Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Discussion of anything you like. Sport, stamps, politics, religion, weather, world disasters, news articles - whatever. Things generally NOT stamp related belong in here. Please keep it CIVIL and polite though! We encourage lively discussion on all things.

Moderators: gmoney, Volunteer Moderator Team

Post Reply
User avatar
ozstamps
PLATINUM Shooting Star *10,000* Posts!
PLATINUM Shooting Star  *10,000* Posts!
Posts: 13078
Joined: 06 Sep 2005 20:24
Location: A bar somewhere near you ....
Contact:

Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by ozstamps »

Dozens of well documented instances now exist where nutters readily buy guns and shoot large numbers of innocent bystanders in US schools - and elsewhere.

I cannot believe the public really want the laws to stay so lax

Some dropkick Richard Reid allegedly had explosive in his shoe years back, and the yanks panicked as usual, over-reacted, and to to this day insist EVERYONE .. . millions of passengers year take off their shoes before they get on a plane domestically. :roll:

A few more nuts THINK about smuggling on a liquid and EVERY airline passenger now gets this crap about less than 100ml of liquid. They are all hypotheticals. Not ONE life was lost in either case. :twisted:

Yet lunatics can walk in, buy powerful guns with no ID, all the ammo they need, and actually shoot and kill folks - and nothing happens.

Will it after this?

User avatar
alwhite813
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 22:36
Location: Gulf Coast of Florida

Post by alwhite813 »

As you know, America is about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans tend to be the National Rifles Association's bitch and the liberal Democrats want stringent gun control like our Northeast and New York have. Of course, New Yorkers can take a day, drive down to Virginia or any other southern state and buy the powerful, handgun of their dreams or a nice semi-automatic assault rifle. Semi-automatic in that you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire. More accurate that way anyway.

Perhaps the Democratic controlled Congress will be able to get the assault rifle ban back on that Clinton passed. May hurt relations with Peoples Republic of China, they being the major supplier. But many of the new Democrats are adverse to gun control. Will remain to be seen.

Absolutely no way hunting rifles(bolt action) and shotguns will ever be restricted. Nor is it likely that pistols will be restricted. People actually fear the federal government knowing what guns they own. They imagine Cheney and his national police coming to disarm all people of the wrong political persuasion or something.

The nutjob in Virginia lied about his mental history when he bought the guns and it didn't show on the background check, if they ran one. But he could have just gone to a gun show and bought a gun from a 'collector' who would not be required to run a background check. While at the gun show he could have also gotten military manuals about any subject, knives, brass knucks, black powder and empty hand grenade casings, etc.

Makes you want to huddle in your safe room, behind the bolted, solid steel door and the bullet proof walls. These rooms are now a feature of new mansions. You could just scream.
Regards,

Al

User avatar
PennyBlack1840
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 867
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 18:10
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by PennyBlack1840 »

God help them all - its in their constitution 'the right to bear arms', well every now and again they have a loose cannon.

Plus what do you expect from a country that can FREELY (after an extremely dodgy count) elect George W Bush as its President, c'mon they aint thinking clearly.

Its so obvious that the murder level in USA is linked to the availability of guns yet nothing happens. USA is 'stop off central' for every aspiring gun toting nerd on the planet FACT. Where else can you go into a supermarket and buy ammo ?

User avatar
alwhite813
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 22:36
Location: Gulf Coast of Florida

Post by alwhite813 »

Too true, Glenn

The US will go metric and get universal health insurance before dealing with guns, lol.

As I said, there is a chance that assault rifles will be banned again. Not that they will collect the ones already owned. Just ban the import and sale. Wonder if that will bring a WTO suit by the PRC Army?

Absolutely no chance on bolt action rifles and shotguns. We adore hunting. Very unlikely about pistols, everyone images themselves shooting the burglar. Just ask the National Rifle Association, they have collected all the instances of home defense and will talk ad nauseum about it.

That is the regrettable situation in the US. The middle child is eying Canada because they don't get into totally unneeded wars like Iraq and have reasonable social laws. I encourage it. Think the youngest would adore OZ.
Regards,

Al

User avatar
admin
Site Administrator
Posts: 12737
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 12:46
Location: That's on a need to know basis - and YOU do not need to know!

Post by admin »

alwhite813 wrote:
Too true, Glenn

The US will go metric and get universal health insurance before dealing with guns, lol.
Bought any litre bottle of Cokes lately? That's all I ever see on offer. No pints. No quarts. Just Coke in LITRES these days!

Metrics are happening in the USA .. they are just not admitting it. :)

User avatar
ebay_dealer
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1437
Joined: 08 Apr 2007 23:07
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by ebay_dealer »

and as for the guns....America seems comfortable with them
very friendly ebay seller and buyer

User avatar
alwhite813
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 22:36
Location: Gulf Coast of Florida

Post by alwhite813 »

Only the minority of food products are metric, mostly beverages. All meat, fresh fruit and veggies and canned goods are still in pounds. Fabric is sold by the yard. Hardware is inches. Nails are still the old English system, 10 penny etc. I guess cars are part metric, depends where the makers get the components. Construction is still old system.

What you do see because of trade with Canada, Europe, etc is fresh produce that is exportable is labeled in both metric and English. Same for canned goods but the sizes are still the old ones and the metric measures are out to tenths of a gram and deciliter.

So still a lot of work to do before I go to the store for a kilo loaf of bread and 500g of ground beef.

User avatar
alwhite813
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 22:36
Location: Gulf Coast of Florida

Post by alwhite813 »

And Glenn.

Coke cans here are 12 oz and the individual serving bottles are 20 oz. Though labeled to whatever milliliters that might work out to.
Regards,

Al

User avatar
GlenStephens
I was online for Post Number 4 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 4 MILLION!
Posts: 21731
Joined: 06 Sep 2005 19:46
Location: Sunny Sydney .... well Castlecrag to be precise.
Contact:

Post by GlenStephens »

The little ones yes but check your nearest Safeway. ANYTHING bigger is strictly 1 or 2 litres. :)

I vist the USA several timers a year and was surprised to note that.
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

User avatar
alwhite813
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 22:36
Location: Gulf Coast of Florida

Post by alwhite813 »

For sure, got a 2-liter bottle right here on the table.

With the smaller sizes, actually the retailers resist going mixed metric and English on juice, sodas and beer, because would have to get two sets of display racks in the coolers.

Wine industry is totally metric, as are liquor makers
Regards,

Al

User avatar
admin
Site Administrator
Posts: 12737
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 12:46
Location: That's on a need to know basis - and YOU do not need to know!

Post by admin »

Yes I was surprised litre bottle of spirits seem common place in liquor stores, and 750 mm wine etc.

As I mentioned the USA is going metric pretty widely .. it is just not telling the pubic. :)

User avatar
scurralous
Sadly departed RIP. Greatly missed here
Sadly departed RIP.  Greatly missed here
Posts: 10475
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 13:49
Location: Maidstone Vic 3012

Post by scurralous »

So still a lot of work to do before I go to the store for a kilo loaf of bread and 500g of ground beef.
Don't they call that a sandwich over there?

Just on the subject of gun control, I noticed on the Anzac Day thread the words to Eric Bogle's signature song "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" - has anyone ever heard his later song "Keeper Of The Flame" - I think it pretty much encapsulates the situation wherever you live on this planet...

User avatar
alwhite813
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 22:36
Location: Gulf Coast of Florida

Post by alwhite813 »

Yes, that is a large sandwich. For instance, that would be 2 McDonalds double quarterpounder sandwiches. Want some fries with that, heh? Various of the hamburger franchises make triple patty sandwiches. And the mom and pop restaurants frequently do 1 pound hamburgers. Some even do 2 and 3 pound sandwiches as well as 3 pound t-bone steaks. Got to feed our football linemen, who are in the 140-150 kg weight range.

Not familiar with that song. But the Gallipoli song goes on my anti-war CD, along with "Christmas in Flanders". Also going to make the kids watch the entire season of 'Black Adder goes Fourth'
Regards,

Al

User avatar
vekenone
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 1541
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 19:00
Location: Bordertown, South Australia

Post by vekenone »

Just curious whether the slaughter in Tasmania at their largest tourint attraction a few years ago made the headlines in the USA. This was really the start of public opinion turning against guns here in Australia. Mind you it is still hotly contested at times. I must admit though that if you really wanted to purchase a gun illegaly here you could still do it. But at least it does help stop a lot of impulse killing.
Ken

User avatar
scurralous
Sadly departed RIP. Greatly missed here
Sadly departed RIP.  Greatly missed here
Posts: 10475
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 13:49
Location: Maidstone Vic 3012

Post by scurralous »

Yes Ken I can assure you it did - however events like Port Arthur, Columbine, Blacksburg & whatever happens next week/month will never ever sway them off the opinion that "the only lasting peace comes from the barrel of a gun" ...

It would take a brave regime to ratify the constitution to say "our Troops have the right to bear arms" ....

User avatar
vekenone
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 1541
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 19:00
Location: Bordertown, South Australia

Post by vekenone »

Maybe, but I must admit to feeling a lot safer with our laws than theirs regarding gun control. I guess different cultures, different upbringing, and different ideas. I think what I am really trying to say is - I feel it's a bit sad with all that has happened there in the past couple of years.
Ken

User avatar
ozstamps
PLATINUM Shooting Star *10,000* Posts!
PLATINUM Shooting Star  *10,000* Posts!
Posts: 13078
Joined: 06 Sep 2005 20:24
Location: A bar somewhere near you ....
Contact:

Post by ozstamps »

The NRA is so powerful in the USA even Kennedy getting shot changed nothing.
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

User avatar
ozstamps
PLATINUM Shooting Star *10,000* Posts!
PLATINUM Shooting Star  *10,000* Posts!
Posts: 13078
Joined: 06 Sep 2005 20:24
Location: A bar somewhere near you ....
Contact:

Post by ozstamps »

Image

User avatar
scurralous
Sadly departed RIP. Greatly missed here
Sadly departed RIP.  Greatly missed here
Posts: 10475
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 13:49
Location: Maidstone Vic 3012

Post by scurralous »

Now that's good - Interestingly though this is a Jeff Hook cartoon from 1997 and the Twin Towers are already gone

User avatar
ozstamps
PLATINUM Shooting Star *10,000* Posts!
PLATINUM Shooting Star  *10,000* Posts!
Posts: 13078
Joined: 06 Sep 2005 20:24
Location: A bar somewhere near you ....
Contact:

Post by ozstamps »

.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

User avatar
scurralous
Sadly departed RIP. Greatly missed here
Sadly departed RIP.  Greatly missed here
Posts: 10475
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 13:49
Location: Maidstone Vic 3012

Post by scurralous »

Well there's one conspiracy theory shot ta pieces...
I honestly thought he'd died some time ago... I didn't know he was still going strong ... Either way he is the best political cartoonist Australia's ever seen...

User avatar
ozstamps
PLATINUM Shooting Star *10,000* Posts!
PLATINUM Shooting Star  *10,000* Posts!
Posts: 13078
Joined: 06 Sep 2005 20:24
Location: A bar somewhere near you ....
Contact:

Post by ozstamps »

There is a small hand-drawn "07" on the photo above .. you can see that ever clearer here! :

http://www.geoffhook.com/archive/2007/04//jeff180407px150.gif
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

User avatar
scurralous
Sadly departed RIP. Greatly missed here
Sadly departed RIP.  Greatly missed here
Posts: 10475
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 13:49
Location: Maidstone Vic 3012

Post by scurralous »

I'm here going over that site now - I can't believe how much of his stuff is archived ... Right back to Menzies.... so far

User avatar
ghopper02
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 913
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 04:37
Location: California, USA

Post by ghopper02 »

OK - this is the "let off some steam" forum...

Honestly, the only thing wrong at VTech was that NOBODY ELSE had a gun! One security officer (shhh... don't say it too loud - or a private citizen) with a gun could have dropped that idiot like a steer at the slaughterhouse... Instead he turned 3 classrooms into slaughterhouses!

The ONE THING that all you gun-control folks forget is that regardless of the level of gun control you have, the people that you REALLY don't want to have the guns will always find a way to get them. You can't tell me that there's no crime in Australia or New Zealand - NO WAY! The lowest crime states here in the US are the ones with Right-to-Carry laws (Texas, Florida, etc.). Are you really going to knock over the grocery store if there's a real possibility that a half dozen people in the building with you are carrying??? I don't think so - and in actual fact it's quite a deterrent!

Again, the sad thing is that nobody could defend themselves... all the could do was drop like sheep while he reloaded... truely sad.

Oh - BTW - the school had passed just weeks prior to the shooting a rule that required NO GUNS on campus (including security personnel). Less than a month later dozens were dead - coincidence - I don't think so. He KNEW that even the security officers couldn't defend themselves.

And... the 2nd biggest shooting was on a college campus in Texas - you guessed - it was a "gun-free zone" - in the middle of Texas - the only place he could get away with it. Who stopped the shooting you ask? A retired cop who happened to have his sidearm - more than a dozen were dead before he managed to shoot the idiot in the 12th floor window of the school clock tower.

And... Columbine High School... yes - that was a "gun-free zone" also.

I could do this all day... the massacres don't happen where the idiot thinks he'll get shot - he's a coward anyway! The massacres happen where touchy-feely types have tried to make themselves feel good by taking away all those ooky things that scare them.

Better to take a little individual responsibility and defend yourself than to depend on someone a thousand miles away in some government office to protect you - they just might not get there in time!

Now.... off to calm down & read some other threads!

Again, thanks for the site Glen - less than two months old & already it's a great place to wander around in - you never know what you're going to find - maybe a discussion on gun control :wink:

User avatar
ozstamps
PLATINUM Shooting Star *10,000* Posts!
PLATINUM Shooting Star  *10,000* Posts!
Posts: 13078
Joined: 06 Sep 2005 20:24
Location: A bar somewhere near you ....
Contact:

Post by ozstamps »

ghopper02 wrote:
Again, thanks for the site Glen - less than two months old & already it's a great place to wander around in - you never know what you're going to find - maybe a discussion on gun control :wink:
We actually all should start a few more threads here along these in-the-news lines. :D

Seeing both sides of ANY discussion is always healthy, and folks can discuss anything here they wish, and as long as responses are civil from both sides we all may get a feeling for part of the issue. 8)

I must say I visit the USA a lot, many times each year, and was in DC when those 2 nut snipers were shooting dead folks filling at gas stations etc a couple of years back.

VA has near the slackest gun rules in the USA, but not much shooting back takes place when you can't see the gunmen. :idea:
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

User avatar
scurralous
Sadly departed RIP. Greatly missed here
Sadly departed RIP.  Greatly missed here
Posts: 10475
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 13:49
Location: Maidstone Vic 3012

Post by scurralous »

I must say I visit the USA a lot, many times each year, and was in DC when those 2 nut snipers were shooting dead folks filling at gas stations etc a couple of years back.
No they were alive - before they were shot :lol:

User avatar
RickStead
Senior Member Advanced Posting Guru
Senior Member Advanced Posting Guru
Posts: 227
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 11:58
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland. Canada
Contact:

Post by RickStead »

The left-wing politicians in Canada have been trying to have a total gun ban imposed for years. Handguns have always had to be registered and the Government recently started a registry for long guns. But the criminals don't bother to register their guns for some reason and registration has little effect on impulse killers.

Its interesting to note that the country with the strictest gun control laws, Russia, also has one of the highest gun-related murder rates in the world. Maybe the fact that the intended victim may be carrying a weapon as well really is a deterent.

Having said all that, I am in favour of requiring those wishing to purchase a gun to obtain a permit that includes a thorough background check.

User avatar
ghopper02
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 913
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 04:37
Location: California, USA

Post by ghopper02 »

Agreed RickStead - I've got a few myself... I've never worried about having a background check. I don't have a problem with waiting periods either - they serve a very good purpose.

We've got plenty of gun control laws in California, and most of them I don't have a problem with - so what if I can't pack a 50 caliber machine gun around? I probably don't want to anyway :D

I prefer restrictions on things like machine guns, true assault rifles, Saturday-night specials & the like - as long as that's where it stops! If gun control laws "creep" to the point that gun ownership will be outlawed you can bet I'll be really steamed.

Realize that even with these restrictions we've got gangs in Los Angeles mowing down cops with Uzzi's... The bottom line is that the "bad guys" will always have the weapons they want.

BTW: It is against the law for a felon or an insane person to posess a gun - registered or not. But then, laws are made for honest folk, right?

Your point re: Russia is a good one also - just remember history though. Even if you do succeed in taking the guns away, if it's revolution & uprising that you're trying to stop, pitchforks & shovels perform the same function.

Thanks for the discussion guys - this is just something that despite being somewhat of a middle-of-the-roader I find myself on the defensive with - even here in the "gun-totin'" US. :? My take on the whole thing is more from an individual responsibility POV - I'm generally not comfortable waiting for a bureaucrat in Washington to save my bacon... they're just not going to get here in time!

-Doug

User avatar
alwhite813
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 22:36
Location: Gulf Coast of Florida

Post by alwhite813 »

A very important change to gun control laws has raised its ugly head now. They actually want to crack down on sales by 'collectors' at gun shows. If the shooter in Virginia had been turned down at the gun dealer, he could have easily gone to a gun show and bought what he wanted for cash, no questions asked.

There is now a proposal to require background checks at these shows. Naturally, there is and will continue to be a great uproar.

As has been pointed out, Florida has a large number of concealed weapons permits issued. Yes, you have no idea who has a piece under their windbreaker. What is remarkable is the very, very low number of incidents where the gun is even displayed. Our very liberal press, who totally supports turning in all the hand guns to be melted down would not fail to report the incidents and there is only silence. Hell, someone used a cheapo samurai sword to kill his girlfriend's ex-husband. And no one except Japan wants to control these swords. They only let collectors possess old ones. Still as deadly but the blood would screw up the polish.
Regards,

Al

User avatar
TxTaylor3006
Well on the way to 25 post Senior Member
Well on the way to 25 post Senior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 18 May 2007 10:35
Location: Texas, USA

Americans and Firearms

Post by TxTaylor3006 »

I never would imagine a gun discussion on a stamp board, but here is my two cents.

As an American in general and a Texan in particular, my views on guns are probably much different than ya'lls. I was taught to shoot very early in life, heck we even took marksmanship and gun safety as classes in junior high and high school.

I was taught that an armed society was a free society, one where the government obeyed the will of the people. All our founding fathers wanted the weapons of war to be held in the hands of the people, not in the hands of the government. This is the nature of what we call the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

History is replete with examples of civilizations where the ruling class oppresses the governed. The idea of that happening in the US is repugnant. You must understand that the idea of self defense is considered to be a "God given" right. Hunting & the shooting sports are just distractions to the main issue of gun control.

The importance of self determination through an armed population and defending oneself, family, and property is paramount.

With that said please understand that there are probably 120 million gun owners in the US, our population is around 300 million. Most gun owners own more than one firearm, I own around 30 or so rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Most of us are law abiding, tax paying, decent human beings.

There has been and always will be a criminal element in all societies. The problem here isn't with guns or even criminals, the problem falls directly on the issue of privacy. Felons and crazy people have a fairly easy time buying guns because of privacy issues. It would be very easy to stop them from buying guns at store, shows, etc (assuming legit dealers) by making a notation of mental health or criminal background on their driver's license or other identification card.

It wouldn't have to be specific (ie ex rapist) but just a notation saying yea or nay for the ability to purchase a firearm. Our country is obsessed with protecting the privacy of others to the detriment of society. This is one reason they drag little old ladies off a the airport for a strip search to look for possible terrorists. If they only yanked off people who looked like bad guys, it would be called "racial profiling".

It is an idiotic train of thought but very politically correct. Hindering law enforcement to do an efficient job seems to be a national sport here. Common sense has been lost somewhere along the line. Heck at VA Tech the security people on campus were not armed.

Amazingly enough when the college goes on "lock down" all students have to sit at their desks and they close the doors. Of course the problem with this is that there were no locks on the doors to dissuade or slow down the shooter. Essentially the plan was to have the students wait at their desks to be shot.

Controlling the honest, law abiding citizens with restrictive gun laws makes no sense. Controlling the criminals themselves, giving honest gun dealers the information they need to determine if someone can buy a firearm, makes sense. Of course none of this will stop criminal activity, that will always occur.

Tim McViegh did a great job of killing people using diesel fuel and fertilizer. I am always amazed about how a shooting gets so much press yet a drunk can run his car into a bus and kill a dozen people and it gets a blurb on the news. 30,000 people are killed in car accidents every year in the US, about four times that number are injured/maimed yet we still allow car manufacturers to make cars capable of exceeding the speed limit.

Where is the wailing about that slaughter? Gun control legislation is not about saving lives, it is about controlling the populace. Some of the first gun laws were made in the south to keep blacks from voting. Whites would carry guns to the polls to intimidate the black voters yet if a colored person brought a gun for defense, he would be arrested.

It was understood that the law would only be enforced on blacks. Mexico is a fine example of a country with strict gun control laws, yet there are gun battles in the streets.

BTW the Kennedy assasination did bring changes to gun laws, you could no longer get firearms through mail order after he was killed. The NRA had nothing to do with it and before ya go around bashing it, remember it is an organization of millions of Americans, in numbers only surpassed by the AARP. That many people are hard to ignore. It represents the will of it's members, and the other millions of non member gun owners.

There are more gun owners than registered Democrats or Republicans for that matter. I imagine there are more gun owners in the US than population of Australia or Canada. Is that such an insignificant number of people to ignore? We are not talking about a rich elite with power, we are talking about an organization who gets it's wealth and power through strength in numbers. It is a very American concept.

PS The US has been selling soft drinks measured metrically for two decades. Cans and small bottles are still measured in ounces (with the metric measurements posted as well). Gasoline and milk are still measured in gallons/quarts/pints.
Collecting mint & used USA, used US possessions, used United Nations, used Australia, and used Canada. Always willing to trade!

User avatar
TxTaylor3006
Well on the way to 25 post Senior Member
Well on the way to 25 post Senior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 18 May 2007 10:35
Location: Texas, USA

One other thing...

Post by TxTaylor3006 »

One of my favorite expressions is posted on the bumper of my car. It states: "Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my guns."

For ya'll who don't know him, he is a liberal senator who wants gun control laws. He was responsible for the death of a woman early in his political career under some very disturbing circumstances. Google Chapaquidik.
Collecting mint & used USA, used US possessions, used United Nations, used Australia, and used Canada. Always willing to trade!

User avatar
serenity
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 859
Joined: 05 Aug 2012 06:14
Location: Kansas, USA

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by serenity »

BUMP HITLER WAS 4 GUN CONTROLL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
gigi-split
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Black Ninja Star! Board Posting Addict.
Posts: 85
Joined: 29 Mar 2012 09:02
Location: Podstrana, Croatia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by gigi-split »

More jail time you will get if you light a cigar in restaurant then killing a man, only solution is total ban of handgun or to hard to get them with passing of psyho test easier is to buy a gun then pack of cigars
Europa-Cept, TAAF, BAT, AAT, Ross Dependency, Ship's, Locomotives

User avatar
MargoZ
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 17382
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 23:53
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by MargoZ »

serenity wrote:BUMP HITLER WAS 4 GUN CONTROLL
Mod comment:

Hmmm....I'm not sure this adds anything to the debate.

This is a 5-year old thread and while I can't understand why anyone would want a gun, I do understand this topic provokes strong emotions on both sides.

If we have to discuss this please keep it civilised and sensible otherwise the thread will be locked.
Please click link below to "Like" stampboards on FACEBOOK -
https://www.facebook.com/stampboards/

User avatar
makielb
I was online for our Birthday Number 5!
I was online for our Birthday Number 5!
Posts: 3033
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 00:41
Location: Ann Arbor & Paradise, Michigan, USA

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by makielb »

Margo, and all of our foreign friends - guns to Americans are equivalent to religious icons. And, what is worse is that guns are big business and big money makers. If there is anything that Americans worship more than icons, it's money.

Hand-gun mentality in America is frightening. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but frankly hand-guns are for killing. And please, don't give me "it's for target shooting" or "protection from large animals." It just doesn't fly.

I cannot imagine what could be worse than the recent massacre of children in a school. And what does the NRA (National Rifle Association) suggest - armed police in each school. Some factions are also advocating arming teachers. Mind-boggling.

Anyway, just the thoughts of a Liberal Pacifist who believes that America has way too many guns.
Mike
Why do we need perforations? Scissors are cheap!

User avatar
fromdownunder
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 35879
Joined: 23 Apr 2007 15:25
Location: Lara, Victoria, Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by fromdownunder »

Pretty much everything has a cost/benefit. For me, the benefit of collecting stamps overrides the fact that I cannot drink more red.

For people in the USA the benefit of being free to own guns has a cost - that events such as the recent one in Newtown will happen, and more than once.

I have been following multiple threads on another (USAcentric) Board that I post on, where the extremes are "ban all guns" to "arm everybody", so yes it is an emotional issue.

The solution offered by the NRA is to have armed Police Officers in every school. A huge cost from people who seem to me already complain that they are paying too much tax. Solutions from others include arm teachers, which while probably a slightly lower cost, could create more problems than it solves. Or have safe rooms in every school, and I would not even know how to start costing out the refit of every school in the country with safe rooms.

Apparently, Obama is pushing for the re-banning of privately owned assault rifles. Which is probably not a bad idea, as unless somebody is being attacked by a herd of wild elephants, they do not really need a gun that can fire 100 rounds in a minute for self protection.

The "get rid of the guns" side - well that will not work, because of the second amendment, and the culture and political clout of the people who just have to own one or 100 functional guns.

The most extreme idea I read was to plug all the kids in to tha intratubes and home school them. I think that the person who proposed this was serious.

What both sides are trying to do is reduce the risk of a repeat by solving an event which has already happened. But what I will say with certainty is that the next mass murder will be one which NONE of the above cures anticipate. And it will happen.

Listen. Hijackers used to steal Planes and either kill the passengers or blow up the Planes. Nobody anticipated that they would suddenly start stealing planes and flying them into buildings.

Likewise, no mass murderer wakes up one morning and decides to murder his mother and then 20 six year old kids after breakfast. These things are planned, and soft targets picked (schools, movie theatres). Somebody who wants to go out in a blaze of glory will plan his targets so that the plan will work. Regardless of any security solution to an existing problem, the next mass murder incident will be so different to the Newtown one that it cannot and will not be anticipated.

Maybe regular mental health checkups for everybody might reduce the risk, but again, the cost would probably exceed the USA national debt.

Norm
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

User avatar
PeterS
Sadly departed RIP. Greatly missed here
Sadly departed RIP.  Greatly missed here
Posts: 15370
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 14:00
Location: Melbourne

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by PeterS »

The NRA has finally entered the debate, one week after the latest massacre. Their solution? Ban assault rifles? Not on your life! The NRA solution is armed guards in every school in the United States! So wrong, on so many grounds, I can't even begin!

The last mass shooting in Australia occurred in 1996, at Port Arthur. The new Federal Government brought in gun controls, which would seem draconian in the US I guess, that banned all automatic and semi automatic weapons. The new Prime minister (John Howard, a conservative) was derided by the gun lobby, he was threatened and he was told he would lose the next election.

The introduction of strict gun controls did cost him some votes (as he knew it would. He won the next election though) but he and his government pushed the legislation through (and brought every Sate into line as well). The NRA tried to intervene here (saw it as the thin end of the wedge I suppose), but they were told where to go in no uncertain terms.

We still have gun deaths and criminals still have guns. That will never change, but the deranged don't have access to high powered weapons any more. As I said before, in the 16 years since, there has been no mass shooting in this country (the average was a mass shooting every other year before 1996).

Stopping the mentally ill from buying a weapon makes no difference, if a disturbed individual can just get someone else's legally owned assault rifle! The latest atrocity was just such an example. Stole his mother's weapons.

I'm with MargoZ, I cannot understand why teh vast majority of the population needs to own even a single gun...let alone an arsenal!
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2015

User avatar
Allanswood
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 15706
Joined: 02 Dec 2009 11:59
Location: Goulburn NSW Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by Allanswood »

Why can't they just start with actually having to be licensed, with the form asking why you need a gun and then do a backround security check? Making the locked up storage of the guns are a good idea to. All this is done here and farmers and hunters can still have their guns - its all licensed.

Banning gun's that can kill 100 people in 60 seconds is also a good idea. What happen's when someone gets a hold of that lethal Aussie invention of a gun that shoots something like 8,000 small round a minute? Do we really want to witness the first person to kill 1,000 people in a shopping mall?

As far as I've read (could be wrong) you can get a gun in certain states when opening a new bank account as a promotion - with no questions asked.

Then you could turn a round and use you free gun to rob the bank?

It took them long enough to make a seat belt mandatory (some states will may not have).

It's going to be a long argument over perceived 'rights'.
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

User avatar
Flying Tiger
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 2232
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 02:29
Location: Houston, Texas. USA

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by Flying Tiger »

Allanswood wrote:.

It's going to be a long argument over perceived 'rights'.
Gun ownership is no more a perceived right in America than freedom of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (First Amendment).

It is also no more a perceived right than double jeopardy, or to give witness against oneself (Fifth Amendment)

There are many other rights guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. The first 10 amendments to our constitution are also known as "The Bill of Rights". They are not perceived. They are written in plain English. They are easily understandable.

The sick individuals who commit these crimes have no regard for the law, human life, or anything other than themselves. These people will always find a way to commit mayhem regardless.

I for one, do not believe that giving up the rights for all citizens to provide a "feel good" measure of safety for the few is not the answer. It is also my strong belief that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the defender of all the others.
Regards, Jay

User avatar
revenuecollector
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1206
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 02:27
Location: The Peoples Republic of Illinois
Contact:

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by revenuecollector »

Disclosure: I am not currently a gun owner.
Allanswood wrote:Why can't they just start with actually having to be licensed, with the form asking why you need a gun and then do a backround security check?
Actually, in the VAST majority of states in the U.S. this is exactly the case. Background checks and mandatory waiting periods. Additionally, here in Illinois I need to have an FOID card (Firearm Owner Identification Card) issued by the State Police before I can even shop for a gun or ammunition.
As far as I've read (could be wrong) you can get a gun in certain states when opening a new bank account as a promotion - with no questions asked.
Umm... yes, you could very well be wrong. That came out of Michael Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine
An early scene depicts how Moore discovered a bank in Michigan that would give customers a free hunting rifle when they made a deposit of a certain size into a time deposit account.[6] The film follows Moore as he goes to the bank, makes his deposit, fills out the forms, and awaits the result of a background check before walking out of the bank carrying a brand new Weatherby hunting rifle. Just before leaving the bank, Moore jokingly asks, "Do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?"
(emphasis mine)

Also:
In Michael Wilson's documentary Michael Moore Hates America, bank employees from the branch at which Moore is handed a free hunting rifle assert that they were misled during the filming of this segment. They say that the bank's policy was to conduct background checks on rifle recipients and mail the rifles to a licensed gun dealer, but Moore's agents, under the pretext of "doing a story on unique businesses across America," are accused of convincing bank employees to have his rifle presented to him on camera the morning after filming his account opening. Further, they counter that contrary to the film's supposition that the bank kept hundreds of guns on their premises, the gun which was handed to Michael Moore in the film was shipped overnight from a vault in their Upper Peninsula branch "300 miles away." Moore emphatically denies that this sequence was staged but admits the timing was compressed for production reasons. He reminds his readers that North Country Bank is a licensed firearms dealer and, in addition to its ATF license number, he produces out-takes where bank employee Jan Jacobson confirms on camera that rifles are secured locally on bank premises.
There seems to be this popular characterization, at least internationally, that all Americans are gun-crazed rednecks, even those who legitimately believe in the right to bear arms for defense/protection purposes, and that there is absolutely no regulation or security processes in conjunction with gun ownership. Looseness or tightness of laws and security procedures vary greatly from state to state. You cannot just look at the single most permissive state and extrapolate its policies across the entire country, as they are the exception rather than the norm.

The following is a VERY LONG read, but it is a well-reasoned common sense discussion about some of the myths of gun control:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
An opinion on gun control
Posted on December 20, 2012 by correia45

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I’ve worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I’d make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I’ve got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I’ve won matches, and I’ve been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.

I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I’ve argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.

Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

Armed Teachers


So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.

But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.

Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.

I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.

After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless? None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.

Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.

Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, I’m sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states who’d be willing to teach them for free.

For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.

Gun Free Zones


Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utah’s gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping center’s front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was NO GUNS ALLOWED.

The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED.

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.

2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.

3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.

4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

The Media

Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that we’ve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. We’ve seen it succeed here before.

Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead… If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they don’t say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, I’m a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious). If I become angry because they are promoting policies which are tactically flawed and which will do the exact opposite of the stated goals, then I am a horrible person for being angry. Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to own guns at all.

But that’s not why I want to talk about the media. I want to talk about the media’s effect on the shooters.

Put yourself in the shoes of one of these killers. One nice thing about playing the villain and being a punching bag for cops, soldiers, and permit holders is that you need to learn about how the bad guys think and operate. And most of the mass shooters fit a similar profile.

The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group.

These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they aren’t losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. They’ll show us. The solution is easy. It’s right there in front of your nose.

If you can kill enough people at one time, you’ll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and he’ll even shed a single manly tear.

You are a star.

Strangely enough, this is one of the only topics I actually agree with Roger Ebert on. He didn’t think that the news should cover the shooters or mention their names on the front page of the paper. So whenever the press isn’t talking about guns, or violent movies, or violent video games, or any other thing that hundreds of millions of people participated in yesterday without murdering anybody, they’ll keep showing the killer’s picture in the background while telling the world all about him and his struggles.

And then the cycle repeats, as the next disaffected angry loner takes notes.

They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.



Mental Health Issues

And right here I’m going to show why I’m different than the people I’ve been arguing with the last few days. I am not an expert on mental health issues or psychiatry or psychology. My knowledge of criminal psychology is limited to understanding the methods of killers enough to know how to fight them better.

So since I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then I’m not going to comment… Oh please, if only some of the people I’ve been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.



Gun Control Laws


As soon as there is a tragedy there comes the calls for “We have to do something!” Sure, the something may not actually accomplish anything as far as solving whatever the tragedy was or preventing the next one, but that’s the narrative. Something evil happened, so we have to do something, and preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard.

The left side of the political spectrum loves it some gun control. Gun control is historically extremely unpopular in red state and purple state America, and thus very hard to pass bit stuff, but there’s a century’s accumulation of lots and lots of small ones. There have been a handful of major federal laws passed in the United States relating to guns, but the majority of really strict gun control has primarily been enacted in liberal dominated urban areas. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. I’ve found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology, so I’m going to go through many of the things I’ve seen argued about over the last few days and elaborate on them one by one.

I will leave out the particularly crazy things I was confronted with, including the guy who was in favor of mandating “automatic robot gun turrets” in schools. Yes. Heaven forbid we let a teacher CCW, so let’s put killer robots (which haven’t actually been invented yet) in schools. Man, I wish I was making this up, but that’s Facebook for you.

We need to ban automatic weapons.

Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.

Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collector’s items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop.

Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply don’t care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are.

When you say “automatic” you mean full auto, as in a machinegun. What I think most of these people mean is semi-auto.

Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons!

Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger the action cycles and loads another round. This is the single most common type of gun, not just in America, but in the whole world. Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of weapons used for self-defense are semi-automatic, as are almost all the weapons used by police officers. It is the most common because it is normally the most effective.

Semi-automatic is usually best choice for defensive use. It is easier to use because you can do so one handed if necessary, and you are forced to manipulate your weapon less. If you believe that using a gun for self-defense is necessary, then you pretty much have to say that semi-auto is okay.

Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns. I’ll get to the functional problems with that later.

We should ban handguns!

Handguns are tools for self-defense, and the only reason we use them over the more capable, and easier to hit with rifles or shotguns is because handguns are portable. Rifles are just plain better, but the only reason I don’t carry an AR-15 around is because it would be hard to hide under my shirt.

Concealed Carry works. As much as it offends liberals and we keep hearing horror stories about blood in the streets, the fact is over my lifetime most of the United States has enacted some form of concealed carry law, and the blood in the streets wild west shootouts over parking spaces they’ve predicted simply hasn’t happened. At this point in time there are only a few hold out states, all of them are blue states and all of them have inner cities which suffer from terrible crime, where once again, the criminals simply don’t care.

For information about how more guns actually equals less crime, look up the work of Dr. John Lott. And since liberals hate his guts, look up the less famous work of Dr. Gary Kleck, or basically look up the work of any criminologist or economist who isn’t writing for Slate or Mother Jones.

As for why CCW is good, see my whole first section about arming teachers for a tiny part of the whole picture. Basically bad people are going to be bad and do bad things. They are going to hurt you and take your stuff, because that’s what they do. That’s their career, and they are as good at it as you are at your job. They will do this anywhere they think they can get away with it. We fixate on the mass shooters because they grab the headlines, but in actuality your odds of running in to one of them is tiny. Your odds of having a violent encounter with a run of the mill criminal is orders of magnitudes higher.

I do find one thing highly amusing. In my personal experience, some of the most vehement anti-gun people I’ve ever associated with will usually eventually admit after getting to know me, that if something bad happened, then they really hope I’m around, because I’m one of the good ones. Usually they never realize just how hypocritical and naïve that is.

We should ban Assault Rifles!

Define “assault rifle”…

Uh…

Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.

I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but I’ll get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. I’ll talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.

For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!

It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.” Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.

Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/

I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible… Uh huh… Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances.

When I said “stop an attacker quickly” somebody on Twitter thought that he’d gotten me and said “Stop. That’s just a euphemism for kill!” Nope. I am perfectly happy if the attacker surrenders or passes out from blood loss too. Tactically and legally, all I care about is making them stop doing whatever it is that they are doing which caused me to shoot them to begin with.

The guns that many of you think of as assault rifle are common and popular because they are excellent for fighting, and I’ll talk about what my side really thinks about the 2nd Amendment below.

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!

I’ve seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we’ve got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he’ll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I’ll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn’t really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.”

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let’s say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he’s a complete idiot, he’s not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He’s picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don’t for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They’re just broken and evil.

In the cases that I’m aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That’s a bad assumption, and here’s yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm’s forums. http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/45671-My- ... r-Box-quot So that’s awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.

Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can’t. We’ve been stocking up ever since. If the last ban did literally nothing at all over a decade, and since then we’ve purchased another hundred million magazines since then, another ban will do even less. (except just make the law abiding that much angrier, and I’ll get to that below).

I bought $600 worth of magazines for my competition pistol this morning. I’ve already got a shelf full for my rifles. Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but I’ll talk about confiscation later.

One last thing to share about the magazine ban from the AWB, and this is something all gun people know, but most anti-gunners do not. When you put an artificial cap on a weapon, and tell us that we can only have a limited number of rounds in that weapon, we’re going to make sure they are the most potent rounds possible. Before the ban, everybody bought 9mms which held an average of 15 rounds. After the ban, if I can only have ten rounds, they’re going to be bigger, so we all started buying 10 shot .45s instead.

You don’t need an assault weapon for hunting!

Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.

Spare me the whole, “You won’t be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons” reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller.

Well we should just ban ALL guns then! You only need them to murder people!


It doesn’t really make sense to ban guns, because in reality what that means is that you are actually banning effective self-defense. Despite the constant hammering by a news media with an agenda, guns are used in America far more to stop crime than to cause crime.

I’ve seen several different sets of numbers about how many times guns are used in self-defense every year. The problem with keeping track of this stat is that the vast majority of the time when a gun is produced in a legal self-defense situation no shots are fired. The mere presence of the gun is enough to cause the criminal to stop.

Clint Smith once said if you look like food, you will be eaten. Criminals are looking for prey. They are looking for easy victims. If they wanted to work hard for a living they’d get a job. So when you pull a gun, you are no longer prey, you are work, so they are going to go find somebody else to pick on.

So many defensive gun uses never get tracked as such. From personal experience, I have pulled a gun exactly one time in my entire life. I was legally justified and the bad guy stopped, put his gun away, and left. (15 years later the same son of a bitch would end up murdering a local sheriff’s deputy). My defensive gun use was never recorded anywhere as far as I know. My wife has pulled a gun twice in her life. Once on somebody who was acting very rapey who suddenly found a better place to be when she stuck a Ruger in his face, and again many years later on a German Shepherd which was attacking my one year old son. (amazingly enough a dog can recognize a 9mm coming out of a fanny pack and run for its life, go figure) No police report at all on the second one, and I don’t believe the first one ever turned up as any sort of defensive use statistic, all because no shots were fired.

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Doesn’t matter. I don’t like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country.

Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means let’s ban guns.

Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.

And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?

And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.

Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.

Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap.

That mass killer used a gun and homemade explosives. Make guns harder to get, and explosives become the weapon of choice. Please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the Afghani equivalent to Radio Shack.

The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan), fire (like Happyland Nightclub) or airliners. There is no law you can pass, nothing you can say or do, which will make some not be evil.

And all of this is irrelevant, because banning and confiscating all the scary guns in America will be national suicide.

You crazy gun nuts and your 2nd Amendment. We should just confiscate all the guns.


Many of you may truly believe that. You may think that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, outdated, and totally pointless. However, approximately half of the country disagrees with you, and of them, a pretty large portion is fully willing to shoot somebody in defense of it.

We’ve already seen that your partial bans are stupid and don’t do anything, so unless you are merely a hypocrite more interested in style rather than results, the only way to achieve your goal is to come and take the guns away. So let’s talk about confiscation.

They say that there are 80 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns, will become suspicious and simply lie. Those of us who don’t want to end like England or Australia will say that we lost all of our guns in a freak canoe accident.

Guns do not really wear out. I have perfectly functioning guns from WWI, and I’ve got friends who have still useable firearms from the 1800s. Plus we’ve been building more of them this entire time. There are more guns than there are people in America, and some of us have enough to arm our entire neighborhood.

But for the sake of math, let’s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let’s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don’t really believe in the 2nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let’s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let’s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

However, I do honestly believe that it would be much bigger than 10%. Once the confiscations turned violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge. I saw somebody on Twitter post about how the 2nd Amendment is stupid because my stupid assault rifles are useless against drones… That person has obviously never worked with the people who build the drones, fly the drones, and service the drones. I have. Where to you think the majority of the US military falls on the political spectrum exactly? There’s a reason Mitt Romney won the military vote by over 40 points, and it wasn’t because of his hair.

And as for those 700,000 cops, how many of them would side with the gun owners? All the gun nuts, that’s for sure. As much as some people like to complain about the gun culture, many of the people you hire to protect you, and darn near all of them who can shoot well, belong to that gun culture. And as I hear people complain about the gun industry, like it is some nebulous, faceless, all powerful corporate thing which hungers for war and anarchy, I just have to laugh, because the gun industry probably has the highest percentage of former cops and former military of any industry in the country. My being a civilian was odd in the circles I worked in. The men and women you pay to protect you have honor and integrity, and they will fight for what they believe in.

So the real question the anti-gun, ban and confiscate, crowd should be asking themselves is this, how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to have killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future?

Boo Evil Gun Culture!

Really? Because I hate to break it to you, but when nearly six hundred people get murdered a year in beautiful Gun Free Chicago, that’s not my people doing the shooting.

The gun culture is all around you, well obviously except for those of you reading this in elite liberal urban city centers where you’ve extinguished your gun culture. They are your friends, relatives, and coworkers. The biggest reason gun control has become increasingly difficult to pass over the last decade is because more and more people have turned to CCW, and as that has become more common, it has removed much of the stigma. Now everybody outside of elite urban liberal city centers knows somebody that carries a gun. The gun culture is simply regular America, and is made up of people who think their lives and their families lives are more important than the life of anyone who tries to victimize them.

The gun culture is who protects our country. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers and cops who are issued a gun and who use it as part of their job who could care less. However, the people who build the guns, really understand the guns, actually enjoy using the guns, and usually end up being picked to teach everybody else how to use the guns are the gun culture.

The media and the left would absolutely love to end the gun culture in America, because then they could finally pass all the laws they wanted.

Let’s take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, simple terrorist attack. They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict gun laws, but once again, criminals didn’t care.

That’s not my point this time however, I want to look at the response. These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely fell apart.

In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because they’d never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to actually master the tool. When you kill your gun culture, you kill off your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary to do the job.

Don’t think that we are so far off here. I recently got to sit down with some fans who are members of one of the larger metro police departments in America. These guys were all SWAT cops or narcotics, all of them were gun nuts who practiced on their own dime, and all of them were intimately familiar with real violence. These are the guys that you want responding when the real bad stuff goes down.

What they told me made me sick. Their leadership was all uniformly liberal and extremely anti-gun, just like most big cities in America. They walked me through what their responses were supposed to be in case of a Mumbai style event, and how their “scary assault weapons” were kept locked up where they would be unavailable, and how dismal their training was, and how since the state had run off or shut down most of the gun ranges, most of the cops couldn’t even practice or qualify anymore.

So now they were less safe, the people they were protecting were less safe, the bad guys were safer, but most importantly their leadership could pat themselves on the back, because they’d done something.

Well, okay. You make some good points. But I’d be more comfortable if you gun people were force to have more mandatory training!

And I did actually have this one said to me, which is an amazing victory by internet arguing standards.

Mandatory training is a placebo at best. Here is my take on why.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/



In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kid’s school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.

User avatar
Flying Tiger
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 2232
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 02:29
Location: Houston, Texas. USA

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by Flying Tiger »

Allanswood wrote:Why can't they just start with actually having to be licensed,
Rights are not licensed, privileges are licensed. There is no right to drive. No right to be in a profession (hence many professional licenses). No right to marry (marriage licenses).

By the way Allanswood, I am not singling you out. You give the same points and arguments as many others. Your post makes it easy for me to pull your quotes out.
Regards, Jay

User avatar
muruk
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 7448
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 22:02
Location: Bright, Victoria, Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by muruk »

If y'all is a contraction of "you all" (apostrophe replaces missing letters ou), why are y'all writing ya'll instead of y'all?

What does ya'll mean???
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

User avatar
Flying Tiger
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 2232
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 02:29
Location: Houston, Texas. USA

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by Flying Tiger »

muruk wrote:
What does ya'll mean???
It means "you all".

It gets worse, Muruk. In some parts of the country, people say "you-uns", "them-uns", and "us-uns". It is akin to Australians saying "strewth"...whatever that means.
Regards, Jay

User avatar
muruk
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 7448
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 22:02
Location: Bright, Victoria, Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by muruk »

I understand the original concept of carrying arms in order to exterminate politicians ... but those who have done this have still been punished. Some conflict of purpose there.

What I don't understand is what it must be like to live in a society where it is felt necessary to carry arms for personal defence.

A friend recently visited someone in the USA, and part of the briefing on how to use the car was a very routine: "the firearm is in a clip under the driver's seat". How uptight and hyperviligant does one have to be to live in that kind of an environment?
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

User avatar
muruk
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 7448
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 22:02
Location: Bright, Victoria, Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by muruk »

Flying Tiger wrote:
muruk wrote:
What does ya'll mean???
It means "you all".

It gets worse, Muruk. In some parts of the country, people say "you-uns", "them-uns", and "us-uns". It is akin to Australians saying "strewth"...whatever that means.
No, y'all means you all. I know that. What does ya'll mean? Or is it an unspelling variant?
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

User avatar
Global Administrator
The Sheriff
The Sheriff
Posts: 57894
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 22:57
Location: Tombstone
Contact:

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by Global Administrator »

No citizen should be allowed to legally buy assault rifles to have in their homes. Period.

No-one except law enforcement and the military NEEDS them, or should have them, and in every other sane country on earth that is the case.

The founding fathers wrote the Constitution when inaccurate single shot muzzle loaded muskets were the best technology there was.

Now these idiots in the USA are legally selling pretty pink "Hello Kitty" assault rifles to every ditzy bimbo that wants to buy one - that are better and more powerful than the GI's were issued with in Vietnam etc.

If Obama had any cojones he'd broker ban a total ban on private ownership or use on them. He has been elected to lead, and he needs to show some semblance of leadership - there was none of it in the first term.

Just a very small start, but these cretins that routinely gun down dozens of innocent people often are using these powerful weapons.

Image

Image

User avatar
patg
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1909
Joined: 22 Jan 2012 10:44
Location: Upper California, USA

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by patg »

I was going to post some thoughts on the subject, but after that last rant. I'm back to why bother.
Peace to all,
patg
:D "I don't have a lot - But I like what I got" :D

User avatar
aethelwulf
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 15835
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 01:17
Location: Fragrant Harbour, Hong Kong

Re:

Post by aethelwulf »

PennyBlack1840 wrote:God help them all - its in their constitution 'the right to bear arms', well every now and again they have a loose cannon.
The Constitution was written in 1789, its time to dust it off for an update. Back then, times were rough, there was a lot of wilderness and cowbodys (or as Douglas Adams put it, "men were real men; women were real women; and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.")

The can add amendments, and repeal them if they so choose (ie. Prohibition), but they seem to treat the Constitution as a sacrosanct document. Even the Bible has been given overhauls over the years.

If you really feel paranoid about your neighbourhood that you want a gun for self-protection, keep a handgun locked in the bedside table. Who's going to wake up at 3am and say "Honey, I think I heard a noise downstairs...I'm going to go to my gun cupboard and get my assault rifle to check if there's a burglar trying to steal the DVD player."

Of course banning guns won't stop violence...HK has no guns, so people turn to things like butcher knives...but not having guns helps keep the streets safer.
Collecting Mongolia; Thailand; Indo-China; Mourning Covers; OHMS.

User avatar
fromdownunder
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 35879
Joined: 23 Apr 2007 15:25
Location: Lara, Victoria, Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by fromdownunder »

revenuecollector wrote:The following is a VERY LONG read, but it is a well-reasoned common sense discussion about some of the myths of gun control:
I am not so sure. Some of his points were so painfully obviously correct that they were no more clever than hitting a pinata with a Baseball Bat. He was attacking silly Strawman arguments in quite a bit of that blog (yes, I did read it all). But he did not logically think through the proposals that he did make.

I will take serious issue with the idea of handing guns to school teachers. Actually I would take issue with a lot more of what was on this Blog, but life is too short so I will stick with the School Teachers.

The very idea that "here is your gun. Put the bullets in here and press there" is quite ludicrous. Will the people who want teachers to have guns (somewhere - what? in his pocket?) be also willing to pay the huge costs that will enable teachers to get sufficient training to take out a mad gunman which would include regular target practice, training in combat type situations, and do regular mental tests that will ensure that he will not get p*ssed off and take out a student or two?

Will it become part of teacher CV - must be a gun expert. Let's say 3 teachers, all packing, plus our maniac, wind up in a corridor, full of screaming students running everywhere... just think what might happen in this scenario.

Hey, "point and click" That's all you have to do. Unfortunately real life does not quite work that way, even for people who own guns, and even for people who have been carefully trained and drilled in their use.

There are dozens of other things about this one thing alone that are just so wrong that I don't even want to think about them. To use the bloggers own words, "the same old tired stuff"

Norm
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

User avatar
fromdownunder
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 35879
Joined: 23 Apr 2007 15:25
Location: Lara, Victoria, Australia

Re: Will the Americans EVER tighten up on gun purchases?

Post by fromdownunder »

And, of course, it's all the fault of Video Games, as the NRA rightly pointed out. All those poor innocent assault rifles had nothing to do with any of this. Blame Mortal Kombat.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/12/21/nra-blames-violent-ent ... a-responds
The NRA has lashed out at violent entertainment as the cause of the recent shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. In a press conference held earlier today and a statement posted on the NRA’s official site, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said violent crime is increasing and that “there exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.”

LaPierre specifically called out “vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse” and pointed to a ten year-old flash game called Kindergarten Killer as well as “blood-soaked slasher films like American Psycho and Natural Born Killers.” LaPierre said such films “are aired like propaganda loops on ‘Splatterdays’ and every day” along with “a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life.”


Do Senior NRA Executives have a CV which requires them to take stupid pills every time before they open their mouth?

Norm
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

Post Reply

Return to “'The Water Cooler' - A relaxing and FUN place to let off some steam ......”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 22028, capetriangle, Lakatoi 4, maszki and 4 guests