The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum James Baker: Gun laws Republicans can supportGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| One of Us |
How can you consider the individual driving of cars into crowds perhaps did not consider using a firearm. Perhaps they were a felon that was banned for obtaining a gun (we know you can get one on the street? Wisconsin Christmas parade and fled the scene. How many people including children did he kill or injure? As noted a day after the Allen shooting a guy ran over and killed 8 people at a bus stop in Brownsville and injured I believe 8 others. Then attempted to flee the scene. If I take the time to google people plowing into crowds with their vehicles we see this not an every day occurrence but not unusual. It does make the news ,just does not stay on for weeks on end. Just more nut cases! How about the Boston marathon bomber. Timmothy McVey. A bomb maker on the news this morning caught ahead of time here in the DFW metroplex. 911 come to mind? Not vehicles but alternative methods to achieve their goals.
| |||
|
One of Us |
None of those situations are apropos to your point. Your contention is that if you deny mass killers an AR or a semiautomatic handgun, they will resort to something else. Did any of the killers in your litany try to buy an AR or semiautomatic pistol and get denied and were forced to find an alternative means to commit their deed? Perhaps the mode they chose was the mode they wanted to use all along. Point is, that it is just rank speculation that every mass killer that would otherwise use an AR or a semiautomatic pistol, if denied the ability to get one, is just going to use something else . . . I get it, you do not want to do anything to try to reduce the number of mass shootings. Just don’t resort to specious arguments to justify your desire to do nothing. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Actually Mike if I had a path to cull these events it would be to institute mental health facilities once again. I know you are aware we have 330,000,000 people the USA. One in a thousand may have some form of mental instability. That sums to 330,000 disturbed people.I actually believe that is a low number. A big number to support and evaluate. Reform our criminal justice system to keep dangerous people behind bars. But Mike you actually recognize my point. They do not have to select a AR. You tried to pin/twist it on a specific AR perspective. My positions were options, options, options. Take an option away and they will find another. They exist in quantity. I remember taking up this subject with my wife when the government tried to regulate Hi capacity hand guns. I told her, shit they take them away and criminals will resort to long guns and it will be a lot worse.
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Let’s try this way and see if you get the point. Assume we impose restrictions (not a ban) on AR-style rifles and high capacity semiautomatic pistols and someone who is a potential mass killer is unable to acquire one. Four things can happen. One, the individual can abandon his mass killing plans and find some other means of giving expression to his illness. Two, the individual can remain committing to his mass killing plans but is forced to use an alternative method that is less lethal. Three, the individual can remain committing to his mass killing plans but is forced to use an alternative method that is as lethal as if he had been able to acquire an AR-style rifle or high capacity semiautomatic pistol. Four, the individual can remain committing to his mass killing plans but is forced to use an alternative method that is more lethal than if he had been able to acquire an AR-style rifle or high capacity semiautomatic pistol. Two of the four possibilities are an improvement over the situation we currently find ourselves in. One is push and one would leave us worse off. Frankly I’ll take the 50% possibility that we end up in a better place with fewer grieving parents and family members. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
They could buy an Ar from an individual and bypass the 4473. | |||
|
| One of Us |
. . . I guess you missed the part about the ability to acquire AR-style and high capacity semiautomatic pistols being restricted?  Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well said! . | |||
|
One of Us |
I hate to ccall anyone idiot but you are one with big I Eezeridr is absolutely correct and you just deflect and argue nonsense…are you a lawyer? | |||
|
| One of Us |
. . . maybe you will explain the flaws in my argument . . . or perhaps you will just stick to ad hominem attacks. Speaking of idiots, the latter is a pretty good sign of one.  Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Snort! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks Jim. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
But that's fallacious reasoning. You're assuming four possibilities and arbitrarily giving them equal weight. Why should we assume the same number of killers in each possibility? In fact, possibility 3 may occur two or three or ten times more often than possibility 1. Which makes your conclusion invalid. I happen to believe these killers will find other means to kill, rather that find other expression for their illness (like praying in church?) most of the time. You're also assuming that we can do something, anything, to affect the violence, without showing the cause and effect I keep asking about. I want to know how "restricting" (whatever that means) ARs and high-capacity handguns will reduce the incidence of mass killings. I believe new laws in general should have some showing they'll actually affect the problem. | |||
|
| One of Us |
We have seen a number of cases where the killer should have been prevented from being able to buy his weapon of choice. The courts did not charge from previous encounters. Thats on the lawyers and judges. Enforce the laws to the fullest, then get back to me about restrictions. | |||
|
| One of Us |
We certainly do not want to inconvenience someone by having them wait a bit while a more thorough background check is conducted. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The gunman in the Uvalde school shooting turned 18 on May 16. On May 17 and May 20 he bought two AR-style rifles. On May 18 he bought 375 rounds of ammunition. On May 24 he killed 21 people including 19 children. Would increasing the age to purchase such a rifle have saved those people, we will never know. Would imposing a waiting period to obtain such a rifle have saved those people, we will never know. Would limiting his access to such a rifle compelled him to try and commit his crime by some other means and if so, would he have been able to kill as many people, we will never know. Would having red-flag restrictions have prevented the killer from obtaining such a rifle, we will never know. What we do know is that without any such restrictions, the killer took the lives of 21 people. We pass laws all the time based on a reasonable inference that the action prohibited will prevent the harm we are trying to protect against, e.g., drug laws, traffic laws, etc. This is no different. I think there is certainly a more credible case to be made that restricting access to AR-style and high capacity semiautomatic pistols can reasonably be expected to reduce the number of mass shootings and the fatalities associated with such shootings, than there is for the case that such restrictions will not reasonably have any impact on either the number of mass killings or the fatalities in such killings. . . . after all we know that such weapons are used in more than 86% of all such killings. I think some of you just need to be upfront with your position. Your position is that you are prepared to accept the reality of mass shootings and the victims associated with such shootings rather than impose any restrictions on the ability of people to acquire AR-style rifles and high capacity semiautomatic pistols. The latter outweighs the former in your view. However, I think most of you recognize the crass and vacuous sound of that position, so you offer up a bunch of excuses, e.g., killers will use other weapons, there is no proof that restrictions will work, guns don't kill people do, enforce existing laws, etc. However, the excuses end up sounding like . . . excuses. You would at least be more intellectually honest to simply stick with your fundamental position, if the ability of folks of any age to continue to acquire AR-style and high capacity semiautomatic pistols means that we have to learn to live with more mass shootings and innocent victims, so be it. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
That's exactly where I'm at. From gun crime to illegal immigration....... Why pass new laws when the existing laws are more than adequate and not enforced???? . | |||
|
| One of Us |
. . . curious what laws would have prevented the Uvalde shooter from acquiring his weapons? Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
You are cherry picking Mike. Look back at how many had their past been properly recorded and enforced would have been prevented from being able to buy any firearm. The media has dug up backgrounds on all these shooters. The "if he had been charged" comes up in a number of them. | |||
|
| One of Us |
What's the point if they don't do anything about it? When is the last time you have seen LE even talk to someone who tries to buy a gun who is ineligible? While I certainly don't have an issue with making sure folks who are ineligible are so tagged, I don't buy that a "waiting period" really accomplishes much other than infringes on the vast majority. MN just passed a law requiring all sales, including private need to have some sort of background check done... and part of it was "FFL dealers can charge a reasonable fee for processing." Seems a bit extreme for borrowing your nephew a shotgun to hunt birds for a day... | |||
|
| One of Us |
While I tend to agree with your underlying point that our legal system by its design is reactive rather than proactive, and that allowing people freedom does mean that some will abuse it, I think Roland's point is very valid. You need to prove that your restriction will improve the problem you are facing. Your thesis is that death by AR or high cap pistol is somehow worse than any other violent death, not that these restrictions will result in fewer mass casualty events. You are after banning an instrument... kind of like saying heroin is illegal, but we should make codiene available over the counter. The problem is we have people who feel that killing groups of others for their grievance (real or imagined) is appropriate. That is what we need to address. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Doc, none have addressed the other common factor. Social media. Nearly all have been in some sort of destructive chat group. Ban those if you want to help these young, and not so young nut cases. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You can bloviate all you want, but none of that changes the underlying facts. The number of mass shootings in 2022 was the second highest in history (2019 was the highest) and 2023 is on pace to exceed both 2019 and 2022. In terms of the weapons used, 86% of the mass killings involved high-capacity semiautomatic pistols or AR-style rifles and 77% were purchased legally. The problem is not with people using explosives or knives. The problem is not with people using stolen weapons. Obviously, our existing system for ensuring that such firearms do not get into the hands of people that might misuse them does not seem to be working. Let's hear your proposal to address the issue or do we just, in the words of Clayton Williams, accept these incidents as inevitable and just relax and enjoy it. And to the extent your solutions involve effectuating cultural changes, restructuring our mental health system, etc. pray tell what you would do in the interim. Mike | |||
|
One of Us |
Not that I favor gun control, but I don't think we've been reminded here that laws can be and have been written to sunset. If it doesn't work it doesn't have to last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I gave you something else that would help. You refuse to address it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It is so absurd as to not warrant a serious response. Mike | |||
|
One of Us |
The problem is mental illness, the societal neglect of this, as well as loss of community- as in not even knowning your neighbors , and not caring about the behavior of neighborhood kids/ school norms etc. DuggaBoye-O NRA-Life Whittington-Life TSRA-Life DRSS DSC HSC SCI | |||
|
| One of Us |
Now we are getting somewhere. It's that only jines knows whats best. It's absurd to want criminals records to show they are not fit to have a firearm. Any firearm. It's absurd to have sites that radicalize people to be watched. I have told what I do to watch for and confront troubled kids, and offer support. What do you do Jines, you havnt told us? You get on Lanes case all the time, but your arrogance of being the only one with answers is a match for anything Lane says. Without D M semi autos, there would be an end to mass shooting in the mind of Jines. All mentally sick people would suddenly be cured. Jines, maybe you can be co-emperor with Heym? | |||
|
| One of Us |
You don’t think the COVID lockdowns with the known and predictable effects in mental health had nothing to do with the recent flurry? If you want to change the law to move the age of majority, that’s fine. But it can’t be just for firearms rights. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have said I am fine with 21 for the age for centerfire semi's. I could go with a 3-5 day wait for the same. I would not go with it if that is the only direction people will take to combat the mental health issues. | |||
|
| One of Us |
And there comes case where someone wants to buy gun for protection while having problem with immediate threats with neighboring thugs, mafia, drug dealers etc. and can’t protect self or family while waiting and killing happens…then what ? It goes both ways I suppose… | |||
|
| One of Us |
The point is that a more thorough check, like is done with class 3, allows a much greater chance of preventing these thing before they occur. The goal in my mind is to prevent those prone to violence from arming themselves with the most efficient firearms for mass murder. I have seen people arrested while at the gunshop I use to work at. The cops showed up at my shop looking for a guy who had just completed a 4473 and left(his crime was an unpaid ticket related to an expired plate). The police are not perfect, nor is the system but I see no reason not to try to improve it. I'm not suggesting a fixed waiting period, rather increased scrutiny on the buyers of semi-autos. | |||
|
| One of Us |
We have plenty of options for self-defense that do not include semi-autos, not long ago a revolver was considered the best choice. A shotgun would be another. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I get tired of hearing that gun-owners should "compromise" on "reasonable" gun laws. What I never hear is what gun owners would get out of such a compromise. A compromise requires both sides to give up or gain something of value. What will gun owners gain from these new reasonable gun laws? Nada that I can see. Right now the Democrats have been holding up a bill in Congress that would make sound suppressors (wrongly styled "silencers") more readily available, for the sake of protecting hearing. There is no reasonable basis for opposing this bill. If the Dems and their anti allies will drop opposition to the hearing protection bill, I'd be willing to experiment with new laws directed at ARs, so long as there is a sunset clause for if they don't work in decreasing mass murders. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You'd just be adding one more class of firearms we require a government permit to own. | |||
|
| One of Us |
If we were to see a reduction in the carnage that we have become accustomed too, then I would find that a worthy trade off. | |||
|
| One of Us |
For me, as a gun owner, the potential reduction of gun violence would be the reward. You get tired of hearing gun owners should compromise, I get tired of seeing innocent people killed with guns and being associated with that violence due to my chosen field of employment. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That's the big question, isn't it? IF we were to see a reduction... You seem willing to presume there is a causal connection between mass murders and the availability of ARs. I am not. Whittling away at our Second Amendment rights--and there's no question that's what we'd be doing--is too serious a matter to rest on unsupported presumptions or bare correlations. Even Japan, with its homogeneous society that emphasizes harmony and where private gun ownership is nearly impossible, sees an occasional mass killing with a kitchen knife or automobile. Don't tell me shotguns at close range against unarmed civilians aren't as deadly as ARs. No one would need an hour to empty a classroom with a pump or semi-auto shotgun. I am focusing on the killer, not his choice of weapon. I think someone who has set himself on the path of mass murder will simply choose another means. Young killers today happen to choose an AR because they are a glamorous, fashionable weapon. If they ban or restrict ARs simply because they're popular with killers, what's to stop them from using the same rationale later to ban or restrict shotguns? What happens when some mass killers start using hunting rifles, which will then be called "sniper rifles"? An AR-15 is far down in my list of favorite firearms. I do own one AR, and I'd gladly give it up if it would stop one mass killing. But it wouldn't. We can ban various non-sentient objects, but the real causes of mass killings won't be addressed. We ought to face the tougher question of why our society produces and even nourishes mass murderers. "Let's go ban something" is the easy answer, but not the right one, imho. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have not suggested banning anything, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread. I have suggested much more stringent vetting of purchasers of semi autos, a difference some of you seem unable to comprehend. I most certainly believe the easy access to semi-autos is a huge factor in the increased mass murders we are seeing. A causal relationship? Most likely not but they are the method of choice and not hard at all to obtain. All rights have limits including our second amendment. We limit items that can be abused all the time. You can no longer buy bulk ammonium nitrate fertilizer they way you could before the OKC bombing, for a damn good reason. I think it is far better to have gun people involved in the solution than letting the antis write the laws. Yes, a determined killer can find another way to kill, that does not mean we should not look at ways to make it harder for them. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I did say "ban or restrict." Biden and most Dems who have weighed in on the subject do favor an outright ban on ARs and handguns with more than ten-shot capacity, according to what I've heard them say. So long as we're not talking about banning private sales, I'd go along with tougher purchase restrictions. | |||
|
One of Us |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum James Baker: Gun laws Republicans can support
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: