" ammunition feeding devices. How big is too big? A number of states have settled on ten rounds as the maximum. That's a number that was chosen at random, based on either arbitrary criteria or no criteria whatsoever. New Jersey for years was fifteen rounds. (Did I read that NJ recently revised that down to ten?) When New York first enacted the SAFE act in 2014, their limit was seven rounds ... meaning that not even a California-legal firearm with a neutered 10-round magazine would have been legal in New York. NY has since revised their law to ten rounds, but it demonstrates exactly how arbitrary and capricious the whole "high capacity" magazine question is.

Does magazine capacity really make that much of a difference? In the case of the guy who shot Gabby Giffords (I remember the name, but I won't use it), it was his "high capacity" Glock magazine that allowed bystanders to take him down ... when it jammed.

Can I do a lot of damage with a belt or bandolier full of ten-round magazines? You tell me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggK2jQYcwAM

I'm not as fast as Travis Tomasie or Chris Andersen but, with some practice, I could learn to swap magazines faster than most people could rush me during a reload, and that's all that's necessary to negate any perceived advantage to limiting magazine capacity.

 

[zukiphile]

National Red flag laws will dramatically change social media and online activities. I feel that initially they will only effect those domestic abusers and similar creeps, but red flag will open the door for abuse. Online activities will soon be included, no more memes and posting opposition viewpoints.

Is buying a better trigger online an "online activity"?

In L&CR, there is a thread about a case with a long procedural history and factual complexity not all of which is necessary for the following point.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=603128

A contractor in Iraq was convicted of an illicit killing, and the court considering his appeal found that

Third, the Court affirms its prior rulings that Slatten’s use of a hair-triggered SR-25 suggests he “desire[d] to fire quickly” and bears on his intent and motive. See Order 1-2, ECF No. 1036. To the extent the government’s inability to prove Slatten personally modified the trigger mechanism diminishes this evidence’s probative value, it does not extinguish it, since even willingly using a hair-triggered rifle bears on intent and motive.

In other words, the court found that his willing use of a rifle with a lighter trigger was evidence of his intent to murder. That was in a murder trial, with the defendant's criminal rights in play.

If a lighter trigger is evidence of murderous intent, will a judge in a Red Flag case see your order to Geissele for a 3 gun trigger as evidence that you are a danger to the public and need to be relieved of your arms?

 

[stinkeypete]

The argument of “in common use” seems to fail for me because:
Many people speed, it’s still against the law.
Many people smoke pot, still illegal.
Simply because a thing is widespread and creating a social problem shouldn’t inhibit it’s regulation.

Any argument that high capacity removable magazines are not effective bucks every military small arms purchase since about 1918.

 

[zukiphile]

The argument of “in common use” seems to fail for me because:
Many people speed, it’s still against the law.
Many people smoke pot, still illegal.
Simply because a thing is widespread and creating a social problem shouldn’t inhibit it’s regulation.

"In common use" is a quote from the US Sup Ct in Heller. It isn't just that a weapon is in common use; it's also that there is a constitutional amendment and caselaw involved.

 

[rickyrick]

If a lighter trigger is evidence of murderous intent, will a judge in a Red Flag case see your order to Geissele for a 3 gun trigger as evidence that you are a danger to the public and need to be relieved of your arms?

That’s even scarier than the scenarios that I imagined.

 

[stephen426]

First, those two options are not mutually exclusive. I don't think the NFA is constitutional and I do believe the 2A [supposedly] guarantees me a right to possess and carry and use any weapon I choose. That doesn't cancel out my opinion regarding "high capacity" magazines ... regardless of which way my opinion blows on the magazine issue.

I have heard this statement before and I would have to respectfully disagree. Let's take things up a notch at a time.

Full-Auto Weapons: Far higher cyclic rate than semi-autos means a lot more lead down range in a shorter period of time. Before you disagree and say full-auto guns are hard to control and run out of ammo quickly, what about belt fed guns? What about vehicle mounted weapons such as mini guns? I am okay with the NFA because there is a much stricter vetting process with the BATF. The cost of getting pre-ban weapons would preclude most people from being able to purchase them.

Explosives: This would include grenades, mortars, bazookas, etc. I know that people have make their own explosives (Timothy McVeigh), but those materials are now monitored. How much deadlier could someone hell bent on destruction be if they had unlimited access to those types of devices?

Military Vehicles: If you are going to argue that any American citizen should have the same access to all the equipment that our military does, who not tanks and fighter jets? These items are obviously very expensive, but they can also be very deadly in the wrong hands.

Nukes: If we are to really have access to all the weaponry our military has, you'll have to include nukes. I don't believe you really believe that any "law abiding citizen" should have access to nukes do you?

At some point, I believe responsible gun owners need to stop suggesting that everyone just arm up and shoot back. Is there a way to prevent or reduce the occurrence of mass shootings, without totally trampling the rights of law abiding citizens??? I feel that is our responsibility as gun owners to figure that out.

 

[5whiskey]

At some point, I believe responsible gun owners need to stop suggesting that everyone just arm up and shoot back. Is there a way to prevent or reduce the occurrence of mass shootings, without totally trampling the rights of law abiding citizens??? I feel that is our responsibility as gun owners to figure that out.

I don’t disagree with you. But what real proposal has been suggested to actually hinder, for real, mass shootings? UBCs? Pass a fix NICS law first, as several mass shooters passed a background check when they should have been documented as a prohibited person (SC church shooting, southerland springs shooter, VA tech shooter through mental illness though his shrink didn’t report it, same with the CO theater shooter). Several more were on LEO radar and should have been monitored (the pulse nightclub shooter, the Parkland FL shooter). Everyone in America should scream about that. That’s numerous high profile incidents that shouldn’t have happened, according to current on the books law. But it did.

What other laws could help? Perhaps an AWB may hinder some, but anyone he’ll bent on doing this type of thing will find a way to get one of the 10+ million that are already out there. It’s like dropping feathers and trying to pick them all up a year later. Most are gone. What else? I honestly don’t know. But I would be open to it if it actually would help, and preserved the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

 

[rickyrick]

The goal isn’t to stop mass shootings really, some people have good intentions and want a better, safer world for all because they have kind heart. The people that have the power to restrict firearms know everything we know: they know what the bill of rights is about, they know the stats and they know the underlying causes of violence. Some just don’t want armed citizens... even when crime is low. Restricting guns is low hanging fruit, easier to do than actually fixing the problem securing schools and such.

 

[stephen426]

I am for Red Flag laws if the claims can be investigated and substantiated. If you post something threatening online or make written threats, I'd say it is pretty open and shut. The problem lies with witch hunt style searches. If someone claimed that they overheard another person of plotting an attack, would that be enough to detain the suspect and thoroughly search his home and computer? Would a warrant be required and under what guise could one be obtained? Is hear say testimony enough and what due process would be involved?

I have also given a lot of thought to the psychoactive drug and mass shooting correlation. I used to think that anyone who was taking psycho active drugs or under the care of a mental health professional, could be considered a potential threat. The truth is that there are a lot of people using psychoactive drugs (legal prescriptions such as Prozac), and it doesn't automatically turn them into crazed killers. Could the fear of these meds causing homicidal tendencies scare people into not taking prescription drugs, or even avoid seeking help from mental health professionals?

What I do know is that the answer is not clear cut or simple. The status quo of "thoughts and prayers" but not change will not continue for long.

 

[stephen426]

The goal isn’t to stop mass shootings really, some people have good intentions and want a better, safer world for all because they have kind heart. The people that have the power to restrict firearms know everything we know: they know what the bill of rights is about, they know the stats and they know the underlying causes of violence. Some just don’t want armed citizens... even when crime is low. Restricting guns is low hanging fruit, easier to do than actually fixing the problem securing schools and such.

Ricky, the El Paso shooting was at a Walmart (not a gun free zone), the Dayton shooting occurred in a popular night life district (probably not gun-free except for inside the clubs), and the Las Vegas shooting was at an outdoor venue. My point is that none of those shootings occurred inside of a school and securing those areas would be practically impossible.

I'm not sure you would have such a cavalier attitude if it was one of your loved ones killed or injured in one of these mass shootings. We can totally change our life styles and not go places for fear of mass shootings, but we are the ones that miss out on things. Even if I was armed when a mass shooting broke out, what are my chances with a small sub-compact pistol versus a guy armed with an AR-15 wearing body armor? He can shoot at people indiscriminately, but I would be very concerned about hitting bystanders.

There has to be a better way than just having a bunch of armed people shooting back. I'm sure the collateral damage could be huge.

 

[Mainah]

The goal isn’t to stop mass shootings...

Yes it is, that's something that everyone agrees on. It isn't possible, but progress towards that goal will save lives.

Restricting guns is low hanging fruit, easier to do than actually fixing the problem securing schools and such.

How can we secure every school in the country?