Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

[BStrong]

I stand corrected.

Is that really a thing gun folks are concerned about?

Only as an example of how certain parties find ingenious solutions to non existent problems.

Here's one that never gets old:



More recent example:



And 21 minutes of uninformed babble from a California legislator:



Please note, the above legislator has appointed himself the #1 most uninformed gun control advocate in California...after the previous holder of the title, Leland Yee:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Former-state-Sen-Leland-Yee-enters-plea-on-new-6064943.php

Was indicted for money laundering, bribery and ... wait for it!... illegal weapons trafficking.

 

[BStrong]

Perhaps he would like to restrict the news of mass gun killings to only those who have guns.

That way, the general public would not be provided with any additional excitement, the fellow who did the killing would not be able to see his name in the media, and those with guns would be provided with enough data to kill the person who did the aforementioned mass gun killing.

Many years ago, an old time cop I like and respected has a similar proposed approach.

His idea was that starting with LHO, shooters that would gain notoriety through criminal acts would only be referred to in the media in chronological order as ******* # whatever, w/ LHO being ******* #1

That goes back 40 some years but I think he was on to something.

 

[Belz...]

Obviously each American should be mandated to have a gun and we will have perfect domestic tranquility.

One ? Didn't you read what I said !!! !1111%???

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps, I should be drinking more of the Sheeple kool-aid that seems prevalent around here?

Uh oh.

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Actually, yes, it is.

Not when a former Prime Minister stated he wanted ALL privately owned guns confiscated ... then kept adding more guns to the prohibited list every year.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Stop it. Just stop it.

The point ISN'T children. The point is that injuries and deaths attributed to misuse of guns is massively more than with a baseball bat or whatever blunt object you desire to substitute. Thus it is more than reasonable to be more afraid of guns than whatever blunt object you want to substitute.

Cars aren't designed to kill people. Guns are. Those who cannot or will not see the difference need to step aside and let the adults do the talking.

No not always ...... firearms are designed to shoot projectiles ... many firearms (and their specific projectiles) in fact are designed from scratch specifically for target shooting ... the VAST majority of projectiles shot by firearms in the US hit paper targets.

If you desire to fear intimate objects there is nothing I can do to belay that at this point (I tried my best, albeit with no success, and much less finesse, than I hoped for) ... that's what I was trying to do in the beginning, create some logic where you would not be afraid and could respond logically rather than from your irrational fear.

 

[LTC8K6]

Only as an example of how certain parties find ingenious solutions to non existent problems.

Here's one that never gets old:



More recent example:



And 21 minutes of uninformed babble from a California legislator:



Please note, the above legislator has appointed himself the #1 most uninformed gun control advocate in California...after the previous holder of the title, Leland Yee:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Former-state-Sen-Leland-Yee-enters-plea-on-new-6064943.php

Was indicted for money laundering, bribery and ... wait for it!... illegal weapons trafficking.

Well it's now clear that legislators really don't need to know what's in the laws they pass. They don't even need to write them correctly, or know what they mean.

They can even continually rewrite them after passing them.

So, going forward, knowing nothing about guns will not have any effect on legislators passing gun control bills, or on those bills becoming law, or on those laws being altered after they have been passed.

 

[tyr_13]

Getting something done. After Port Arthur Australia banned guns. After Sandy Hook we couldn't implement suggested universal background checks even though the vast majority of America wanted them.

How do I define "will", listening to the experts and the people. Absent a moral imperative not to pass universal background checks it makes no sense in a representative democracy to fail to give so little time to it in congress.

I'm going to bow out of the discussion. I'm failing spectacularly to convey a very simple point. Some times we have to admit when we fail.

Thanks.

No, you made that point, but I think there was a language disconnect that made me believe you were being unduly dismissive of the concerns of some gun owners.

The distrust on both sides isn't going to overcome by dismissing their concerns as unrealistic when there are actually valid reasons for those concerns. 'No one wants to take your guns' simply isn't true and even if that concern is overstated, it builds distrust. 'I'd oppose moves to take all your guns' makes it clear that even if the risk of that happening is low, you're still listening to and considering the risk. It also lets those who craft laws where the desires really are, and those who want gun bans know they aren't the majority.

(Note that I'm just using the 'gun ban' concern as an example and that there are others on both side that qualify for my point here.)

There does seem to be some strange misalignment between the politicians and the public over this issue. It would seem that the USA public would support some reasonable further legislation in regards to gun ownership and conditions for buying and using a gun.

Very much so, and Randfan was saying that too. Unfortunately there are many factors contributing to this. It's not as simple as any of the individual factors.

And of course any such bill would have details that would inconvenience people and as such while the idea is attractive to gun owners the reality is far to annoying for them to put up with for the sake of limiting criminal access to guns.

Yes, there will be opposition to any given bill. That does not mean that the bill is bad, but it also doesn't mean the opposition is wrong. We have to do the difficult thing and judge bills and criticisms of them on their own merits. Accepting or rejecting simply based on if it's ostensibly 'universal background checks' would be wrong.

 

[BStrong]

Can you please tell me why there's no concerted effort to allow everyday citizens operable tanks of any kind? Why can't we have missiles? .50 caliber guns mounted on the back of pickup trucks?

The founder of the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation has since passed on and his collection was sold off, but for many years the most comprehensive private collection of tanks, etc. including live main guns (I became acquainted with Jacques, the owner of the collection, through his use of a live anti-tank gun every July 4th at the range where I've been a life long member) was on the San Francisco peninsula, not an area particularly known for tolerance of even garden variety firearms owners.

http://www.mvtf.org/

Lot's of everyday folks in areas where the possession of NFA weapons and devices are legal under state law own and use the items you note, outside of missiles, although Jacques did own a SCUD, it was eventually properly demilled after he imported it from the ME post GW I.

Does the guy driving a clapped out '85 Toyota w/ a maxed out credit card get his hands on NFA goodies at the stop and shop? No. Do individuals that can pass the BG check w/ pictures and prints and a CLEO sign-off get their NFA on? yes.

I see no reason why the current conditions wrt the NFA shouldn't continue, other than the 19 May '86 ban on transferables.

 

[marplots]

Wish you try to stop the spin.

How do you know it wouldn't have made a difference?

I'm sorry you cannot seem to get over the fact Utah allows CCW in schools and has had zero mass school shootings. Again, where did I say that was a coast to coast guarantee if other schools adopted such a policy? Also, again in all of the mass shootings in schools, was CCW allowed?

It isn't the facts that are in dispute, it's the meaning of those facts. I know it seems like a no-brainer to "connect the dots" here, but if the situation is as clear-cut as you seem to be implying, where's the support?

You have to explain why mass shootings in venues where CCW is allowed still happen and what distinguishes them from schools? A start might be to ask the surviving mass murderers if CCW was a factor in their decision or not.

It can't be universally so, because otherwise people wouldn't be out shooting police officers, or, in at least one extreme case, shooting up a police station:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/harold-joseph-collins-dead-southfield-_n_2117850.html

I could just as well argue that, for the suicidal individual, the presence of firearms among the victims is an incentive, not a disincentive. As in this case in a police station in Utah: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...y-utah-police-station-shooting_n_3178591.html

 

[BStrong]

Well it's now clear that legislators really don't need to know what's in the laws they pass. They don't even need to write them correctly, or know what they mean.

They can even continually rewrite them after passing them.

So, going forward, knowing nothing about guns will not have any effect on legislators passing gun control bills, or on those bills becoming law, or on those laws being altered after they have been passed.

Correct.

I know a guy that was a California DOJ employee in 1989 when the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon control act was passed and signed into law.

His comment was that the original versions of the law banned two rifles by generic name, the Uzi and the AK, and from that the actual law became a mess of rifles that haven't ever been used in crime and in some cases firearms that nobody outside of very serious collectors and military armorers had ever even seen.

That in no way held back legislators from throwing SIG AMT's and PE 57's onto the list, or SIG 550 or 551, or the various Finland manufactured Valmet semi-auto rifles or the Beretta AR70, BM 59 or the FN FAL.

 

[Ron Swanson]

You mean if someone goes nuts with a gun and kills people, the media should be forbidden to report the fact? If you don't mean that, what do you mean?

Maybe just read it again .. and the post about the subway suicides

 

[Craig B]

Maybe just read it again .. and the post about the subway suicides

I have. Now please have the courtesy to answer my question.

 

[RandFan]

If you desire to fear intimate objects...

Sounds like 50 shades of Grey to me.

 

[NoahFence]

No not always ...... firearms are designed to shoot projectiles ... many firearms (and their specific projectiles) in fact are designed from scratch specifically for target shooting ... the VAST majority of projectiles shot by firearms in the US hit paper targets.

If you desire to fear intimate objects there is nothing I can do to belay that at this point (I tried my best, albeit with no success, and much less finesse, than I hoped for) ... that's what I was trying to do in the beginning, create some logic where you would not be afraid and could respond logically rather than from your irrational fear.

Is there an internet minutiae award that I'm not aware of?

 

[RandFan]

I think if they didn't PROMOTE the events and make celebrities of the killers (by that I mean banning all news reports) that would help much more ... since elimination of all firearms is impossible ... why not work toward something that can actually help?

You mean if someone goes nuts with a gun and kills people, the media should be forbidden to report the fact? If you don't mean that, what do you mean?

Maybe just read it again .. and the post about the subway suicides

I have. Now please have the courtesy to answer my question.

I don't think anything has been "promoted". Attacking the messenger isn't going to help IMO. It's not the job of the press to do the bidding of LE. It's the job of LE to do their job with COMPLETE transparency.

Yeggster, learn this truism, the best disinfectant against public corruption is the light of day. I want more coverage not less. It's the dictators that want to control the media.

 

[fuelair]

Whee! Renewed my CC permit today along with my wife!! Even more fun, a mom and her friend ( assumption) came in with a little boy who was a happy kid and found it interesting that two old white people were interested in him, asked if it was o.k. for one to tie his shoe for him - he thought that was a good idea! He and I worked together on it and we would have continued the entertainment but we got called in for our photos to be taken. Fun kid!!!

 

[Axiom_Blade]

No not always ...... firearms are designed to shoot projectiles ... many firearms (and their specific projectiles) in fact are designed from scratch specifically for target shooting ... the VAST majority of projectiles shot by firearms in the US hit paper targets.

Nobody's trying to outlaw BB guns. I'm certainly not. I have no problem with people hitting tin cans, clay pigeons, etc. I am also not trying to outlaw water guns, Nerf guns, or paintball guns.

 

[bit_pattern]

the VAST majority of projectiles shot by firearms in the US hit paper targets.

Seems like an irrationally wasteful use of resources such as nickel and lead.

 

[Ranb]

Can you please tell me why there's no concerted effort to allow everyday citizens operable tanks of any kind? Why can't we have missiles? .50 caliber guns mounted on the back of pickup trucks?

What makes you think we can't right now?

Ranb