Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

[44 AMP]

You ignored what I wrote--

No, I didn't ignore what you wrote, though tis possible is misunderstood the point you were making...

Unless of course you argue with 70 year's of military use as a red herring.

just as I think you are misunderstanding my point here.

The "red herring" is, to me not the military's use. for which the overall simplicity and ease of use which makes it especially useful to the military, but on people focusing only on the physical capabilities of the rifle and its rounds and demanding its tight control or outright prohibition to keep them out of civilian hands.

As I see it, the entire argument about it being a "weapon of war' and "too powerful" for private citizens to own are the red herring.

“Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,” retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, June 2, 2022. This guy is not just some random civilian. He knows what he is talking about. And he is still alive.

As to this, my response is "so???" his opinion is his opinion and like many, worth what you paid for it, or less. History is full of Generals who held wrong opinions. Being a general means nothing in regard to being right. ASSUMING he knows what he is talking about because he is a general is a flawed assumption. He could be, he could also be wrong, and in this case, considering he dismissed all other possible uses for the AR and considers it ONLY a weapon of war, means to me, he's wrong. And the fact that he is still alive is machts nichts.

So if an auto-loader rifle (AR 15) should be banned because it is a "weapon of war", shouldn't bolt action center fire rifles and shotguns be banned too?

We tried this tactic early on in the arguments over "assault weapons" and "ordinary semi auto rifles". We assumed (incorrectly as it turned out), that the other side would see the reason, and since "regular" semis were legal and not otherwise restricted the same should apply to the "assault weapons". The other side did not accept that reasoning, and simply expanded the scope of their desired restrictions to include the rest of the semi autos that DON'T have a military appearance.

Literally what we said was "since these are ok, those should be as well" and what we got in response was "ok, we'll take those currently "ok" ones, away, too..."

Currently, in my state, every single semi auto rifle is legally classed as a "semiautomatic assault rifle", every one, not just the ARs and AKs, but all the way down to fixed magazine .22s. If its a rifle, and is semi auto under our current law, it is legally a "semiautomatic assault rifle". requiring a host of legal restrictions not applied to any other firearms.

so much for trying to be reasonable, it seems...

 

[Tom Servo]

It appears the Senate has agreed to a framework of a possible bill. Nothing's been written yet. It has to go to the House first.

According to Sen. Chris Murphy, this is what's on the table:

2/ Major funding to help states pass and implement crisis intervention orders (red flag laws) that will allow law enforcement to temporarily take dangerous weapons away from people who pose a danger to others or themselves.

3/ Billions in new funding for mental health and school safety, including money for the national build out of community mental health clinics.

4/ Close the “boyfriend loophole”, so that no domestic abuser - a spouse OR a serious dating partner - can buy a gun if they are convicted of abuse against their partner.

5/ First ever federal law against gun trafficking and straw purchasing. This will be a difference making tool to stop the flow of illegal guns into cities.

6/ Enhanced background check for under 21 gun buyers and a short pause to conduct the check. Young buyers can get the gun only after the enhanced check is completed.

7/ Clarification of the laws regarding who needs to register as a licensed gun dealer, to make sure all truly commercial sellers are doing background checks.

Half that stuff is already law. I'm not sure what they mean by "enhanced" background checks for buyers under 21 years of age.

It's somewhat amazing that we went from banning "assault weapons" and magazines to this in just under a week.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Chris Murphy is an avowed gun hater who has never met an anti-gun or anti-2A law he didn't like. I don't trust anything he says.

I'm especially worried about any laws that affect "intimate partners" or anything resembling that. The way some existing red flag laws are written, it seems if a man takes a woman out for dinner just once, she can then file an emergency "red flag" restraining order against him and then the burden falls on the real victim (the guy) to prove to a court why he should get his guns back.

And we all know it's difficult to impossible to prove a negative.

There was the case of a police officer who shot (and killed) a young man who was threatening him with a knife. I watched the video. The cop back-pedaled down the street at least 30 or 40 yards, repeatedly telling the kid to drop the knife as the kid continued to approach him. The cop finally shot when the kid charged him.

The mother took out a red flag order against the cop, falsely claiming that they "had a child in common" in order to give her standing. It took a while for the cop to get that cleared up on his end, and IIRC it was well over a year before the state finally charged her with perjury. When they did -- she went on the lam.

Red flag laws are dangerous and IMHO unconstitutional.

If you missed it, here's the article:

https://policetribune.com/woman-files-false-red-flag-complaint-against-cop-who-shot-her-son/

Follow-up:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...etition-against-csu-police-officer/ar-AAWv99O

[Edit to add] Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkEgwTIfVIg

Better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZNvcQdTGQs

 

[cdoc42]

"3/ Billions in new funding for mental health and school safety, including money for the national build out of community mental health clinics."

Watch where the "billions" are coming from. I can't imagine they are not going to tax guns, gun products, ammo, and anything related to a gun to fund this so-called mental health pursuit (which is now a walk in the dark) as well as "school safety."

One the so-called representatives - I forget his name- is calling for a 1000% tax on semi-auto AR-15 rifles AND magazines. Translate that from a $2000 rifle = $20,000 tax.

 

[44 AMP]

Realizing that "what's on the table" can be vastly different from what goes into the proposed bill, I have to wonder about various details of the proposals.

#4 "the boyfriend loophole" ?? really?? first I ever heard of this. Isn't a misdemeanor DV conviction already prohibiting gun possession, under the Lautenberg amendment??? how is the proposal different?? Is just a huge expansion of who might be covered or is it something else?

#5 how does this differ from existing law? and this...

This will be a difference making tool to stop the flow of illegal guns into cities.

is political fluff stating nothing but their hopes.

as for #6,

I'm not sure what they mean by "enhanced" background checks for buyers under 21 years of age.

Neither is anyone else. And therein lies a trap. When the govt requires something that does not exist in order to allow purchase, that's a potential trap. Enhanced Back ground check, or some special "safety" class, if (and most likely when) the govt does not provide it, they will still require the condition be met before approving a sale. Getting the govt off their butts to actually provide the required check/classes might require a lawsuit of it own.

And its a virtual certainty that any legal challenge by 18-20year olds will no be settled before it becomes a moot point for them as individuals.

One state I know has already provided us a roadmap to the way things could happen. In 2018, a law was passed requiring several things to be met in order to purchase a semiautomatic assault rifle, ONE of them was a special safety class. The law went into effect in 2019, and to date, no such class exists, and the state seems in no hurry to change that.

In that state (and so far) dealers are accepting any safety course certificate as sufficient to allow sale, and so far, the state has not challenged that. So far....

What happens if another state, or the FED decides simply to suspend sales until they (finally) get around to creating the now required programs?

I'm happy the focus has shifted (for now) away from banning certain guns, but without more details, and specifics, there's no way to know if where they are proposing going is where we should be going....

Once again, I will remind all here that when our current Pres was VP and asked about enforcing federal gun laws, he publicly said "we don't have time for that"...so consider, no matter what they do eventually pass, what good will it do if its not enforced??

 

[Aguila Blanca]

#4 "the boyfriend loophole" ?? really?? first I ever heard of this. Isn't a misdemeanor DV conviction already prohibiting gun possession, under the Lautenberg amendment??? how is the proposal different?? Is just a huge expansion of who might be covered or is it something else?

It depends on how each state defines domestic violence or domestic abuse. Many states extend the reach of such charges beyond marriage and cohabitation to include "intimate partners" or those in "intimate relationships." Often that's not defined, so does a one-night stand create standing for someone to file a red flag complaint against you? If so, how long does it take for that to go away? Could someone you slept with once, five, ten, or twenty years ago pop up and file a red flag complaint against you for revenge?

As the Fort Collins case demonstrates, red flag laws are generally poorly written and leave gun owners wide open to revenge complaints filed on spurious grounds.

It makes me perversely thankful that I'm well beyond the dating age, because my state has a red flag law and the wording would terrify me if I were dating.

 

[44 AMP]

Been married over 40 years, few things horrify me, anymore....
However, the red flag laws are something that does.

The whole idea sounds bass-ackwards and nor only ripe for abuse, but also seems doomed to fail against someone who is actually determined to cause harm.

Seems to me that if the person is a threat, then it is the person who should be locked up, not SOME of their property.

HOW does it make us safer to take the guns and leave the "dangerous" person with their freedom, bank account and the ability to replace those weapons or choose an alternate??

Doesn't seem quite right to me, take the guns, but leave them free maybe with a garage with a can of gasoline, some chains and padlocks and matches?? (for just ONE example...)

here's a random thought, you run a stop sign, (or worse, someone you have a disagreement with tells the cops you ran a stop sign) so because you might hit someone in the future, we take your car, and sometime within the next year we hold a hearing so see if you can proove to us you should get it back....

sound fair to you?

doesn't to me.

 

[HiBC]

Red flag laws were quite a topic here a few months back.

I think they are wide open to abuse. I live in Ft Collins. The above mentioned case is a great example.

I realize few have the courage to use it when its needed, but what happened to the 72 hour hold for evaluation? Properly used,it seems to me it makes red flags unnecessary.

No new law will eliminate incompetence in using the systems already in place.

We have background checks. For example,if a man is thrown out of the US Airforce for domestic abuse, we already have a law preventing him from buying
a gun. Lauterbach,I believe? If this man then passes a background check ,buys a gun and kills a bunch of people in a Texas Church.*. Did those people die for lack of a law? No. They died because a maniac killed them,but Government incompetence enabled the killer.

This layering of one ineffective law on top of another because lawmakers and press say "We have to do something" Crisis and emotion do not write good law.

How about this. The reaction of the lawmakers to a killing tragedy should FIRST be to study every pre existing law that was INTENDED to prevent the crime.
If the problem is the performance of bureaucrats, identify the person and the failure.
Hold them as accountable as an aircraft mechanic might be after an airline crash.
Correct the problems in the Government System that fail the law already on the books. Don;t make another law .

Step Two: If you need a new law, you MUST repeal the previous laws that don't work first.
Laws that are ineffective against crime still rob law abiding people of liberty.

* A wonderful woman I worked with as a custodian came here from Mexico. Her Father would hold outdoor campfire type Church meetings for rural people down around the Texas border. This co worker noticed another woman walked there barefoot.
My co-worker gave up her sandals to that woman. I tell you this is a true salt of the earth good Woman.I worked some years with her.
I learned later that her family attended that Texas church and she lost multiple family members to that shooting.

To a Domestic Abuser who PASSED a BACKGROUND CHECK.

No new law would help. One Government Employee could have,SHOULD have stopped it.
As these JACKASS legislators posture before the news camera.

 

[JohnKSa]

Remember the law of averages. By the math, half the people creating the statistics are below average intelligence...

1. The "law of averages" has nothing to do with that sentence.

2. It's unlikely that the field of statistics has the same intelligence level as the general population. The reasonable assumption that most statisticians have a college degree suggests that the average intelligence level of the field is around 10 points higher than the average intelligence of the overall population

3. While the average and the median are often very similar, depending on the distribution, they can be different. The median, not the average, is the outcome selected from the populatio such that half the population is below it and half is above it. In other words, if we were to ignore the other two problems with the statement, the correct statement would be: "By math, half the people creating the statistics are below median intelligence."

Here's an example of a simple data set where the median is different from the average.

0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 1, 100, 101, 102

In this case, the median value is 1 (half the values in the data set are below the median, half are above it) while the average value of the data set is about 43.51

If you want to look at numbers and likelihood of something happening, consider this, 50/50. Something happens, or it doesn't.

This is why, if you play the lottery a few times, your chances of winning the lottery are very high. Because the probability of winning is 50/50--either it happens or it doesn't.

Seriously, the fact that there are only two possible outcomes absolutely does not imply that the probability of each outcome is the same. Tomorrow, I will either get hit by a meteorite or I will not--but the probability of the former outcome is vanishingly small while the probability of the latter is nearly 100%.

One can create statistics that appear to support anything you choose, all you need do is be ...creative when selecting your parameters.

It is true that, just as with guns, people misuse them to further their own destructive goals.

Should we ban them because some people misuse them?

Should people who clearly know nothing about them set the rules for how they are used?

 

[stagpanther]

Statistics don't prove anything. They suggest correlation for decision-making.

 

[zukiphile]

Unless of course you argue with 70 year's of military use as a red herring. I think there are many thousands who would agree if they weren't dead because they were on the receiving end.

What does that say for 22lr and 25acp?

I think it is fair to draw from more than a half century of military use (sort of -- it's a bit like noting that the VW Beetle or Toyota Corolla is the most sold car in the world even though it is 15 different cars over 50 years) that it is/was:

1. economically realistic for the government to purchase in large numbers;
2. easy enough to dis-assemble and re-assemble that anyone the services would admit can be taught to accomplish each task;
3. accepts a round that is mostly sufficient for most purposes;
4. has seen use and refinement in design that tend to make it safer in the hands of an average user;
5. is now so familiar and numerous with such well establish lines of supply that it is hard to displace even with objectively superior rifles.

All of that contributes to the design also making an excellent commercial product.

BDUs are cotton and soldiers may wear big ugly glasses, but if a general referred to BDU trousers and big ugly glasses as the "trousers and eyeware of war" we'd ask the bartender to cut him off.

That a rifle is thrifty, safe, accurate, reliable and versatile doesn't make it peculiarly suited to war -- it makes it a good product. That Gen. Eaton went on to offer a rationale that would ban all semi-automatic rifles betrays the radicalism of his position.

I think Gen. Eaton's comments might have gone unnoticed - someone in the armed services not having an excellent grasp on how society more generally works isn't unusual - without the soundbite culture. What made his comment prominent was it's quick use by restriction advocates as a sort of half baked argument by authority. Harmy=guns, therefore Harmy guy=expert all about guns, and expert about guns=knows what civil rights should be.

 

[stagpanther]

That a rifle is thrifty, safe, accurate, reliable and versatile doesn't make it peculiarly suited to war

Maybe--but none of the guys I've talked to that have been in combat and used the M4/M16 have said anything like that. My point isn't that it's a weapon of war, it's that it has unique characteristics that make it extremely efficient--one of the best-- for putting a lethal round on target quickly and accurately. I'm not ascribing any moral overlays of "good vs evil"; just "telling it like it is" IMO.

 

[mehavey]

We have a Prometheus Problem.
And the gods are angry that the People have been given such a gift.
You know the rest of that story . . . .

 

[zukiphile]

I'm not ascribing any moral overlays of "good vs evil"; just "telling it like it is" IMO.

Understood.

Maybe--but none of the guys I've talked to that have been in combat and used the M4/M16 have said anything like that.

OK, but they haven't been procuring them for the government for 70 years either.

I don't know if use in combat and the ensuing affection is a great metric. I've represented a number of veterans of the korean war, guys who tell me they still know their rifles' serial number. They are sure it is the best rifle ever, you know - steel and wood..., and I'll admit that a well prepped garand is a great rifle.

My point isn't that it's a weapon of war, it's that it has unique characteristics that make it extremely efficient--one of the best-- for putting a lethal round on target quickly and accurately.

Wouldn't we want every rifle to put a round on target quickly and accurately? And isn't every rifle round potentially lethal? Those can't be unique characteristics if most non-defective examples of the genre can do the same.

I'm not suggesting that it's a bad rifle, just that there isn't anything unique about the design. What really distinguishes it in the market is ubiquity and affordability.

If we are addressing simplicity of use and maintenance so that training to basic competence is possible, I think the AK design may be better. I don't like the AK safety selector because inconvenience discourages use, but it is notably simple.

 

[BobCat45]

zukiphile wrote:

I'm not suggesting that it's a bad rifle, just that there isn't anything unique about the design. What really distinguishes it in the market is ubiquity and affordability.

It was the first design that was modular enough that one could take a common, off-off-the-rack rifle - one of thousands churned out by CNC machines and assembled by unskilled labor - and, with zero actual gunsmithing skills, add a free-float tube, a decent trigger, and a 'match-grade' barrel, and wind up with a rifle capable of shooting High Master scores.

Anyone capable of changing the oil and filter in their car can make an AR-pattern rifle shoot, just by swapping parts, with no sear polishing or action bedding or any of the skills a true gunsmith would use to turn a Model 700, or a Springfield, or Garand, or any common rifle into a match winner.

This is irrelevant to the point of this thread and I request forgiveness for the derailment, but the very modularity to which I refer is one of the great charms and attractions possessed by the AR-15. And it does not make it 'more lethal' or 'more deadly' or more likely to be (mis)used by a criminal.

 

[Pistoler0]

Statistics don't prove anything. They suggest correlation for decision-making.

Statistics is not capable of proving things. Only of disproving stuff (with a reasonable degree of certainty).
The whole statistical edifice is built on the "rejection of the "null" (when compared to an alternative hypothesis).

The airplane you fly in has been designed according to parameters and specifications that guarantee that the air frame will not fail under certain circumstances. The data they used in their statistical testing rejected the null hypothesis that the aircraft will crash under those aerodynamic conditions.

But statistics does much much more than mere correlation analysis, correlation is only a measure of linear association used for the description of data. It is of course very intuitive (% of movement in variable Y happening together with the movement in variable X), and the first statistical measure to be learned in an introductory course after measures of central tendency (such as the Mean, Median or Mode). But a measure of correlation for instance will not capture and association between x and y that has a U shape.

Tests of causation do exist in statistics, such as the Granger causality test (the most basic) and many others. These tests are much more useful than measures such as correlation which only describe the degree to which two variables linearly move together.

What is absolutely true, is that there is a LOT of poorly executed statistical studies. Specially because almost nobody attempts to replicate the stuff published in scientific journals (it just takes so long! ) and so there is very little chance that researchers using poor methods or poor data will be called out.

 

[ballardw]

Statistics don't prove anything. They suggest correlation for decision-making.

From my classes: Statistics are an aid to "Decision making under uncertainty"

 

[Pistoler0]

Why ONLY ban the AR15?? It is just the start.

Statistics is not capable of proving things. Only of disproving stuff (with a reasonable degree of certainty).
The whole statistical edifice is built on the "rejection of the "null" (when compared to an alternative hypothesis).

My apologies for getting carried out with the statistics stuff, I would like to contribute something more related to this thread.

I believe that 2A protects the unfettered right to bear arms, but I want to leave that aside (because I think that I am only preaching to the choir here) and instead focus on the nonsensical idea of trying to ban certain firearms. I want to follow a bit along the line of reasoning that Aguila Blanca is putting forward for his essay on the "lethality" of the AR-15.

You see, I do believe that the AR-15 is, because of what Stagpanther said above, a very effective tool. This is because of its ease of use, its precision and the relative power of the cartridge it uses. And that is precisely why it is so popular: it is versatile and effective!

I have no doubt that when someone is intent on causing mayhem, the AR15 might be at the top of their choice.

But if gun control advocates managed remove ALL AR15s (and other autoloaders) from the hands of the public, that would not mean that the would-be mass murderer would be out of tools for their nefarious deed. At the distances at which these horrific acts are carried out, a pistol would be equally effective. So is the AR15 ban going to stop the mass murderer? No, mass shooting with pistols would be next. And.... those would then be banned!

In a world without auto loading rifles and pistols, the would be mass murderer would not be out luck when it comes to choices for creating carnage: lever action rifles are potent and facilitate the quick follow up with numerous shots. And the same goes for straight pull repeating action rifles. Or are AR15 haters thinking that quick and horrific mass murder would not be easily possible with a repeating lever action as well? So those would need to be banned too, no?

And if now we are left with only bolt action firearms being available to the public, an enterprising mass shooter could employ that, at distance! , to cause the same level of destruction. This happened with the DC shooting of the early 2002, and it went on for weeks!.

Therefore the only certain solution for the elimination of all murder carried out with guns would be the banning of ALL GUNS! For EVERYBODY. And this is, no doubt, the agenda. Why everybody? Because if I am a good guy today, who is to guarantee that I will not become deranged tomorrow? Absolute measures are necessary to reach absolute goals, and thus the banning of the AR15 is only the FIRST step towards the confiscation of ALL GUNS. Because as long as there are guns, criminals and crazies will be capable of doing horrible things with them. Will they stop when all gun disappear from the face of the Earth?

Because something is for certain: we are not going to be able to identify and keep under control all the disturbed people, now or in the future, that would want to carry these horrific acts.

I propose that after all guns are banned, we also ban knives, and fast cars, and muscles (strong people are dangerous), and baseball bats, and dangerous dog breeds, and martial art lessons, and flammable stuff, and cliffs and high windows....

 

[44 AMP]

Should people who clearly know nothing about them set the rules for how they are used?

Isn't that what we have Congress for??

opps, sorry, its not what we have Congress for, its just what Congress has been doing for LONG time....

Unless of course you argue with 70 year's of military use as a red herring.

the M16 was adopted in 1964. My calculator says that's 58, not 70.

This is irrelevant to the point of this thread and I request forgiveness for the derailment, but the very modularity to which I refer is one of the great charms and attractions possessed by the AR-15. And it does not make it 'more lethal' or 'more deadly' or more likely to be (mis)used by a criminal.

I think the popularity of the AR is somewhat relevant to the shooting, since that is what was used, but there's more to it than the ease of operation or modularity.

One part (I believe) why these killers choose an AR, and earlier shooters chose an AK is because the media's tremendous coverage of THE WEAPON used has literally trained everyone in the country to believe that "if you are going to do a mass shooting, this is what you do it with..."

Not all the mass killers use them, but seems like its "expected" these days. The "copycat" is motivation is not dismissible. Its real, though the degree varies.

In Jan 89, Patrick Purdey killed 5 kids and wounded over 30 other people in Stockton CA. He used a semiauto AK-47 variant, then killed himself. With the shooter dead, the press focused on the gun, and kicked off the ongoing frenzy over "assault weapons"

In September the same year Joseph Wesbecker used the same kind of rifle to kill 8 and injure 12 at the printing plant where he had worked, before killing himself, in Louisville KY.

You won't find it in internet summaries, but I remember what was reported at the time, and it's copycat in detail. Wesbecker had ordered an AK. and when he got it, it wasn't the exact same model Purdey used, so he sent it back and got the "right one". When the police searched his home after the shooting they found a Time magazine, open to the the article on the Stockton shooting, on the table by his chair....

Over the years since, the AR rifle has become the most prominent and frequently used in mass murder. Though there have been exceptions, such as Virginia tech where the killer used a pair of handguns...

Point here is that PERHAPS one of the reasons these killers choose an AR is because that's what they have been taught to use (unintentionally, of course)

thoughts??

 

[BobCat45]

Sounds good, but what about the Carcano? Nobody in the US used one of those for another political murder since Kennedy.

I think there are more AR-pattern rifles in the hands of US citizens than AK-pattern rifles, although I have no proof at hand. If it is so, then maybe the bad guys use an AR because it is more common than other rifle types.

Back in the days of "Kleenex" and "Scotties" I think more people wiped their noses with Kleenex than all other brands combined, because they were ubiquitous. Where I live (in Texas) if someone asks if you want a Coke, they are asking if you want a bottle of carbonated flavored sugar water - the brand can be anything.