Back here I said.
There is no real rational reason for this to be legal in the USA, but unfortunately it looks like our more whacko gun rights folks are still not convinced.
Thoughts?
"Though I am against laws that would further restrict the types of guns and magazines one can buy/own, I am actually a big supporter of strong, consistent and thorough background checks. And even better yet, enforcing the current laws and prosecuting those that break the laws."After Denver, Sandy Hook, Orlando and now Las Vegas, I now think we should limit clip sizes to less than 20 bullets and stop the sale of guns that can be easily modified to "bump fire operation".
There is no real rational reason for this to be legal in the USA, but unfortunately it looks like our more whacko gun rights folks are still not convinced.
Thoughts?
61 comments:
8 Charts
As soon as you convince all criminals who "transfer" guns from legal owners to themselves, and then sell those guns to other criminals, to conduct and report background checks on themselves and their criminal colleagues, we can talk. As for "bump fire," it's another liberal canard that won't do a d****d thing to stop these mass shootings. the guy bought all his guns and ammo legally, remember.
If there was any rational reason for citizens to have bump fire gun with a 100 round clip, I may agree.
Can you think of ONE?
If not, then we are just putting very dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous people and risking the lives of many for no good reason. It is just silly...
Have you even watched and listened to any of the video as innocent concert goers crouch in fear as rapid fire shots land amongst them?
I am a bit sensitive because my middle daughter attended a country music festival in Eau Claire last Summer. I can not think of any reason why we would support putting more of these weapons in the public sphere.
TP Australia
Atlantic Australia
MW Top 10 Attacks
If I am going to be gunned down, I am not sure how relevant the size of the clip where the bullet was previously located, matters.
--Hiram
And so the endless fight continues.
The gun right whackos argue for the "need" for people to buy weapons that can inflict mass casualties.
The gun control whackos argue that all guns are dangerous and should be controlled.
By the way, here are some basic reasons why a semi-automatic handgun with a 15 round clip is very different from a rifle that has a scope, a 100 round clip and has been modified to be bump fire.
- the rifle can with great accuracy kill people from a sniper perch on the 32nd floor.
- the rifle puts the shooter out of harms ways, meaning the victims can not defend themselves with their hand gun.
- the rapid fire large clip enables the shooter to kill many people without pausing to reload.
- the handgun may be carried by the good guy and may be used in self defense.
- the rifle is unlikely to just be carried around to protect oneself from a crazy person or criminal.
Now I have friends who have semi-automatic rifles with big clips. They enjoy the idea of going out and rapid firing into a target every so often. However since that is expensive they almost never do it.
So our society is allowing these extreme weapons into our society and putting innocent people at risk for a "gun collectors" hobby.
How Did He Buy the Guns
All I know is that we have an industry and a political establishment determined to make weapons that people can use to kill me. They aren't even willing to try to limit the bloodshed.
As I have said, our nation is dying. And our attitude toward gun violence is just more evidence of that.
--Hiram
"The gun control whackos argue that all guns are dangerous and should be controlled."
I think you misrepresent the gun control argument.
It's not that gun control advocates consider guns to be dangerous, it's that we consider humans to be dangerous, and humans should not have the legal ability to buy weapons that can inflict mass casualties.
And before we veer off into stupidity:
A gun's design and purpose is as a weapon.
Yes, there are many other things that can be used as weapons.
No, the purpose and design of those things are typically not as weapons.
Moose
Weapon: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.
Moose,
So what would gun laws and access be in the USA be if you ruled the country?
"So what would gun laws and access be in the USA be if you ruled the country?"
They would be similar to the laws in countries with successful gun control outcomes. i.e. low gun death rates.
It's pretty basic stuff.
Moose
What countries are those?
I'm not going down that stupid rabbit hole with you.
Fewer gun deaths is the goal. How do we get there?
Moose
I think I have proposed some compromise measures...
You... Not so much so...
I don't see much from you above other than a bunch of links.
One thought is to allow the purchase of firearms that can fire multiple rounds rapidly, but they must be insured and they must be kept at a firing range. Since there is no practical use for these things other than killing or target practice, my thought seems reasonable.
Moose
Read more carefully.
< 20 round clip
No bump fire mods
And I'll even add background checks on all Gun purchases.
I heard a White House spokesman say that the second amendment is a bedrock in our constitution. I would add, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any of us have a right to attend a concert without coming under automatic weapon fire. We need to remind ourselves that up until the moment he opened fire, it was Mr. Paddock who had the constitution on his side, not his victims.
--Hiram
We could track the purchase of ammunition and/or guns like we do Pseudoephedrine.
Buy too many/too much in a certain period of time and you get a knock on your door...or whatever happens when you buy too much pseudoephedrine.
Moose
Moose,
Seems logical.
The big challenge is that there are people on the Right and some on the Left who fear government tracking us... I personally am a big fan of a national photo ID and tracking system that could be used for many purposes. (ie past crimes, voter status, welfare data, donor status, current home address, sexual status, etc)
Unfortunately many paranoid privacy advocates are concerned that our government will abuse that information. In this case a group of them believe that the government will become a corrupted Dictatorship / Oligarchy at some point and that they will come to seize all the weapons / bullets from the potential freedom fighters.
Shanghai Citizen Score
CNN Sudafed vs Guns
CNN Bump Fire Stocks
I didn't realize that a bump stock was a commercially-available item. I hate to see any company put out of business, but I think even the NRA supports making bump stocks "illegal," in the same way that modifying semi-auto guns into full auto is illegal. Mind you, that doesn't mean people would not build their own, and it would only have limited the carnage in Las Vegas, not ended it. It still comes down to that question of: what law already on the books would have PREVENTED the LV tragedy, or what law could you PUT on the books, consistent with the second amendment and the fundamental right to self-defense, that would have prevented this from happening. Even Nancy Pelosi admits "nothing."
Here I thought "de Nile" was a river in Egypt... :-)
This crazy guy was able to collect a Whole Lotta rifles, large quantity clips and ammo very quickly with no one noticing because we choose to not require good records via a national database. What a shame.
And it is many of the pro lifers in the country fighting against gun and ammo records, and for big clips that no one needs for self defense.
I guess life is not so important to them.
Let me ask a question. Suppose we had a law that nobody could buy 1000 rounds of ammo a year. Would that have stopped a terrorist from acquiring more than that, even though it was a criminal act to do so? Or asked another way: If somebody is planning to MURDER 100 innocent civilians-- something that is remarkably against the law and still carries the death penalty in some states-- do you really think a misdemeanor gun possession law and a small fine are going to dissuade them? You may want to deny it, but "when guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns." The solution is "more guns, less crime."
The goal of most laws and enforce techniques is to reduce the likelihood and severity of occurrences... Not to eliminate the possibility of them occurring...
Therefore we have:
- speed limits and monitoring
- no weapon areas and bag checks
- no burglary laws and police patrols
Now if someone who bought a dozen semi automatic weapons within a year showed up on a watch list and got a visit from the authorities, that to me would be a great start.
Also, if every semiautomatic rifle in the USA had to be registered by their owner. And their owner was liable for the that gun's security, that would be a great second step.
And neither of these rules would prevent people from buying guns "to defend themselves from ???" They are win / win solutions that only irrational folks fear.
How quick you are to label those who disagree as "irrational." Really, it undercuts your own argument. If every rifle had to be registered, somebody would start a confiscation program.
Let me ask for the umpteenth time: If someone is determined to commit the ultimate crime of murder many times over, what misdemeanor or even felony gun law is going to stop them?
Proof of being irrational...
"If every rifle had to be registered, somebody would start a confiscation program."
Why again would "somebody" do this?
And again... Who needs dozens of high power semi automatic rifles with many large clips? Do you think Mr Citizen needs these for self defense?
There you go again, "irrational" is not what you say it is, but rather it is failing to learn from history. Gun confiscation
And who are you to say WHAT Mr. Citizen believes he/she needs for self defense? Isn't that Mr. Citizen's inherent right? Are you going to swoop down on criminal gangs that amass all kinds of weapons for "war" against the police? Or only the innocent, law-abiding potential victims of these criminals?
Jerry,
I think that your willingness to sacrifice hundreds of defenseless women, children and men due to your fear that in someway the democracy of the USA will fail is irrational.
More info on gun violence
An Interesting Piece Regarding Irresponsible Gun Owners
The simple reality the 2nd amendment requires that people have the right to bear arms. I am happy to keep sending laws to the courts to help clarify what is needed and lawful.
Ensuring we the citizens:
- control who has legal access to semi-automatic rifles and large clips
- can control of many of these they can have
- a record of these people
- can punish them for not keeping them secured
sounds fine to me.
I think your "simple reality" is irrational.
Of the 300 million guns in the US, exactly zero were involved in a mass shooting this week. Apparently 3 were used the week before. Does 1 in 100 million sound like a rational reason for a new law governing the other 99,999,999?
There are at least 600,000 guns held illegally in the US, by definition they are in criminal hands. It is irrational to believe that criminalizing possession of a firearm will stop even one of those criminals, since they have not done so to date and because none of your proposed solutions would have any effect on what already exists, and very minimal effect on new criminal possessions.
It is irrational to believe that any gun control law will change the fact that these mass shootings occur almost exclusively in gun-free zones, or that the highest gun violence occurs in those cities where gun control is the strictest.
Here is what HAS been effective: Letting people arm themselves for self-defense. Letting police target areas with the highest rates of crime. Adding and enforcing penalties for use of a criminal firearm, above that for the underlying felony. Rational is what works, not what some utopian vision desires.
Prove this...
"they have not done so to date and because none of your proposed solutions would have any effect on what already exists, and very minimal effect on new criminal possessions."
How would one know?
The Vegas shooter obtained a lot of weaponry very quickly without flags being thrown, there is no rational reason for this.
My proposals change almost nothing for law abiding gun enthusiasts. Well other than they would be limited to a 20 round clip, no bump fire stocks, their semi-automatic guns would be licensed and they would be held accountable to keep their weapons secure.
Proof: between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen every year, every one of them constituting a de facto "criminal possession." There are roughly 30,000 gun deaths per year in the US, so somewhere between 5-10% of the criminally-possessed firearms would explain ALL of the criminal uses of firearms, and then some.
"Your proposals" change a LOT for law abiding gun owners. It limits their ammo supply, prohibits bump fire stocks, requires registration so the gun confiscators can work and the criminals can target, and requires them to "keep secure" a weapon they may need for immediate self defense. AND, I should re-iterate, wouldn't do diddly for keeping us safe from criminals.
Don't we have enough laws, without adding more that we know cannot possibly work?
Jerry,
I realize that you are fixed in your opinion and nothing will change that.
Hopefully the folks who make the laws will be more reasonable so we can minimize the probability of children, women and men dying in senseless mass shootings like Las Vegas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, etc.
Please note that my proposals do not impact conceal and carry of normal handguns, so self defense is not an issue.
I wonder how you would explain your opinions to children and / or Mothers who lost their loved ones in Las Vegas. Maybe something like this...
"Yes, your child died while listening to a concert because I feel it is important that citizens be able to:
- purchase large numbers of bump stock semi-automatic rifles
- with large clips and a lot of ammunition
- with limited records and oversight
- because at some time our democratic government
- may fail and be taken over by a fascist government
- who will then try to seize all such weapons private citizens
- and the citizens will need large unrecorded weapons caches
- to fight for freedom...
We appreciate the death of your child as a necessary sacrifice for our cause."
How would you react if your child or grand child was one of those innocents who are sacrificed due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
If someone gave you the speech noted above... Would you truly see it as rational?
If you have a spouse/daughter, how would she respond to you giving her the speech?
It seems to me that it is easier to be a "freedom fighter" if it is not your child being slaughtered.
This quote did me laugh though...
"requires them to "keep secure" a weapon they may need for immediate self defense."
I have this vision of a gun owner trying to grab their monster AR15 with a 50 round clip and bump stock in order to thwart a home burglar...
Where do you get this stuff?
By the way, what is the source for this?
"Proof: between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen every year, every one of them constituting a de facto "criminal possession."
"I have this vision of a gun owner trying to grab their monster AR15 with a 50 round clip and bump stock in order to thwart a home burglar..."
I'm not going to defend bump stocks. What I will do is recall the "assault weapons ban" and the testimony given by a young fellow in a wheelchair. If someone is trying to enter my home, I want the biggest, meanest-looking gun I can find (and use with one arm). That way, I will be LESS likely to have to fire it. Who are you to say what legal firearm I "need" to defend me and mine?
"By the way, what is the source for this?"
The internet.
"If someone gave you the speech noted above... Would you truly see it as rational?"
Of course not. I would not be in a rational state of mind at that point. And it would not be a rational speech to give because the purpose of the second amendment is the natural right to self-defense and you can't proscribe the reasonable exercise of that right. The rational speech to be made would be entirely sympathetic and emotional. Quite unlike those who immediately politicize the tragedy and demand more gun control laws that would do absolutely nothing to prevent similar events. For the umpteenth time, someone bent on breaking the laws against murder many times over won't be dissuaded by a misdemeanor "large clip possession" charge.
"Hopefully the folks who make the laws will be more reasonable so we can minimize the probability of children, women and men dying in senseless mass shootings like Las Vegas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, etc."
OK, let me agree with you. Let us change the laws and ELIMINATE these "gun free zones" in Vegas, Orlando, San Bernardino and Sandy Hook. That might have reduced the carnage, and they obviously don't do any good, anyway. I would note, strictly tongue in cheek, that we haven't had a single convenience store or liquor store armed robbery since those "no guns allowed on these premises" signs went up. You propose fixing the larger problem in the same, entirely irrelevant way.
Hopefully your children never have to suffer / die due in part to your denial of reality.
Citing "the internet" as a source is definitely a cop out.
Thankfully citizens through government do have the ability to limit what guns / clips are allowable in one's home. And as more legal gun owners fail to secure their weapons and/or kill innocent women and children themselves, society will grow less tolerant of individuals having military type weapons. Hopefully this occurs before too many innocent children have to die.
Until then I will have to train my daughters to be ever vigilant of snipers when they are just trying to have fun.
Citing the internet is exactly what you would get if I posted a link, so what is the problem? When I DO post a source, you immediately dismiss it as biased or untruthful, or worse, so I am simply saving a step by having you look it up and prove to yourself one way or the other what the number is. While you are at it, look up the number of defensive uses of a gun each year. It dwarfs the number of criminal shootings and couldn't happen if the government decides to limit gun ownership. And would you ban a 9mm pistol from private ownership if it has a 15-round clip? In its standard production configuration, it is the standard sidearm of the US military. The problem isn't the gun, it's the person using it.
Silly,
9 mm hand gun is not a rifle
15 is less than 20
No bump stock
But it IS a "military type weapon," is it not? And just because you set an arbitrary clip size at 20, who or what is to stop Congress from setting it at 10 (which they once tried), obsoleting a sizable percentage, if not a majority, of handguns and rifles in use today? You're trying to kill fleas with a sledgehammer. Instead of stopping law-abiding gun owners from defending themselves, you should be stopping the criminals. You were aware that the Sandy Hook shooter broke SIX existing gun laws before he even got to the school? Would another really have prevented that tragedy? Which one?
Look, I understand the desire to "do something," and I am particularly fond of wishful thinking. I just don't delude myself. "If wishes were horses, all men would ride."
I proposed a moderate position by focusing on:
- semi automatic rifles
- large clips
- bump fire stocks
- hold owners accountable for keeping their weapons secure
- registering these very dangerous weapons
You of course being an extremist say no. Just as the anti-gun extremists would say no.
I propose a moderate position by just focusing on the fact that current gun laws, while extensive and intrusive but proven incapable of stopping gun violence, and on simply enforcing the laws currently on the books without calling for more completely worthless laws. Yes, if we simply put bump stocks in the same category as automatic weapons-- currently illegal except for a very few, tightly regulated private citizens and the military-- that will be enough for now.
I think the better thing to do would be for the media to simply agree to shut the * up about these rare mass shootings; give no publicity whatsoever to the shooter, not even mentioning his name or the particulars of the weapons used. That simply encourages crazed copycats. I know it would have to be voluntary. Wouldn't want to violate the 1st amendment, any more than the 2nd.
What extensive and intrusive gun laws are you talking about?
As the Vegas shooter proved, we have very lax laws that allowed him to collect an arsenal very quickly and legally.
Same for the San Bernardino shootings.
BATF regulations I'm not going to read it, it is 237 pages. That's extensive, and it is only federal. And there are many cities and states (slowly being removed by the courts) where personal firearms are essentially prohibited, like Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C. You know, those places with the highest rates of gun crime?
If we had "very lax laws," there should be a mass shooting every day, right? Instead, while the number of guns is rapidly expanding, the number of mass shootings is dropping. How can that be? Maybe "guns don't kill people, people do" is more than a slogan?
Did you even browse what you linked to?
"The 2014 edition of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide contains information that will help you comply with Federal laws and regulations governing the manufacture, importation and distribution of firearms and ammunition."
Well over half of it is Q&A, Tables of Contents, Gun descriptions, etc.
Given the diversity topics and scope of weapons covered... I think they did pretty good.
Now this is an interesting piece.
Okay, I'll bite... What is your rationale for this very strange statement?
"If we had "very lax laws," there should be a mass shooting every day, right?"
However here is an interesting piece that explains what I think is happening. WP Shooting Incidents are getting More Deadly
It is somewhat sad when I long for the good old days when a sniper with a bolt action gun was the worst it got.
I will say that your marvelous cite proves what the problem is: Wishful thinking, political posturing, vast misinformation and lack of critical thinking run rampant.
For example, the "assault weapons ban" was tried. It changed almost nothing, because it was based on the fiction that an "assault weapon" was somehow more dangerous than a common semi-automatic hunting rifle. Many of the others are similar. Experts say "effective," but that designation has no basis in reality. It's that rampant liberal belief that good intentions make good law, and that good law supersedes reality.
Well a simple reality is that if there were no semi-automatic rifles with large clips in the public domain... No innocent people who are trying to attend a concert would be killed with them.
Please feel free to continue to ignore the wise people that WAPO talked to. And deny that you are complicit in the unfortunate deaths of innocent women and children.
I think I will post that graph... That was pretty good.
Actually it was the NYT piece that discussed effectiveness of measures.
"Well a simple reality is that if there were no semi-automatic rifles with large clips in the public domain..."
OK, let us try that. Let us confiscate, destroy, and prohibit the manufacture, import or sale of all semi-automatic rifles. Sorry, but the resultant decrease in mass shootings of concert-goers would be statistically zero. Impossible AND stupid-- quite a feat.
Of course, we could just ban "ugly guns," but that's already been tried and, guess what? The "improvement" was statistically nil. From the Koper study: "... there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs."
So many illogical opinions, so little time.
Like the Vegas shooter could have killed / injured so many people with a handgun or small clip hunting rifle, before the police or another gun carrier killed him.
Post a Comment