Edited to add: I can’t thank you all enough for interacting with this post. I am actually surprised that it’s become this popular. This is the first time more than ten people have read anything I’ve written here. I’m probably going to turn off commenting soon because everything that can be said already has been. In general, I’d like to point out that this is an opinion piece. I wrote it on a 15 minute coffee break and posted it unedited. It’s raw, and that’s the whole point. The tone, the language, and the style are intentional. This was written for people like my mostly conservative Army buddies who will never click an article that is titled “Gun control is your friend”, and tend to assume those who support such legislation have never seen a gun before. I’m not a professional writer, nor a particularly prolific blogger until about three days ago. I’m just a person trying to sort it out like everybody else. Thank you for stopping by. I really do appreciate every one of you. Please find us on FaceBook.BCMCarryHandleAR-15-3

America, can we talk? Let’s just cut the shit for once and actually talk about what’s going on without blustering and pretending we’re actually doing a good job at adulting as a country right now. We’re not. We’re really screwing this whole society thing up, and we have to do better. We don’t have a choice. People are dying. At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.

I’ll start. I’m an Army veteran. I like M-4’s, which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few extra features that people almost never use anyway. I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split between various and sundry machineguns and grenade launchers. My experience is pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really good with an M-4, and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. I can name dozens of other soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing. This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a dream, and is light to carry around. I’m probably more accurate with it than I would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. When I was in the military, I enjoyed combining these two things as often as they’d let me.

With all that said, enough is enough. My knee jerk reaction is to consider weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting. It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY. You know, while I may only have shot plastic targets on the ranges of Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, that’s not what those weapons were designed for, and those targets weren’t shaped like deer. They were shaped like people. Sometimes we even put little hats on them. You learn to take a gut shot, “center mass”, because it’s a bigger target than the head, and also because if you maim the enemy soldier rather than killing him cleanly, more of his buddies will come out and get him, and you can shoot them, too. He’ll die of those injuries, but it’ll take him a while, giving you the chance to pick off as many of his compadres as you can. That’s how my Drill Sergeant explained it anyway. I’m sure there are many schools of thought on it. The fact is, though, when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as possible, and that was never a secret.

As an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. Let’s stop pretending they’re not.

With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? And why wouldn’t they? High capacity magazine, ease of loading and unloading, almost no recoil, really accurate even without a scope, but numerous scopes available for high precision, great from a distance or up close, easy to carry, and readily available. You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter, especially the young one. If he could custom design a weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job than Armalite did with this one already.

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one. We simply don’t need these things in society at large. I always find it interesting that when I was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t carry them around just because we liked them. We didn’t bluster on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. We tucked our rifles away in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had been done since the Army’s inception. The military police protected us from threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this system has worked well. There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably well trained with them. Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian population take a page from that book?

I understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. People have to get a license to operate a car, and if you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble for that. We manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people by their misuse. In addition to cars, we manage drugs, alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t own Serval cats, for example), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any activity a person wants to conduct since those activities could affect others, and we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people.

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is bullshit, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “fuck you, I like guns”.

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse.

“But we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t. One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second.

Let’s be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of people, that’s all an AR-15 is. It’s something fun to take to the range and put some really wicked holes in a piece of paper. Good for you. I know how enjoyable that is. I’m sure for a certain percentage of people, they might not kill anyone driving a Formula One car down the freeway, or owning a Cheetah as a pet, or setting off professional grade fireworks without a permit. Some people are good with this stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the overall rule. Military style rifles have been the choice du jour in the incidents that have made our country the mass shootings capitol of the world. Formula One cars aren’t good for commuting. Cheetahs are bitey. Professional grade fireworks will probably take your hand off. All but one of these are common sense to the average American. Let’s fix that. Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. Nobody does. Society needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours. Kids are dying, and it’s time to stop fucking around.

Advertisements

5,154 thoughts on ““Fuck you, I like guns.”

    1. I question this guys service just by the way he wrote and talked. Possibly a two year private who decided to not deploy. Who knows though behind a keyboard.

      Also, if he spent any serious time in the Army, he would know just how bad the government is at managing anything. FBI can’t manage a no fly list or even act on credible intelligence. The police don’t try to save people and clear the building because “they aren’t trained.” Congress can barely balance the checkbook. For those who remember Iran Contra, the CIA does whatever it wants without oversight. And now, people what the same police that they label as racists inconsiderate assholes, to be even more responsible for their safety. Like c’mon people. For real? We can’t even keep our water supply clean (Flint, Michigan) or keep drugs off the street. Yet these people believe that these same institutions can magically do a better job about guns. Spend the money fixing the roads or hiring more cops instead please.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We should always question people that claim university or military service or anything online, there are no doubt lots of people that do that because they don’t really have an argument and feel that it makes them look more of an authority.
        The only thing of value online are your ideas, not your claims to fame.
        Besides, thanking people for their service, has as much value as sending your hopes and prayers. Respect and follow through with the contracts we make with those that serve, whether military or not.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I’m afraid I call B.S. on this post …

        Here’s why

        Quote from article into : “I wrote it on a 15 minute coffee break and posted it unedited.”

        OK … let’s brak that down, shall we?

        The article is 1,755 words long … and the claim is that it was written “in 15 minutes.”

        So let’s divide 1,755 words. by 15 minutes.

        That worls out at a typing speed of approximately 117 words per minute.

        Quote: “A typing speed above 40 WPM (Words Per Minute) is higher than the average score”

        Source : http://www.learn2type.com/typingtest/typingspeed.cfm

        Even a “High Speed” professional copy typist apparently, works at 100 words per minute.

        Clearly such “fast typing” is based on “copying from a transcript” and does NOT include thinking time, constructing the article, formatting, spell checking, or editing … the last of which, the writer SAYS they did NOT bother with!

        Yeah right!

        No … this article reeks of being a badly disguised “hit piece.”

        Liked by 1 person

      3. You just want to bitch, little snowflake. He is 100% correct about everything he said, so sick it up, baby.

        Like

      4. Just from reading this article, I can discern a few things.
        1. This is a female not a male, as so many seem to assume in their comments.

        2. The military service claimed. The author was obviously a POG if indeed a service member. “The expert badge” If you want to be technical, it is the Expert Marksmanship Badge. No soldier in a combat MOS would use those words, they would simply say “I shot expert with… (name weapon system).”
        Fun fact: the Army has a marksmanship qualification for virtually every weapon system – ie: m16/m4, m9, hand grenades, 203/320 grenade launcher, 249 SAW, 240B, hell even the shotgun (although this one is absurd and if you have ever done it, I’m sure you agree). The list goes on and on.

        Shooting expert does not mean you are “really good” with a weapon system, it just means you are proficient above the ARMY’s minimum standards. The ARMY does not have high standards for a normal soldier. The M4 qualification has only 4 targets pop up at 300m. You can shoot expert without hitting a single one. The maximum effective range for a point target with the M4 is 500m.

        3. The author obviously does not have very much if any experience with firearms at all outside of her military service. An M4 or rather AR-15 putting “wicked holes in paper?” If I wanted to put big holes in paper, an AR-15 would not be my 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice for that. You can buy pellet guns that put similar sized holes in paper. You can buy pellet guns that put bigger holes in paper.

        4. “I wrote it on a 15 minute coffee break and posted it unedited.” She wrote a small dissertation in 15 minutes? She may be the worlds fastest typist. Equally impressive, she was able to maintain a coherent and consistent train of thought at such an incredible speed with little to no errors. The unedited part, well… I think you see my train of thought. These facts here aren’t overly important however it reveals the type of person that the author is. She is one to over embellish. Her over embellishment of something as simple as to how long it took to write this piece calls into question what else she over embellished on. I’m almost curious enough to request copies of her qual records. ALMOST. Remember how I mentioned that it isn’t very difficult to shoot expert with the m4? Because it isn’t.

        5. “nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime?” First off, the phrase “nearly every” can not be assigned any statistical value other than more than half. Either way, it is wrong. This is another example of over embellishment and even worse, poor research/lack thereof. Banning the AR-15 will not solve mass killings in the least. There are plenty of cheaper, more effective means out there.

        6. The author’s use of the word “fuck” does not bother anyone and does not require an apology. It does however show that this piece was written purely out of emotion rather than logic, that is what she should be apologizing for. Emotion clouds judgement and logic. Through judgement and logic this national issue may one day be solved, not through emotion.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. So, after getting through all of your irrelevent conjecture, you appear to be saying that you and your assault rifle are going to protect me because the police can’t. Seriously? “Like c’mon people” right back at you.

        Like

      6. Like, you know that’s the thing that LITERALLY happens, right? While the police are nowhere around, other people are all over the place

        Like

      7. Memorize these words from Christopher C. Morton.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/08/daniel-zimmerman/quote-day-71-37/#comment-2816318

        * Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
        * Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
        * The above two are moot anyway, since police not assigned as bodyguards have virtually no ability to protect individuals.

        Police don’t protect individuals, they draw chalk outlines around individuals unwilling or unable to protect THEMSELVES.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Maybe you should actually read the message before negating it, “she” makes very good points…regardless of whether she was ever in the military.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. LOL. Before you comment, you really should find out who the writer is you are criticizing. You just look silly calling her “this guy”, and “these people”, since she is a woman. It makes readers question your opinion.

        Like

      10. From reading both comments, no it’s not obvious. I guess if you agree with one but not the other you could just say something that, it’s easy…

        Like

      11. Clearly, you didn’t read HER entire article. She’s not a “guy.” So you’ll excuse me when I doubt your concerns.

        Like

      12. If you would have read closer, the author is a woman. Everybody has their own opinion on this topic, I think she wrote a valid blog supporting her position. It was an enjoyable read regardless if you agree with it or not.

        Like

      13. Might wanna work on your comprehension skills, ‘he’ is a woman.
        You are right, Ya the country is not perfect.
        Far from it. But it should not be a free for all.
        High velocity large magazine weapons are abused so often that some regulation would help make the country a safer place. Nobody needs to walk around in public with this beast.
        Oh and ‘chose not to deploy’? You can do that? Shit, I had no idea. Spread the word.
        Thought the article was well written, informative, and flowed with authenticity.
        Made me think how lucky I am to live in Canada. Guns like that are for the range only, and magazine capacity limited. And ya gotta pass a test and background check to get a permit, and it’s gotta have a trigger lock and be stored safely. And ya we still have mass shootings and criminal gang shootigs. But it helps keep the numbers per capita down, especially for accidental shootings.
        And I’m really amazed at the ‘they are coming for your guns” shit. Get grip

        Like

      14. I agree that our Government can be much less than adequate and even irresponsible. But l have to ask you if you do agree that we need to do something, start somewhere. I’m curious as to what you would suggest. I’m not reacting negatively to your post, please don’t take it as such. At first I was totally against armed teachers in our schools. I talked to my daughter in law, a 3rd grade teacher. I told her I think the responsibility of keeping her students alive is too much! She replied that she already considers that a responsibility. She has a license to carry, the daughter of a police chief. So, she changed my opinion, a little and temporarily. Since then I’ve listened to other teachers who are far less comfortable and confident with this responsibility. Now I’m just confused yet concerned like many Americans. But I definitely recognize the fact that something must be done. And I can accept the fact that it’s very probable our Government’s first idea, legislation, whatever it may be, even a strong suggestion may not be adequate. It may not work at all! But at least that door would finally be opened and we would simply need to be prepared to keep on trying until we get it right. I came up with an idea that I’ll bet many people have. I’d like to see pre-qualified Veterans employed by our school systems and placed in every hall of every school. I’ve read that many of our Veterans can’t find employment. So I see this as a win/win solution. And it’s agreed that students are most vulnerable while they’re out of the classroom. While in a classroom doors can be locked providing safety & possibly a chance of escaping out windows. When halls are filled with students there’s little chance of them taking cover or moving fast enough to escape harms way. So maybe teachers, rather than the students could change classrooms. Teachers tell me this would be inconvenient but they’d agree to it. I’ve written my congressman with these ideas. But as you stated our Government is more often than acceptable known for it’s fumbling and bumbling and errors due to incompetence. I’d be interested in what you think of my ideas and any that you may have come up with.
        Thanks, Kimberly Stoner Short
        @ KimStonerShort7@gmail.com

        Like

      15. Nonya,
        You question his service, which he describes with great specificity and given my experience of 7 years in, representative accuracy. You then go on to criticize the “government’s” ability to manage “anything” and go on for the rest of your post to use civilian branches of government managed by appointed individuals generally for political reasons. Military management of bases, facilities and security is generally outstanding. Military training and procedures are all tested in real blood and those mistakes made inform future training and procedures very quickly compared to civilian organizations. It appears to me that you have not served given the examples you have used, so truly not in a position to accurately judge another’s service.

        Like

    2. This persons gibberish is exactly that….gibberish. The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. It says NOTHING about what kind of arms. It says the rights of the people shall not be infringed on. This person brings up things like cars ect. Well those things are regulated and NOT in the Constitution. This hysteria over the AR-15 is out of hand. Liberals running around saying AR stands for Assault Rifle. How many times do you have to tell them that’s not what it stands for ? AR is for Armorlite. The company that makes them. Yes Liberals it looks so scary to you doesn’t it? There is a Winchester .308 that has a 10 round mag. Sure it’s not a 30 round but what is going to stop someone from taking a bag of say 20 mags of 10 which would be 200 rounds and doing the same thing? I don’t hear anyone screaming about that hunting rifle. Why because it doesn’t look scary. Do you know a .22 can kill as bad as a AR? A 22 bullet bounces around in your body and can hit several organs causing major damage. No Liberals are finding an excuse to slowly get rid of ALL guns. You think that is going to stop anything? Seriously are you that stupid? There are countless gun laws on the books. The problem is the only ones who follow the gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t at all. Gun Free Zones are ridiculous. Who goes into Gun Free Zones with a gun? The criminal with a gun. Not the Law abiding citizen. So ban AR-15’s all you want. Are you aware of how easy it is to build your own AR-15 in your basement and no one knows you have it? No serial number? Yes very easy. The mass murderer who is intent on doing what he wants to do will still have his weapon of choice. Whether he builds it or buys it on the black market. Do you think drug dealers will do without their guns? Chicago is the strictest city in the country and a gun free zone yet they wind up with 700 gun deaths a year. Are those legal guns? Not at all. Put all the laws, restrictions and get rid of all you want and all you will do is make it easier for the killers, idiots and others to accomplish their deeds and no one to protect themselves. You will not leave me defenseless. Take mine and I guess I have to do what I have to do. Now these states one at a time is passing these Red Flag Laws. That is their way of getting around the 2nd Amendment. 5 states have it. Florida the latest. Anyone can call and say you are a threat, have made threats or are a danger. They can lie and they come and take your guns. Which means all it takes is a neighbor who doesn’t like you. A relative you’ve had problems with. A liberal who hates his conservative neighbor. A dispute over anything on the block. Anyone can make up anything. Slowly but surely one at a time they can take them all away. Yet the killings will go on by the psychos. Liberals are such idiots. Furthermore while you are crying and complaining do your research on these mass shooting and you will find almost everyone of them have been done by Democrats left leaning people not counting the terrorist ones. Don’t find that strange?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Liberal this liberal that, darn you sure like your stereotypes.
        Yes, but just because people don’t know a lot about guns, doesn’t mean their liberal, doesn’t mean they’re wrong, in fact if you use some common sense, you might understand what they’re worried about, even if they don’t use the right terminology.
        “Liberals are finding an excuse to slowly get rid of ALL guns” and I know people that say things like “all Republicans are racist” both of you don’t know what you’re talking about.
        So paranoid… I picture you peeking out your window looking for Obama coming to get your gun. (and completely unaware that he actually increased gun rights, like allowing you to carry them in national parks) Most liberals aren’t out to take away our guns, most liberals support the 2nd Amendment, I support it, but not just the half that you quote, but the whole 2nd amendment. You do know it’s just one sentence with two comas and really easy to quote the whole thing? Does the part before the comma scare you in someway?
        Personally, I don’t think most of you give a flying hoot about the intentions of the founding fathers or the US constitution, I think if we could bring the ghost of our founding fathers back and they said “no we were talking about only in a militia and assuring states wouldn’t be disarmed by the federal government” you wouldn’t give a crap and you tell them to take a flying leap. So the whole gun extremist movement, isn’t about patriotism, it’s not about the constitution it’s about entitlement.
        One thing I would like to see? It’s people like you talking about gun free zones, before whining about it, taking your aim at the NRA who has gun free zones at their conventions, and in the house and senate, where Republicans currently have a gun free zone. At the NRA convention? What do they know that you don’t?

        Like

      2. I agree with you.. keep repeating the same lie it becomes the truth.. I’m referring to the terms “assault weapon” or “weapons of war ” these are “buzz ” words orchestrated by the left and pushed by main stream media to promote anti-gun agenda.
        The March for our lives rally was hijacked by the left just for one purpose only ..for gun control. This anti-gun agenda is a virus spreading across the U.S.
        I guess these anti-gun people want a utopian society of rainbows and unicorns.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. I would say that few reasonable people have any illusions of going head to head with the US Government and winning, even with assault rifles. However, if preventing violence and tragedy is the real objective then we need handgun legislation before anything. It seems to me that people rail against assault rifles because they’re used in incidents that make everybody feel bad for a couple of days. For gross number of deaths per annum, ones that seldom make the news and rarely make anybody but the victim and their families feel bad yet account for about 90% of the intentional gun deaths each year, we need to look at handguns.

      Like

      1. Seems that going head to head against the U.S. with assault rifles worked out pretty well for the Vietnamese, and a dozen or more other such groups that can be named.

        Like

  1. I appreciate your honesty and agree.SOMETHING MUST BE DONE NOW ….. NO automatic rifles necessary…..no one is taking your guns ….just monitoring more closely

    Like

    1. Here’s some honesty, Sue – no crimes are being committed with automatic rifles, and yes; you are proposing to take our guns.

      The AR-15 is not automatic. It’s not even the most powerful rifle out there by a long, long distance. Further, it’s not even the most popular mass shooting weapon – handguns are.

      You don’t need to monitor us. There are 100 million gun owners with 30 million ARs. If we were the problem, don’t you think you’d notice?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. trulyunpopular, you say, “If we were the problem, don’t you think you’d notice?” What have we failed to notice? Are you saying that because someone uses the wrong terminology you think you can prove that nobody was killed? We don’t give a fuck what you call your gun or whether it’s automatic or if the military uses some other kind of gun! What the fuck do you think you can prove when the dead people have bullet holes in them?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. How am I supposed to know what you’re familiar with and not? Your statement, which has been repeated a few times in the comments, sounds rhetorical. I’m not overly concerned with disappointing you, given that I can’t seem to get English-speaking humans to understand English words and why they matter, let alone technical details that are actually very, very important.

        The “same old crap” is the sophistry perpetrated by repeating lies and expecting people to accept them if you just say them often enough.

        Frankly, I don’t believe you’ve been skeptical about gun control, but since you say it I’ll accept it at face value. Your disappointment, then, is a factor of you not actually having read and understood my other comments. What did you expect in a short response to a fallacious claim?

        Sue said “NO automatic rifles necessary”, which shows she has no idea how guns work or what’s being used, let alone the fact that automatic rifles are 1) not being used and 2) already banned.

        She then doubles down on the ignorance by following that *immediately* with “no one is taking your guns”. Really? You first tell me nobody should have a particular kind of gun, then tell me you’re not actually taking it. Which is it? The article calls for a ban, does it not? If a ban is not taking away guns, then what is it?

        As for “just monitoring more closely”, that’s absurdly inaccurate. If the author calls for a registry, that’s not monitoring, that’s violating federal law.

        Did you know all that? What federal law would be broken? When is a ban not taking things away? Later on we can talk about a “no more sales” kind of ban and how it would be hilarious at this point in time.

        Finally, have you proposed any solutions to gun violence problems? Surely your skepticism is whether gun control could work, not whether it’s needed, right? So if you’re truly skeptical, what’s your view of the gun deaths and how to solve them?

        Let’s see your skepticism out in the open.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. trulyunpopular, you are wrong about my skepticism being a question of what works as opposed to what’s needed–deep down I think Americans are just violent by nature. I can imagine a future in which guns are outlawed and people have basement gun labs where they can get what they want just as nothing is stopping me from driving to the local meth lab.
        Anyway, you claim to have trouble getting people to understand English words, but have you considered that they just don’t want to hear about the law abiding gun owners for the 1000th time? I wasn’t just spouting liberal dogma, you people really do keep saying the same old crap.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Now we’re getting somewhere. I’m going to attempt to reply as objectively as possible, because you are demonstrating an interest in actual dialog, which I appreciate.

        “you are wrong about my skepticism being a question of what works as opposed to what’s needed–deep down I think Americans are just violent by nature.”
        I have been there; I used to agree with this assessment. But even if it’s true, it means we truly have no options. Even a complete ban on firearms would just lead to more mundane methods of murder. So I chose to look at more definable characteristics of gun violence that can be addressed. What I found is that we as a nation generally attempt to find one broad solution to fix everything, but what we actually need is to segment gun violence problems in order to find targeted solutions to definable problems. In order to be brief, I’ll leave that as a concept instead of outlining my actual proposals here. If you’re interested, I can share them later on.

        “Anyway, you claim to have trouble getting people to understand English words, but have you considered that they just don’t want to hear about the law abiding gun owners for the 1000th time?”
        Yes, I have. This is the heart of the discussion problem; both sides are guilty of this. Have you considered we’re tired of hearing how we’re all just psychopaths waiting to snap? We’re also tired of people demanding we look to places like Australia, which imposed an actual ban – many of us believe there are alternative solutions that would work far better in the US, but most gun control advocates don’t take us seriously. They also tell us we love guns more than kids, that we all have soldier of fortune fantasies, and that we’re all uneducated redneck conservatives.

        None of that is true. Sure, there are pockets where at least the last two are legitimate criticisms, but in over a quarter century of actually being around gun owners, those are loud minorities. In short, we’re vilified in order to make it easy to dismiss our very legitimate concerns.

        ” I wasn’t just spouting liberal dogma, you people really do keep saying the same old crap.”
        You may be completely earnest in your views, and feel they are unique and earned through reflection. And that may be true. We feel the same way about gun control advocates – the same old crap.

        I’ll respond to your other comment separately.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. trulyunpopular, I just made a comment that made too much use of the word “fuck” to be really constructive, so I think I should be more clear about why I got so pissed. I’ve always been skeptical about gun control and was hoping to learn something about how actual gun owners really think and maybe find out something I hadn’t considered, but all I found here is the same old crap. You really let me down.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. On a personal note, you don’t have to justify why you’re angry or swearing – I honestly look past it to your actual commentary, so it had no bearing on whether you were being constructive or not.

        “you say, “If we were the problem, don’t you think you’d notice?” What have we failed to notice?”
        Nothing. That’s the point of the comment. There’s nothing to notice because legal gun owners as a group are not the problem. Statistical outliers and criminals are the problem.

        “Are you saying that because someone uses the wrong terminology you think you can prove that nobody was killed?”
        I can’t address this because that’s not what I said. What I *did* say was one hundred million legal gun owners are not killing people.

        “We don’t give a fuck what you call your gun or whether it’s automatic or if the military uses some other kind of gun! What the fuck do you think you can prove when the dead people have bullet holes in them?”
        I know you don’t care, but it turns out to be important for two reasons: the wrong terminology demonstrates a willful ignorance, which then implies an inability to understand the actual problem; demanding a ban of the wrong thing just might get you that ban, and then nothing changes.

        What I’m proving is that the goal of an argument demanding to “ban automatic or military weapons” is intentionally over broad because those things are already banned. If you aren’t equipped with facts and details, you’re not able to address the problems. Worse, you will keep demanding the wrong solution.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. trulyunpopular, you say that I misquoted you, which is probably true, but you do the same. I never said I want to ban any kind of guns. What I said was that I am not even sure that the half-assed measures usually proposed would do anything more than add another layer of bureaucracy to our current problems. I admit that I don’t know enough about the subject, and I can’t agree more that people need to be accurate when talking about important subjects, that’s partly why I’ve read as many comments as I have. The main thing I’ve learned, though, is that gun owners (to be accurate I should say “gun owners who would be interested in a post called ‘Fuck you, I like guns’ and also have internet access and a desire to reply to that post”) seem to be fond of name-calling, making things up about other countries, using bumper-sticker phrases from the 70’s, and paranoid fantasies about overthrowing the government. Even though not all of you do all of these things, you do all have one thing in common: unshakeable smugness.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I don’t recall claiming you misquoted me, nor did I accuse you in particular of suggesting a ban – I was going with the general theme from the gun control side in this discussion because you never actually proposed a solution. If you have one, I would like to hear it, because you may have something useful to add to my own ideas. As mentioned above, I’m happy to share if you like.

        What you accuse gun owners of is exactly the same on both sides. Take an honest read and you’ll see that plainly demonstrated. And that shouldn’t be an excuse – neither of us should do it.

        As for smugness, it’s really just fatigue. I think all of us are tired of the constant hammering with no actual change.

        Let’s be clear: gun owners do not want people committing crimes with guns because the default response is to blame all of us. Imagine you’re sitting in a bar and someone comes in to tell you a drunk driver just killed a family of four, and that because you are all having a drink you must all be complicit and responsible.

        Would that make sense? It’s how we’re treated constantly. It gets tiring. And over the shouting, nobody hears the good ideas that do come up.

        Watch for my response to Albert Baker below – he blames me specifically as being part of the problem, and dismisses both my right and my choice to own firearms with “think they ‘need’ guns”. Even if you agree with the sentiment, do you think it’s a valid criticism? It’s a cheap rhetorical device that attempts to undermine any argument I could make in defense as invalid, but it offers no substance or logic. It’s an emotional opinionated assertion that presumes itself to be true. It’s still just an opinion, though.

        Liked by 2 people

      9. Let me help you without profanity.
        “Your rights and feelings end where my rights begin. And vice versa.”
        If everyone lived by that simple statement, we’d have a far better society. Infringing on my rights gets us no closer to that goal.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. The people have noticed. No, you are not the only problem, but you are a part of it. You are, in your statement, acknowledging that there is a gun problem. You, and all other people that think they “need” guns, should fix the problem.

        Like

      11. Albert, I have always said there is a gun violence problem. Nearly every gun owner believes there is a gun violence problem. You are not demonstrating any level of insight here by pretending I’ve said anything different.

        You are also part of the problem, by persisting in blaming an entire group and presuming their choices are not valid. Are all Christians to blame for the Westboro Baptist Church? Are all gays to blame for the spread of HIV and AIDS? Are all blacks to blame for gang violence in Chicago?

        No. Not one of those is even vaguely true, so why do you think it’s appropriate to put all gun owners in the same light?

        We are trying to fix the problem, but we need your help. We need gun control advocates to actually listen to fact, understand both legal and civil constraints, and to understand that singular solutions like “What Australia did” or other bans are just not going to address the problem.

        Like it or not, this is not a gun owner’s problem; it’s a citizen’s problem. It’s a cultural problem. You are also part of it, and you can’t avoid that. You can start fixing things by shedding your dismissive “think they *need* guns” tripe and maybe just accept the fact that we have the guns, and it’s none of your business how we actually feel about them. Why? Because you’re guaranteed to be wrong, and that makes you useless.

        Make a choice to be useful. Accept that this country is not run by simple majority mob rule, and that you don’t always get your way. Perhaps you would get your way if you shifted from focusing on the solution you want to the the solution that will work.

        Liked by 2 people

      12. The Amendment which gives you the Right to be free to have your AR-15 was written 142 yrs ago. They were writing about a ready militia, not your cool freaken gun. You don’t hunt animals with it. Mentally ill people use it to kill, people they used to work with. Spouses they want to get rid of. Children in schools. Any number of horrific destruction of people they dislike. Who ever THEY are. I’m not asking you to give up your gun’s. I just feel strongly, the only folks who should have these weapons are the Military or federal, state, or local government.

        Like

      13. Your feelings have zero… Let me be clear, absolutely ZERO bearing… on my rights.

        Hunting is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

        I don’t have guns or an AR or anything else because it is cool. Cool has nothing to do with why. In fact, I don’t need a why, I don’t need to demonstrate a need, I don’t have to justify anything to exercise my rights. And the Supreme Court agrees… so long as I personally don’t infringe on the rights of others.

        Your feelings end where my rights begin, and vice versa. Don’t forget it, or we’re gonna have a problem.

        Liked by 2 people

      14. I read through this thread, couple things… First I don’t think America is ever going to ban guns, as in take them from you, what they will do his ban guns and not allow you to buy or sell them. You think that would be hilarious, I think it’s the cost of freedom. Yes, it would take decades to get them out of circulation, the ban should never have been lifted. Unfortunately bad decisions can take a long time to fix or can never be fixed like drilling in national parks, but that’s another story.
        The average liberal does not think all gun owners are wacko crazy, considering a whole lot of liberals own guns. Yes there are the wacko Second Amendment crazies out there. My work puts me in front of lots of the people, I see a whole lot more wacky 2nd amendment people than I see wacky anti-2nd Amendment people. A big problem in having discussions about guns, is because we have a huge well-funded organization who is devoted to increasing gun sales. <—that is a period, they have no other purpose in life, everything else is a cover or expendable. The NRA. When society hears that they successfully lobbied Trump to make it easier for mentally ill people to own guns, a lot of people are gonna think there are some wackos in the NRA. When I hear Hanoi Hannah ( I don’t remember her real name, but that’s who she reminds me of, the spokes lady for the NRA) telling CPAC that progressives love mass shootings for all the publicity and all the crying mothers they generat, or when we hear people demonizing the students victims who are speaking out, and I don’t hear your every day second amendment supporter raising hell, you start to wonder about just how reasonable they are. Suggesting that we should arm teachers, ignoring the fact that most teachers aren’t going to want to be armed, and if they are armed they’re increasing their danger because a nut job with the gun is simply going to try to kill the teachers first. They act like these kids with guns or thinking safety first, oh I could get hurt the teacher might have a gun… that is patently absurd. What an armed kids is going to think is, this teacher is not going expect this after working here 10 years and hasn’t had to once fend off the shooter, probably has the gun in a lock box and doesn’t remember the combination. These freaks going to worry as much about a teacher with a gun as they did about the security guard with a gun. “A good guy with a gun and stop a bad guy with a gun” is nonsense being blubbered by the NRA today. And no, Australia’s violent death rate did not continue, but with knives, after they band guns. People want to play quick and easy with concepts, like pulling a knife out and stabbing somebody is as easy as pulling a gun out and shooting someone. They are different things entirely!
        I’m not for banning all guns, I’m not for taking away guns, but it’s not the left that is preventing us from having a discussion on this, it is the NRA and they’re hard-core supporters. Those that believe any regulation is bad!
        What you will see, if some real things are done, is a backlash.
        I support the Second Amendment, but I also recognize the difference between a period and a comma, There’s a reason they used “well regulated” and “right” in the same sentence. Personally, I would like a law that states you have to have insurance to own a gun. Let the insurance companies decide how safe you are by statistics and charge you accordingly. No banning of guns just whether not you can afford them, if you’re a felon? $300 a month insurance. Lose one? 20% increase in your insurance rate. Domestic violence? $500 a month. But if you’re one of the average law-abiding decent people 5$ a month. And no, I’m not talking absolutes, that’s a red herring, you will never stop all gun crimes, just like you’ll never stop all car accidents, or murders, all we can do in your free society is mitigate them.

        Like

      15. “First I don’t think America is ever going to ban guns, as in take them from you, what they will do his ban guns and not allow you to buy or sell them. You think that would be hilarious, I think it’s the cost of freedom.”

        Right – the ex post facto provisions on both the state and feds would forbid the former, so that leaves the latter. So whose freedom is being paid for by preventing us from buying a rifle? As for the intent to reduce Ads by attrition, you should know there are a phenomenal number of 80% lowers that have no serial number, and legally don’t need one. If you even hint at a ban, suddenly every manufacturer and small machine shop in the US is going to hit triple shifts cranking them out.

        “the ban should never have been lifted.”
        You mean the ban that has been demonstrated to have had zero effect after ten full years? The bill was passed in 1994, and the previous recorded use of an AR in a mass shooting was 1984. Ten years from that event to the bill, another ten years go by, no detectable change in any gun crimes during that time. Why should it have gone on? You still don’t understand that you’re asking to ban something because of its shape, not its function.

        “I see a whole lot more wacky 2nd amendment people than I see wacky anti-2nd Amendment people.”
        That’s because of where you’re standing. I would define “wacky” as anyone who refuses to accept facts about how ARs work in context of every other gun out there. I’d also call anyone demanding an outright ban wacky. Perspective, you know?

        “they have no other purpose in life, everything else is a cover or expendable.”
        Google is your friend. They do represent manufacturing interests more than shooters these days, but it’s because nobody else has taken up the reins to prevent political abuses in underhanded ways. I’m not exactly a fan of the NRA, but if you had any idea how much the Democrats have tried to violate the Constitution by ignoring or doing end runs around protected commerce, you’d see a need there, too. No other industry has been subject to being sued when someone misuses their products. No other industry gets petty, do-nothing regulations placed on it to prevent legal ownership while nothing is done about criminals.

        “When society hears that they successfully lobbied Trump to make it easier for mentally ill people to own guns, a lot of people are gonna think there are some wackos in the NRA.”
        See my definition of “wacky” above. The EO that was blocked never took effect; it was preempted. Further, the EO was opposed by the ACLU on the grounds that it violated the rights of those affected. Why? Because it required the various reporting agencies to list certain characteristic choices to the NICS as pre-determined prohibited persons. Those people were not going to be notified – they’d only find out they were on the list when they went to buy a gun. Oh, and here’s the gem… the metric for reporting was whether someone on a particular schedule treatment had another party manage their finances. Some people are fully capable of normal functioning, but are on the schedule and choose a CPA. How’d you like to find out you were on the no-fly list because you got an anxiety prescription and sent your taxes to H&R Block? (this is slight hyperbole – in reality, only about 10,000 people would have been listed, so again – useless legislation to give the appearance of “doing something”)

        “I don’t hear your every day second amendment supporter raising hell”
        Do you expect every Christian to stand up every time the WBC shits? Do you expect every black person in America to stand up whenever there’s a gang shooting in Chicago? You’re implying those events are common to all of us. The folks calling those students actors are a special kind of wacko; you’d do well not to set expectations you yourself can’t meet.

        “it’s not the left that is preventing us from having a discussion on this, it is the NRA and they’re hard-core supporters.”
        Ok, here’s where you’ve flung some real blind bullshit. The left is more culpable than the NRA because the left commonly demonstrates pure, willful, egregious ignorance about guns in general and *always* makes the claim that if gun owners don’t just roll over and accept their demands, then it’s the gun owners blocking the solutions. The left refuses, absolutely, to listen to any proposed solution that they didn’t come up. This is not hyperbole or even slight bending of the truth. You can see it in this blog’s comments – if a gun rights advocate proposes or suggests a solution that doesn’t involve a ban, someone from the left will pipe up and say “NO!!! You can do those things IN ADDITION TO A BAN”. The left only wants its way, and it chooses to ignore fact and logic at every turn.

        No, the left is more culpable than the right here because you shut down conversation if you don’t get 100% your way right the fuck now.

        Your 2A assessment is not supported by precedent and history, including those who wrote the thing. The grammatical attempts are also easily proven false. “Well regulated” means “in good operating condition” in the parlance of the day. But let’s pretend you’re right. Why is every other amendment in the bill of rights a description of the individual’s protection? Why would they have written 9 about individuals but 1 about the collective? In order for you to believe 2A is about collective rights, you have to pretend that it’s implied by some mystical reading of words that aren’t there while simultaneously ignoring the other nine. What feat of logic allows you to do that?

        I have insurance, btw. I am fully covered for non-criminal acts outside the home. No insurance company will cover a criminal or intentionally criminal act. So what are you accomplishing? You’re attempting to price out a right. Fine – you need to pay $1,500 per item checked on the ballot. That ought to make people think very carefully about how they cast their votes, right?

        DV offenders should lose their right for up to seven years. In fact, many states already do this.

        Note that your solutions never, ever address behavior. How did we reduce drunk driving deaths? By better protective technology and PUNISHING BAD BEHAVIOR. We did not ban alcohol (tried that, failed), we did not ban cars. Why? Because the overwhelming majority doesn’t break the law like that. So we punish those that do. Banning a gun is trying to punish gun owners for the crimes of a statistically anomalous few, and worse – it will have ZERO EFFECT ON CRIME OR DEATH. Clear?

        Liked by 2 people

      16. The ban had Zero effect? Straight up Propaganda.
        https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

        Otherwise you’re basically giving the talking point line of the NRA.

        Liberals do not take away your constitutional rights, no matter how much you try to twist commonsense words of the 2ndAmendment into something bizarre. The only founding quotes I’ve heard supporting your statement have been those of John Adams taken completely out of context, like quoting the 2nt amendment, only after the comma! I can point to multiple areas were the Right does violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, marriage for example. Or religious discrimination by our current administration. Official prayer starting government meetings. The right only place lip service to the constitution.
        Starting off with your “zero effect” complete BS, really not interested in going further.

        Like

      17. You didn’t actually read the article, did you? I have, several times. In fact, I’ve read a number of reports and looked at many data sets. You appear not to understand the definition of “propaganda”. Hell, you appear not to understand the written word.

        Go read it. Dare ya. The best and last report, collecting as much data as possible and WANTING to find an effect came to this conclusion: “So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.”

        Seriously, Mike – you are in way over your head if that’s the best you can do.

        “Liberals do not take away your constitutional rights, no matter how much you try to twist commonsense words of the 2ndAmendment into something bizarre.”
        First, you need to drop the belief that “common sense” has any bearing on the discussion. Try using “useful” and see if your adjectival application still holds true. It doesn’t. I can verify it doesn’t because the AWB was touted as common sense. The people who so very much wanted it to work had to admit it did nothing.

        The rest of your drivel is demonstrably wrong. “The only founding quotes I’ve heard…” means you need to read more. Read, read, read. Read Madison, read the iterations of the 2nd amendment, read that the fucking comma was very likely a transcription error, but even that doesn’t change what the people who wrote the words actually describe in other documents.

        I don’t give two fucks how many violations you can point to from the GOP. I’m not conservative, Mike, and I happen to be atheist. Oops – did I set fire to your childish attempt to redirect and blame?

        I’m not interested in going further because YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE FUCKING DOCUMENT YOU CITED. Take that as yelling because I’m so very tired of twits from the left side of the IQ curve thinking they’re clever by simply saying “NUH-UH!!!” and sticking their fingers in their ears.

        I have made this a direct, personal attack because you are doubling down on being fucking ignorant. Full on retard, Mike. Never go full retard.

        Liked by 2 people

      18. I read the article. You said zero affect. The facts contradicts you. Don’t start with BS if you want to be credible.

        Like

      19. READ. THE. FUCKING. ARTICLE.

        Quote the section that agrees with you. Or did you only read Feinstein’s piece? Probably.

        The analytical reports show a net zero effect. You are free to speculate that the law didn’t go far enough or didn’t last long enough, but even the skeptics agree it was useless.

        If you think you’re going to try and play semantics with “It’s not ZERO because some things changed in opposite direction”, then you have no business playing in the adult world.

        Liked by 1 person

      20. Apparently if you type in all capital it suggest you actually read the article… you didn’t or your lying.
        ——————/
        Koper, 2004: Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, 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.

        However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.
        ———————
        1st – Did banning assault weapons decrease the amount of assault weapons used in crimes? Yes it did. Did it demonstrate that if you don’t ban all of that class weapons, people moved other weapons? Yes it does. In other words if you ban TNT instead of “explosives” people simply move to other explosives.

        2nd – Koper, the author of the study summed it up with this:
        ——————-
        Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

        That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.
        ——————

        So you didn’t read the article, you’re just a spoiled child who stamping his feet, if he doesn’t get everything he wants.

        Like

      21. Typing all caps so you get the emphasis. I directly replied to passages in the article, and here I’m pasting in segments from you own post. Any further attempts to claim I didn’t read the article are admissions that you don’t understand written language, let alone argumentation or logic.

        Let’s focus only on what you posted:
        “any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics”
        Net change? Zero.

        “Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
        Effect? Zero.

        “And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence”
        Effect? Zero

        “Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
        Written in 2004, it’s now 2018. Got any updated evidence you’d like to share? No, you don’t. Effect? Zero.

        “1st – Did banning assault weapons decrease the amount of assault weapons used in crimes? Yes it did.”
        Context is important, isn’t it? Here’s the relevant statement:
        “That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban.”
        And the rates shifted to other weapons, meaning the ban had no effect on total deaths. Oh! You don’t care about death, you just want the scary gun to go away.

        Is it because it’s black?

        Did it demonstrate that if you don’t ban all of that class weapons, people moved other weapons? Yes it does.
        I can agree to this, but realize you’re just arguing for a full ban on firearms. Quite a few crimes are still committed with revolvers. If you take away SA pistols, guess what’s left?

        In other words if you ban TNT instead of “explosives” people simply move to other explosives.”
        NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT!! So go back and read this blog article – it calls for banning ARs. Not SA rifles or pistols, not magazine-fed rifles, not a particular kind of round or even hollow point bullets. The AR-15 is the target and nothing else.

        Come on, sweetie… surely you see that you just deflated your own argument.

        “may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes”

        MAY. But it may not. The other proposed solutions I have offered many times in this thread have demonstrable effects FAR OUTWEIGHING the proposed AR ban. The FBI credits background checks with the continuing decline in gun homicides related to domestic violence and crimes of passion, as well as a reduction in trafficking overall. Those segments alone account for more than the 2% of AWs used in crime.

        Then I advocate for predictive screening and temporary confiscation – if that action stopped two mass shootings per year, it’s two more than an AW ban.

        I also promoted safe storage requirements, which has a far higher potential to prevent gun theft, which is the *leading* contributor to crime guns.

        And guess what? None of those require a ban.

        You can keep repeating that I didn’t read the article, but you clearly can’t actually read. Talk about childish – you should wipe the crayon off your teeth.

        I have now specifically addressed all of your “evidence” in that post, and shown that you tore down your own position by willfully misunderstanding plain language.

        What else you got?

        Liked by 1 person

      22. Well I’m glad I promoted you to finally read the article, but then you go and cherry pick, exactly what you accuse other people of doing.
        I think part of your problem is, whatever you get your media, you’ve decided that anybody who disagrees you thinks all gun owners are bad, those are your words. Everything that you cherry picked is part of what I stated in many comments on this thread, I just don’t cherry pick. Yes you have to ban all of that type for the band to work, so it appears all you’re saying is, that if the ban is done half ass it won’t work. The final statement in the article suggested overtime they will work if they target the right equipment. You know the cherry you didn’t pick.
        We ban automatic weapons, it seems to work, but then there aren’t automatic pistols we allow, is there? We ban all automatic weapons as far as I know.
        From reading your comments, you seem to be only about rewarding people for being good citizens, but not making them responsible, this is where I most disagree with you. Well that and if you want to take the ban off of automatic weapons, because (fill in every excused used to not ban semi automatics)

        Like

      23. heh… You didn’t prompt anything but the reply. How do you think I was able to respond the very first time you linked to the article? Because, as I said, I’d read it and several others long before you came along.

        You cherry picked the pieces you quoted; I just highlighted the context that YOU PROVIDED that completely contradicts your assertion and supports mine.

        My problem is I go to sources for facts, read discussions, and consider credible solutions as well as critique solutions brought by other people. Then I try to enter discussions like this to see if there’s something new to learn and to share what I’ve learned. However, that is met with a religious zealotry that absolutely denies facts and defies logic. Then I do it again on another board. That’s my problem.

        I did say gun control advocates think gun owners are bad, and I said it in context of a group of GCAs that insist on bans. And they do.

        You keep using “cherry pick”, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. Give me an example.

        “Ban all of that type” What type? AR style, the 1994 AW descriptions, semi-automatic rifles, all SA guns, all long guns, what? I’ve heard everything from register ARs to ban all guns (not from you, just in this board).

        This article specifically calls for a ban on ARs, does it not? The article says no such thing about “over time these things go away”. Nowhere. It says civilians don’t need ARs. That’s it. Nothing more.

        I already addressed automatic weapons. The ban was on how they operate, not the power they put out. You can’t have an automatic .25 even though you couldn’t penetrate a leather coat with one – still banned. I don’t think you truly grasp that the thing banned was function, not capability or power.

        I never even implied removing any current restrictions on federal limits, let alone removing the ban on automatics. I’m fine with banning bump stocks because they’re a novelty and not in common use. There’s that imagination again.

        I do advocate responsibility through incentive of protection rather than threat of punishment. I can expand that if you really want to read about it, but think about what makes you WANT to do the right thing. Do you drive safely because you’ll be punished if you don’t, or is it because you love your family and kind of like living?

        If you have a gun and I say I will punish you for not storing it in a safe, how am I going to enforce that unless you commit a crime or have an accident? Chances are almost zero anyone would find out until there was a problem. Safes are kind of expensive, so you may tell yourself that you’ll just put it between the mattress or up on a shelf and nobody will be any wiser.

        But what if I take away your excuse about cost and make it easier for you to simply have a safe? And then I offer you protection from legal action if you can demonstrate your gun was safely stored? It suddenly reduces the barriers to good behavior and makes them more likely.

        Liked by 1 person

      24. Michael Ejercito, as I explained, this idea that something will stop everything is a canard. You don’t understand how insurance would stop a gangbanger from doing a drive-by? It might not, but maybe it’ll be harder for a gang banger to steal a gun, if gun owners or more careful, because they don’t want their insurance rates to go up from losing one.
        Speeding laws do not stop speeding, they mitigate it. But I never hear anybody saying let’s get rid of speeding laws because it doesn’t stop people from speeding. How about, let’s get rid of rape because it’s not stopping them from raping. See how that works?

        Like

      25. Theft accounts for an extremely small fraction of firearms in the black market. This was concluded by a 2013 study, headed up by Vice President Joe Biden, which is one of many studies in the last 20 years which the anti crowd claims were not allowed to happen because of the NRA has influence blocking studies on gun violence, which is an outright lie considering the CDC, DOJ, and NIH all conducted similar studies. Nobody in the pro-second amendment crowd is claiming that we should eliminate laws because laws don’t stop crime, you’re entirely confounding two issues. The first is that laws are there such that we may prosecute and sentence criminals once they have committed their crime. It is been shown over the last many decades that tougher sentencing up to and including capital punishment doesn’t prevent criminal activity. The second is the anti crowd’s supposition that tougher gun laws will prevent gun-related crime, for which there is zero president, zero statistical evidence, zero empirical evidence, and no common sense that backs it. There exists across the states and federal statutes many many thousands, tens of thousands, of gun laws most of which are not properly enforced, not aggressively prosecuted, and not stiffly sentenced. If the anti crowd wanted to make a difference, they would focus on those activities related to violence of all types, incarcerating violent criminals and providing essential services to the mentally challenged and unfit. In doing so, they would not be infringing on the basic rights of legal law-abiding citizens through the passage of laws that are unenforceable, unconstitutional, or that will be ignored by the majority of gun owners.

        Liked by 2 people

      26. Yes, we see that it takes a vivid imagination to work.

        Instead of insurance, why not give a tax credit and require appropriate storage? The problem with your example of insurance is that it *presumes* compliance and reporting, which you can’t enforce.

        What is far more likely to work is enabling good behavior. Offering an incentive to choose a safe will work far better than trying to convince someone to self-report in order to pay an ongoing fee that will never, ever be used the way you’re thinking about.

        Liked by 1 person

      27. The only answers you, or your “We” as you claim, are ideas that increase sales for the gun manufacturers or huge government give away to gun owners. Why should we have to pay our taxes to promote people to be honest? Why are you afraid of the free market and insurance companies doing? And no, the idea that we can’t fix everything so we don’t need laws, old tired NRA BS, no matter how many different ways you try to phrase it. There’s a lot of conservatives that are willing to talk about the insurance option, at least entertain the idea, not you free government giveaways and more gun production. What a surprise!
        Conclusion, you’re a troll, only thing you agree to leads to more guns, any other conclusion would be an insult? Yes.

        Like

      28. Why should you pay your taxes? Because you’re demanding something from your fellow citizens that will be enforced by the government. Are you really that stupid?

        I’m not afraid of the free market, but you apparently have no clue how insurance works. I have insurance that covers me for any non-criminal acts outside the home, so thanks but I’m already covered.

        I said nothing about not needing laws – but again we see your vivid imagination taking hold. You are literally making things up. Did I even hint at more guns? No – I was quite clear about incentivizing good behavior. Your only approach is to punish, which is typical of the truly stupid and useless.

        Liked by 1 person

      29. Your first statement suggest you not comprehending my statement, you should check your own intellect before you start calling people names.

        Like

      30. Oh, this is a treat! Check it, Mike…

        “Law-abiding citizens follow rules, if they don’t they’re not law-abiding.”
        Brilliant example of tautology, Mike – you should put that up on Wikipedia.

        Laws are agreements between people, and between people and government. They set boundaries and expectations for behavior, and provide for punishment when the agreements are broken. Som

        “The reason society decides to creat limitations is because of the trade off of the damage an individual can do to society as opposed to the individual’s rights.”
        YES!! This is exactly right, as far as it goes. However, the determination of that balance is not subject to “feelings” about weapons. In other words, just because you *think* something is too powerful neither gives you right to restrict it nor makes your opinion into truth.

        “We have limitations on law-abiding citizens when it comes to free speech.”
        We have limitations on the BEHAVIOR of exercising free speech; not the choice of method. Further, your right only extends to criticism of the government, not to saying whatever you want to whomever you please. For example, me calling you an asshole is not an exercise of free speech, but me telling Trump he’s a fucking moron for proposing to arm teachers and build a wall IS protected free speech.

        “The gun argument is political, just like abortion just like gay marriage it’s about one issue voters that the politicians know will support anything as long as you’re play lip service to their pet desires.”
        Yes, again!! Well done, Mike! Just don’t make the mistake of thinking anyone who participates in any of those issues does not participate in others. You’ve fought pretty hard in this discussion, but I bet you are also interested in protections for transgender people, gays, and ethnic minorities, right? Some people do fit the “one issue” description, but don’t base your approach to the topic on that notion.

        “Arms rights are just like religious rights if you’re not constantly fighting to stop them they will always go to far, they will always draw the line more radically.”
        Not really – personal ownership of firearms has been nearly constantly attacked since the 70s. Have not expanded those rights except for concealed carry, which was actually already legal in some states. So that right has just been codified, not expanded. We get new gun laws every year that further restrict our rights, even when we as gun owners generally agree with the restrictions. Most of us are fine with background checks as a reasonable trade, for example. And most gun owners are fine with banning bump stocks – while it’s technically a restriction, most of us just don’t care because we don’t use them.

        “We ban automatic weapons, when was last time an automatic weapon was used to commit mass murder? Take the ban off, and that answer will change.”
        Uh-oh! You fell off the knowledge wagon. Automatic weapons were restricted by a requirement to register and pay a tax in the 1934 NFA bill (look it up). Between that time and the 1986 ban, there were two or three uses of legally owned automatic weapons, at least one by a cop against an informant. So, to answer your question, the last mass murder with an automatic weapon was prior to 1934. It took more than 50 years to actually ban them, and nobody cared. Then there’s the reason they were banned: negotiation. Automatic weapons were given up as a concession to get other things protected. The gun control lobby needed to give the appearance of “being tough” by banning something nobody used or cared about.

        Liked by 1 person

      31. Law abiding citizens have insurance. Law abiding citizens follow the speed limit. Law-abiding citizens follow rules, if they don’t they’re not law-abiding. Law abiding citizens don’t keep explosive in their apartment closet. Why do we have a law banning service to air missile‘s? Apparently the only way to stop a serface to a missile is a good guy with a surface to air missile? or would that be a surface to surface missile? It’s your logic, tell us. Why are we telling Iran they can’t have a nuclear bomb? Doesn’t a good guy with a nuclear bomb stop a bad guy with nuclear bomb?
        The reason society decides to creat limitations is because of the trade off of the damage an individual can do to society as opposed to the individual’s rights. We have limitations on law-abiding citizens when it comes to free speech.
        The gun argument is political, just like abortion just like gay marriage it’s about one issue voters that the politicians know will support anything as long as you’re play lip service to their pet desires.
        Arms rights are just like religious rights if you’re not constantly fighting to stop them they will always go to far, they will always draw the line more radically. We ban automatic weapons, when was last time an automatic weapon was used to commit mass murder? Take the ban off, and that answer will change.

        Like

      32. Law abiding citizens have insurance. Law abiding citizens follow the speed limit. Law-abiding citizens follow rules, if they don’t they’re not law-abiding.

        The purpose of speed limit laws and laws requiring insurance is to mitigate injuries and property damage resulting from unintentional or negligent acts.

        Liked by 1 person

      33. Yes, “The purpose of speed limit laws and laws requiring insurance is to mitigate injuries and property damage resulting from unintentional or negligent acts.”
        Of law abiding citizens. Same thing can be done for law abiding gun ownership, restrictions and insurance for injury and property damage resulting from unintentional or negligent acts.

        Like

      34. Didn’t say speed limits were related to drive-by shootings, maybe can find somebody that would like have that discussion with you, it’s not me. I’m talking about insurance for car insurance for a gun, the insurance is what’s related.

        Like

      35. Cardiff Clover – You rightly point out that the 2nd amendment was written to keep a militia ready. It might interest you to know that a militia is a body formed by the able population and is expected to bring their own weapons. Our “cool freakin’ guns” are a reasonable way to support that concept, right? I mean if you call up a militia, chances are you need them to do something other than hunting or competition shooting. If things get to the point where the states call up the militia, and we need to bring our own guns, do you really think it’s a good idea to say we can’t have that gun because you don’t understand how it operates?

        Liked by 1 person

      36. Who are you talking about? I go through annual FBI background and psychological tests, got one of the first concealed carry permits issued in my state, and trained under the California Department of Justice police handguns program before I ever bought a gun.

        Liked by 1 person

      37. ‘Zwounds, thou hast cut me to the quick! Would that my sword were as sharp as your tongue. I bleed! I bleed!

        Ne’er ‘gain shall I walk upright twixt king and subject, but to the sinking in muck and mire must I. O! what heavy melancholy will e’er I carry, as godly Atlas doth shoulder the sky. Thy words, weighty and jagged, will surely pull me below the earth to be buried, forgotten, and to rot.

        Liked by 1 person

      38. But have you read his list of claimed accomplishments? 😉 They go on and on.
        He makes lots of claims, he calls people names, says everything is cherry picked he doesn’t agree with, you give him a “not cherry picked” quote and source, he then cherry pick from that quote, rolling my eyes, I think it’s just a gun troll.

        Like

      39. Why are you in my thoughts? Well, either because I like you a whole bunch because you’re ama…..zing, or you keep popping up in my notifications. I’ll let your persona pick the one right for you. Wink wink.

        Like

      40. Ok, points for “ama…..zing”

        You have now butted in at least twice (maybe three times) when you were not part of the exchange to go completely off topic with ad hominem attacks. At least when I fling insults at you, they’re in context of the ongoing conversation.

        Anyway, I just replied on George’s thread, and now I’m bored. I presume you’re probably getting bored with me. I’m not getting anything from our head butting, and my guess is you’re frustrated, too. Do you want the last dig before we ignore each other?

        If you have legit questions and remarks, and we can agree on behaving more maturely, we can explore some more topics. I’m just tired of the nonsense going both ways. Unless you want to try doing this using Shakespeare quotes… could be fun.

        What sayest, thou?

        Liked by 1 person

      41. …He was a man, take him for all in all.
        I shall not look upon his like again.

        Well, until I hear you say something else propagandishi. Then all bets are off!

        Liked by 1 person

      42. Funny you should phrase it that way: I don’t much relish an ACTUAL battle, as someone disarmed, either. When you figure out how to disarm the criminal element, let the rest of us know, we’d like to try it out by removing drugs from our schools… Or even our prisons. Which we ALSO can’t keep guns out of.

        Like

      43. You will never eliminate criminals from having guns, but what you realistically can do is mitigate criminal gun possession. That seems to be the crux of most gun fetish argument, if you can’t get all guns out of criminal‘s hands, then you shouldn’t try to get any.

        Like

      44. Mike in Sonoma said: “You will never eliminate criminals from having guns, but what you realistically can do is mitigate criminal gun possession. That seems to be the crux of most gun fetish argument, if you can’t get all guns out of criminal‘s hands, then you shouldn’t try to get any.”

        Yes – you can mitigate criminal possession. Here’s the catch, though: the best way (imo) to do it is to federalize the gun purchase and possession laws, making them uniform across the country. That takes away State’s rights, and they don’t like that. Still, this would address the problem of apparent paradoxes like Chicago thugs driving to Iowa to buy guns (while still technically illegal, the buyers are flat-out lying, not the dealers or stores, so there’s no recourse or pressure to put on the sellers).

        As for the “you shouldn’t try” response, that’s just hyperbole. I’m sure it feels that way, but what you generally get in reality is “that solution won’t work”. What you rarely hear is “what other solutions can you think of that address these concerns?”

        In public discussion on gun control and rights, most people don’t want to actually further the debate on either side: they want to demand their favorite solution and won’t tolerate hearing any dissent or criticism. Gun owners usually feel the best solution is harsher penalties, while gun control advocates typically want to prevent sales in some way. Neither is a solution by itself and each has valid criticisms. Worse, neither side views the other as having a common goal, so it’s incredibly rare for people across the aisle to actually listen and try talking about blended solutions.

        Gun owners pretty much never actually believe “you shouldn’t try”; what they believe is the proposed solutions are inadequate, useless, and frivolous, which translates into attempts to disarm rather than mitigate problems. Gun control advocates for the most part don’t seem to endorse full bans, but get frustrated because they don’t believe in the validity of criticisms presented by gun owners.

        Like

      45. Ah, wel thanks for admitting you misapprehension the crux of the issue. See, the trouble has always been that every step you take only ends up applying to LEGAL gun owners. Criminals willing to sell drugs or guns can set up a shop and make their own… which do you suppose is easier to produce? A working machine gun, or a kilo of methamphetamine?

        You should look up what a STEN gun is.

        Liked by 1 person

      46. You’re right, punishing criminals is one way to mitigate criminals gun possessions, of course after they’ve committed the crime, until then they’re not criminals. Under your logic, you don’t need an alarm system, security cameras or locks on your doors, because you’ve already mitigated break-ins by punishing them.

        Like

      47. Schools already have locks and alarms. Do you live in America?

        You suggested that all we need is punishment to stop crime, it was an absurd statement. Punishment is a deterrent, so are locks on your door, so are surveillance cameras, so are alarms. Nosy neighbors are even a deterrent.
        It’s common sense to do things to prevent crimes, and then have punishments for those that commit them, you don’t just do one or the other.

        Like

      48. If you guys are allowed to own guns as long as you remain law abiding citizens, why can’t I do heroin every day as long as I stay a law abiding citizen? I’m not hurting anyone. In fact, I’d say that being a heroin junkie is less likely to make you into a killer than being a gun owner. Yet it’s not just heroin that is banned, methamphetamine is too. Why? Because they have horrific societal consequences when used as designed. Same goes for guns, dude. It’s not rocket science.

        The second amendment is stupid. It was designed for militia forming in order to manage tyranny, an obsolete notion as any traditional military revolt against the US government internally would result in failure with the tech they’ve got at their disposal right now. You’re a fool if you think you can use brute force against the US government.

        And another thing:

        Guns do kill people!

        People also kill people!

        Newsflash! These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

        Yes, if you have two people and one gun and one of those people uses the gun to kill the other person, then the person with the gun is technically killing the person who got shot. WE GET IT. Same old hypernormalized garbage rhetoric. But, uh, the person used the gun to kill the other. Now what happens when you remove the gun from the equation?? I’ll tell you: NOBODY GETS SHOT. Was that explained simply enough for you NRA folks or do I need to write it on the blackboard for you?

        The people who want guns controlled are not lunatics or autocrats. How can you see what is happening and advocate for firearm use? I’ve seen tamer shit than Sandy Hook in Hollywood thrillers.

        You mention in many of your replies that you’re somewhat of a logician, or at least a person who likes to debate. So please explain the logic of gun owners: Why in God’s name would you want to live in a society where anyone who can pass a standard background check is allowed to buy an assault rifle at the age of eighteen? My mind immediately jumps to a Hanna Barbera style “duhhhhhh what could go wrong?” sort of deal. The dunderheadedness of this is a no brainer from my point of view, but there are many points of view after all…

        See, I think the people who don’t want guns, particularly assault weapons, controlled are being brainwashed by a trillion dollar juggernaut of political lobbyists. Arms dealers make more money than drug traffickers. They want you to be able to buy their product cause they like being rich, so they have literally purchased a segment of Washington in order to convince people we deserve to have guns and to enforce our right to murder each other. I find this to be repugnant, again just my opinion.

        Politics aside, is it that legal gun owners are also just attached to their hobby? Firing a gun must be addictive for some people or something, like a rush, because it is insane how tightly people cling to their weaponry. I’ve fired many guns and don’t understand the hype, but whatever. In this case you guys need to give up your hobby. Sorry, but it’s kind of a small sacrifice given the reasons you’re being asked to do so. How would you feel if your kid got shot?

        That is my opinion, I think civilian gun ownership should be straight up banned.

        I’d be fine with a shooting range that rented them out! If you need your bullet fix so bad and all you wanna do is target shoot, go rent a gun at a shooting range. Why do you need to own a gun? To go into the woods and murder innocent creatures? What a dick move. The fact that killing a bear or a deer or some other magnificent creature is more legal than doing drugs or gambling is completely sadistic and insane. Boggles the mind, but that’s the way we do it so there you go.

        So YOU’RE being safe, using your guns legally. Sure, YOU are using guns lawfully. While you were doing that, someone in another state just used your favorite toy to massacre a room full of schoolchildren. How self absorbed can you be to try and say that this obviously unsafe item that crazy people are using to go on an uptrend of killing sprees should be legal because “the majority of users are law abiding and safe” in a country that still doesn’t have marijuana federally legalized?

        This is not a free country, the whole schtick is a gimmick. The cat is out of the bag, America is far from a free country, and there is no such thing as a wholly free society. Total freedom is literally antithetical to the idea of society. so why does this particular issue have to be completely unregulated? I’ll tell you why. Because the NRA is funneling money into talking heads that brainwash people like you into thinking it’s a good idea to leave the second amendment alone.

        I would love to hear your logic to the contrary, i.e. why I should think you aren’t just parroting creaky old, overused conservative rhetoric and actually have a decent point to make. I can’t think of a logical reason to keep gun control as loose as it is. Like I said before, I see no reason not to ban assault weapons entirely. I see a reasonable argument for handguns or low caliber rifles, but with high powered assault guns, all it is is “FUCK YOU I WANT MY GUNS”. Stop being so damn selfish for fuck’s sake. People are dying here y’all.

        Like

      49. The majority of your comment is either adequately addressed many times over earlier in the discussion, or is just venting, so I’m not going to bother with it; what remains below is good enough for you.
        “I would love to hear your logic to the contrary, i.e. why I should think you aren’t just parroting creaky old, overused conservative rhetoric and actually have a decent point to make.”
        You’ve heard it, you just reject it. I can’t help you with that – you have to do some critical thinking on your own.
        “I can’t think of a logical reason to keep gun control as loose as it is.”
        No, you can’t think logically, and so you choose not to see it in others. Dismissing other people’s arguments out of hand and then demanding more is a pretty clear demonstration that you have no argument of your own. Further, many gun rights advocates on this discussion thread have said they’re open to useful legal changes, but you’re implying we don’t want any change at all. Again, you don’t have an argument if you have to invent your opponent.
        “Like I said before, I see no reason not to ban assault weapons entirely.”
        Um… you said “That is my opinion, I think civilian gun ownership should be straight up banned.”
        Are you a liar or stupid? It’s only one or the other.
        Now, do you have a suggestion other than banning something?

        Liked by 1 person

      50. The A.R. 15 is a low caliber rifle. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Also, if you were to legalize drugs, we would end up with an off a lot less crime, and about 60% of the people in prison could be let out, since they don’t have any victim. You pretty much demolished your own argument very effectively, though.

        Liked by 2 people

      51. And If you think “nobody gets shot“ equals “nobody gets killed“, you’ve obviously missed 10,000 years of human history where no guns existed.

        Liked by 2 people

      52. If you guys are allowed to own guns as long as you remain law abiding citizens, why can’t I do heroin every day as long as I stay a law abiding citizen? I’m not hurting anyone

        I do not give a fuck if you do all the heroin you want.

        If you can do heroin without operating a motor vehicle or operating heavy machinery, and support yourself, do all the heroin you want.

        If you can not support yourself while using heroin, quit.

        If you can not support yourself while using heroin and do not want to quit, starve.

        If you want to rob people to get money to buy heroin, or operate a motor vehcikle or heavy machinery while under the influence of heroin, you are going to jail, the hospital, or the morgue.

        ? Because they have horrific societal consequences when used as designed.

        Mass incarceration has societal costs too.

        So does gang warfare over turf.

        The second amendment is stupid. It was designed for militia forming in order to manage tyranny, an obsolete notion as any traditional military revolt against the US government internally would result in failure with the tech they’ve got at their disposal right now. You’re a fool if you think you can use brute force against the US government.

        If only the Viet Cong got the memo.

        Now what happens when you remove the gun from the equation?? I’ll tell you: NOBODY GETS SHOT. Was that explained simply enough for you NRA folks or do I need to write it on the blackboard for you?

        Do you think guns could just be wished away?

        Police have been trying to shut down (let alonedisarm) gangs (who have many members that were proven to be untrustworthy when armed) for what, two hundred years? and yet they are not closer than they were two hundred years ago, or even forty years ago when the War on Drugs started.

        If you have any suggestions as to how to disarm gangs, feel free to post.

        Why in God’s name would you want to live in a society where anyone who can pass a standard background check is allowed to buy an assault rifle at the age of eighteen?

        A background check checks for disqualifying factors such as criminal history and adjudication of mental insanity.

        Why do you assume that people with no criminal history and no adjudication of mental insanity are untrustworthy to carry an assault rifle?

        While you were doing that, someone in another state just used your favorite toy to massacre a room full of schoolchildren.

        So punish them, along with the gangbangers who do drive-bys.

        Punishing the innocent is completely unacceptable!

        Liked by 1 person

      53. I love the logic of the argument that gun control wouldn’t work.
        There are laws against the consumption and selling of narcotics, yet narcotics are reasonably easy to buy and consume, ergo, we should make all narcotics legal, right?

        Like

      54. There is a ban on automatic weapons, it’s a band that works. And once again you’ve shown the attempt to blur the difference between the prohibition on something that can cause damage to society as a post to something like marijuana that does not. The problem with Prohibition, was it was based on religious desire not on a desire to make society safer. That’s why didn’t work.

        Like

      55. There is? Looks like people buy and sell them on public websites. Feel free to call law enforcement.
        What you missed here is that even when owned, and when legal, they made up basically no portion of crime, ever.

        And no: what i’m Rubbing your nose in is that every prohibition is malum prohibitum not malum in se.
        A thing which is not wrong in and of itself, but only because there is a law saying so. Sort of like when sodomy got you sent to jail. Prohibitions are not only a fuckhuge waste of resources, they also put tons of nonviolent people in cages alongside murderers. But you seem fine with that… I guess you’ve never done any drugs in your life and always obey the speed limits with your seat belt on.

        Liked by 1 person

      56. See my response to Edward L Sullivan, you are splitting hairs. Things that are banned are rarely completely banned. And please point us to an eBay sale of a fully automatic weapon, curious to the cost of one.
        As I’ve said before, banning something that has been in circulation for decades, would take decades to show results; very hard to put the genie back in the bottle. As for automatic weapons, lets keep the genie in the bottle.
        Not sure what you’re going on about things not being wrong in and of themselves… Never said they were. Things can be more dangerous in the hands of bad or ignorant people. There is nothing inherently evil with rental box trucks, but after the Oklahoma bombing, they made renting them more restrictive. Not one rental truck nut complained about it!

        Like

      57. I’m sorry, I have no interest in continuing dishonest conversations. The word is “accurate”, not “splitting hairs”.
        Nothing you are saying is compelling, new, or for the most part actually even a point for your own side. Oklahoma City is what we’d see MORE of if guns were banned. For reference: Northern Ireland. Palestine.
        It’s so easy to make grandiose claims that cannot be falsified, like that automatic weapons are only not used in crimes because they’re banned… except not banned, just hard to get… (the important word is: “really expensive”.)

        To claim that we really have to pass a law and wait decades to see if it’s successful… how long have drugs been outlawed?
        Think I can’t walk into a primary school of my choice and buy some?
        Do you know someone just put out a report lamenting that school shootings have been skyrocketing in the past 59 years?
        Guess what happened 50 years ago?
        The gun control act of 1968.

        Stop misdiagnosing the problem, applying the wrong remedy, and then crying that the doctor failed to save your patient.

        Like

      58. Dude, I made it clear, banning semi automatic weapons is not a solution, and you ARE splitting hairs. About those facts pretend to care about, where’s that link to eBay where you can buy automatic weapons? Go whine all your excuses at somebody else, I was attempting to have a conversation, you just want somebody to agree with you I’m not your damn mommy.

        Like

      59. It is a little bit more complicated than that.

        Sodomy is malum in se, as is blasphemy.

        And yet, there are compelling arguments to legally tolerate these acts for a greater good, or to avoid a greater evil.

        Like

      60. Sodomy is not inherently evil, but people that claim thing like that, quite often are. Society, especially a free one has more to fear from people like you then a married couple, that has the kind of sex you don’t like.

        Like

      61. Sodomy and blasphemy have no victims. They are malum prohibitum, as evidenced that we have no current prohibition on them, and people are not coming forward as victims thereof.

        Like

      62. Exactly, there’s nothing inherently evil about sodomy, those that claime it, quite often are inherently evil.
        Religion on the other hand, is a very good candidate for malum in se. Or put it in layman‘s terms, all religion is either pre-cancer or cancer.

        Like

      63. And yes, I ignored your eBay demand because it’s ridiculous for two reasons: one, eBay has a PRIVATE POLICY, which has no legal ramifications at all, banning the sale of certain classifications of weapons. I believe you know this, which makes it a dishonest “gotcha” question… but it begs the question “what sites can you buy things online?” And presumes that somehow “eBay” is the only place you know, which is an argument relying on ignorance. But for example, if you go type “gun broker” into that thar google, you’ll find places you can buy basically anything firearm, and pick it up at your local class III dealer. Probably in about 8 months, when government finally stamps your paperwork.

        But yeah dude, I totally lose because eBay isn’t listing Thompsons.

        I guess meth isn’t purchasable because I can’t find it on eBay.

        Like

      64. Dude you lack the ability to use reason, you come into conversations making assumptions based on your bias, and probably bias learned from searching out media that agrees with you. I don’t promote banning guns, I do called out drones who repeat the same shit that they heard from the NRA or some some other puppetmaster.
        In reference to the fully automatic weapons ban you said: “Looks like people buy and sell them on public websites. Feel free to call law enforcement”
        EBay, craigslist, I don’t give a F what public web sight, back up your bullshit comment!

        Like

      65. First off, you’re accusing me of what you’re doing. My reasoning works just fine, thanks. Secondly, I’ve not been an NRA member since before I joined the military 20 years ago. Thirdly, your knowledge of guns is awful and you clearly expect me to do your research for you…
        Fourthly, i’m even willing to DO that for you, but don’t act like you’re doing ME a favor when I google for you.
        Here:
        https://www.gunbroker.com

        Like

      66. Didn’t say you were a member of the NRA. Being in the military is a relevant. Never said anything to suggest that I’m an expert on guns. And you make these claims in spite of you climbing your reasoning is just fine.
        And I haven’t asked you to look anything up and this link has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
        So on top of using fallacies as arguments, will add distraction to your list.

        Like

      67. But yet you replied. Stay out of an adult debate, your “feelings” lead you to irrational claims and put words in people‘s mouth because you have nothing else.

        Like

      68. I attempted an adult response, and you flung feces. I will no longer be casting pearls before swine. You will be replied to in kind. The fact that you have not recognized that yet, and will not grasp it this time either is merely a further vindication of this decision.

        Like

      69. I stated a fact, “automatic weapons are banned,” you stated BS right here:
        “Looks like people buy and sell them on public websites. Feel free to call law enforcement”
        Asked you to back up that statement, all you do is grab your pearls and play the victim. Again, I think you’re so used to living in your bubble you’re not use to anyone calling you out on your BS, and don’t know how to deal with.
        Stop playing the victim.

        Like

      70. You stated a lie. I called you out. Automatic weapons are TAXED. Why would there even be a law requiring a $200 tax stamp for something nobody can buy?
        You’re a stellar case-study in Dunning-Kruger. You know Just barely enough to think you’re educated in the subject, and like a teenager who drives 120mph because they think they’re immortal, you’re destroying yourself.

        So: you tell me! What’s a class III license for? Why would someone describe a firearm as an “NFA” weapon?

        Like

      71. You’re playing word games again, because you have no argument.
        Nothing is ever banned completely, and I already listed the requirements to get an exception, including the tax. And you’re calling other people a liar?

        “and like a teenager who drives 120mph because they think they’re immortal, you’re destroying yourself.” Do you even know what Dunning-Kruger means, or is it a talking point some propagandist gave you or you learn control school? Well if so, you need to go back to school. They don’t have speeding laws to prevent people from just killing themselves, it’s because they kill other people while doing it. Will just add that to one of the dumber things you said.

        Like

      72. Lol. So you KNEW automatic weapons could be purchased, but it’s some kind of “loophole” because nothing is ever completely banned… despite the ever growing number of comparisons to Meth on this page.
        So how does that comparison work? Think of a doctor writes you a prescription, you get “legal meth”? Of course things being banned means you can’t get them. Things being made in an illicit shop means you can still get them illegally though. I guarantee the shop making STEN guns is simpler than the one making methamphetamine.

        But you just go on proving you think you know more than you do, and playing pigeon chess. I’ll just keep putting the pieces back up and waiting for an actual player to have a seat.

        Like

      73. Again, you’re just throwing out word salad, my statements about what a fully automatic ban is, hasn’t changed from my first comments, including the full list of regulations to deal with grandfathered automatic weapons, you are to lazy and ideological to read back. Your word salad is an attempt to hide your lack of reason; you are only fooling yourself. From your writings, yes, most people on this thread, do have “reasoning” far superior than you, that’s not their fault, it’s yours, and your ignorance is wanton.

        Like

      74. Looks to me like you read something that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions, your eyes glaze over, the words all blur together, and you condemn it as word salad.
        That’s not useful, it’s lazy, and I can show it to you, but I can’t understand it FOR you.
        There is nothing ignorant about correcting your errors, and to make that claim, but overlook that the ignorance is in you COMMITTING those errors, well, you’re not looking very teachable, anymore.

        Damn shame too, reason is far preferable, but I’ve certainly known my share of people who won’t see the light til it shines through the bullet holes. You’re on the side pushing for a civil war over guns, and you plan to go into it unarmed, it looks like.

        So to summarize: yes, there are places you can buy automatic weapons. No it’s not frickin’ eBay, and it was never required to be. Knowing the difference between owning an automatic and building one might’ve saved you from looking stupid, but you didn’t feel like accuracy was a thing YOU had to do, just something you demand from others.

        And also, you’re just awful at trash-talking. Seriously, just stop.

        Like

      75. What makes it worth salad, is when you throw together a bunch of words that have nothing to do with the subject. I referrince to ban on fully automatic weapons and then defining what that is with a list of restrictions and exceptions.
        You say you can buy them on public website, but don’t demonstrate it, but now you’re saying oh but not ebay, which of course is a public website. You say other public websites, but still don’t show us any.
        Word salad.
        You’re only fooling yourself and other ideologues.

        Like

      76. No, I literally did give you another website. The fact that you gave one single example that doesn’t have them means exactly nothing. Dogs.com doesn’t sell automatic weapons, that must mean they can’t be bought!
        You keep repeating this “word salad“ claim that is meaningless and hoping it’ll catch on. I bet Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too, huh??

        You could have conceded gracefully that it is entirely possible for people to buy automatic weapons, but you’ve doubled down over and over on a claim that’s been refuted. Throwing words like “ideologues” in a thread where you’re showing your ideology so clearly does give me a laugh, though.

        Like

      77. You are one heavy duty projector. I stated automatic weapons are banned and then listed the regulations pertaining to that ban. I did that before you blabbered “there is no ban.” Nothing I have said has changed.
        You are an ideologue, an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
        Anybody who’s thinking doesn’t come from bullshit mountain, knows exactly what someone means by a “ban” on automatic weapons, you’re playing a little game semantics. You’re having a temper tantrum. That might work with your mommy, not gonna work with me, I’m not your mommy.
        Considering when I said “a ban” also listed the regulations behind it, you just needed to fling your ideology around, valid or not, instead of keeping your mouth shut. The subject was, what prevented fully automatic weapons from being used in criminals. As an ideologues, you don’t like to answer that, so you distracted by playing with somatic.

        I never thought I’d have to use the NRA as a source, read through this notice, even the NRA uses the word ban when referring to the 1986, ban. Apparently even the NRA overestimated your ability to comprehend.

        https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140617/ten-reasons-why-states-should-reject-assault-weapon-and-large-magazine-bans

        Like

      78. I’m serious, you decreed that educTion and experience didn’t matter… how did you expect to be taken seriously? And based on what? More feelings?

        Like

      79. What is this “word salad” or “I’m not one, you are”?
        “I’m serious, you decreed that educTion and experience didn’t matter… how did you expect to be taken seriously? And based on what? More feelings?”

        Like

      80. You weren’t able to correct for a single typo on the word “education”?
        Do you feel that you’re “winning” something by wasting your opponents’ time?

        Like

      81. My Comment had nothing to do with the typo, I ignore typos, must people have typos. Again, you try to find excuses because you have no real argument.

        Like

      82. Oh. So you thought you could just unilaterally condemn the argument and it would go away.
        Well, it hasn’t, and you’re out here showing your ass.

        Like

      83. Yes, see what I did there?
        “My Comment had nothing to do with the typo, I ignore typos, must people have typos. Again, you try to find excuses because you have no real argument.”

        Like

      84. Yes. I see what you did there. It wasn’t witty, or at all intelligent, and it’s maybe two and a half stars, if yelp has a “distractions from the point” category.

        But it’s to be expected since you haven’t got anything from your first comment that still stands, so it’s hardly surprising. You’ve had to insult the messenger a few times, so I guess you’ve got that going for you…

        Like

      85. Oh darn you don’t think I’m witty. And that is on top of me being a typo Nazi… what other substantive comments do you have? LOL.

        Like

      86. Says the guy with literally nothing of substance trying to distract from a claim he had yanked out from under him.

        Like

      87. I love the fact that you can’t actually read – the argument is this: we already have laws in place to punish behaviors, and adding preventative restrictions on guns will only affect people who follow the law.

        Seriously, what the fuck is so difficult about this concept? There is nothing in that idea that says “we don’t need laws”, you fucking twit. I am so very god damned tired of willfully ignorant dipshits trying to be clever with this nonsense.

        For the love of Cthulhu, grow the fuck up and behave like an adult. Drop some swear words, throw away the velcro shoes, sit at the big kid’s table for a second.

        Like

      88. There you go, ignoring the layman’s view of things. I have heard enough gun nuts say, “those laws didn’t stop that person from doing…” something, as an excuse to get rid of laws, to understand where people are coming from.

        Getting back to the abstract that I like, take what you say about guns and saying about automobiles see if it translates…
        “We already have laws in place to punish behavior and adding punitive restrictions on cars only affect people who follow the law”

        Guns and cars have some things in common, both can be used to commit mass murder. Both can cause damage, if used incorrectly. Both have the possibility of being involved with accidents that cause a lot of damage and harm. What they don’t have in common, is what they’re used for, gun can be used for defensive purposes easier than a car can. A gun is categorized as a weapon, a car is categorized as transportation. When I hear the layman say, “what benefit does a gun have in society?” they’re looking for the trade-offs for putting up with the liabilities. Transportation highly outweighs the liabilities of the automobile, but in spite of that, we still register them, license them, demand safety features on them, regulate their speed on the roads, ban using them when under the influence, demand more training /licensing for larger vehicles, and we take away your right to use them if you abuse them.

        I don’t see the use in yelling at people and calling them names because they do not have the technical jargon when talking about guns. If you get 2/3 of the population pissed off enough, you’re going to see the constitution changed.

        Like

      89. There is no use in yelling and swearing at people… I’m just frustrated and venting. If we agree that topical education and knowledge are critical elements to making good decisions, then technical concepts and basic logic need to be part of the process.

        Certainly there are some people advocating for no laws or reduced restrictions, but they are a minority. Unfortunately, they fit the gun control crowd’s knee-jerk notion of ignorance and so get conflated to be the entire body of gun owners in the US.

        That’s just not true. Just like when reasonable gun control advocates point out that “nobody is trying to take your guns”, and gun owners respond with “well, that’s bullshit – here’s a list of articles, posts, and politician’s comments that directly demonstrate that’s the exact plan”. Well, that’s not true, either, is it? Most people actively engaged in the debate may call for some bans, but most would be happy with limits without confiscation.

        It’s tiring, Mike. We both keep repeating stuff to try and correct low-information people on both sides, and it never seems to take. I feel like I’m trying to drain the ocean of ignorance one teaspoon at a time.

        Like

      90. You keep talking about venting so I will.

        First: screw you. You are totally disrespectful and call other people stupid without even really knowing anything about them, which is what stupid people who think they are smart do. I’m not just talking about me either, judging from your string of tirades you clearly think very highly of yourself and your intellect. It’s no wonder you’re truly unpopular.

        You’re insensitive and you clearly have a boner for guns, so I’m guessing we are going to agree on basically nothing. You strike me as an intellectual “deplorable”.

        Second: I had a friend who was at a large concert watching the country artist Jason Aldean play in Las Vegas recently. She was enjoying herself until the shots began. Supposedly a member of her concert entourage’s head unexpectedly exploded from a shot fired by some lunatic up in the Mandalay Bay. As the bullets rained down and everyone started running and screaming, she said she hid beneath a light fixture made from canvas and metal to avoid being trampled.

        You have the nerve to call us who are outraged about these situations idiots. I’ll bet you’ve never lost anyone to a shooter. I’d bet cash money you’re just some gun loving midwestern incel but that’s beside the point and it’s personal, which cheapens my argument. I had to include it anyway.

        Stephen Paddock passed EVERY legal hurdle to buy dozens and dozens of extremely lethal, essentially automatic weapons he used to massacre those poor people. The vendor at the gun store, when interviewed, said that Paddock was polite and didn’t raise any red flags. Wanna know why nobody is talking about Vegas anymore? Because it is logical proof that the legal system of background checks and safety measures we have in place is genuinely inadequate. The only law that man broke was committing murder. All the guns were purchased legally. Purdy sure it was the same deal in Florida actually…

        I am neither a liar nor am I stupid, I’m outraged about an issue that a bunch of callous, selfish, insensitive sickos such as yourself have been prolonging for decades. I don’t have an argument that doesn’t involve banning things because I personally believe that guns should be unnecessary and are unnecessary in the civilian sector of a peaceful, developed nation.

        I am however, willing to compromise with the people who are still psychotic enough to want to be gun-toters in 2018. Tolerance is key. Also, like others have said, generalization is dangerous and although I don’t agree with guns morally, some people do use them responsibly or for collection purposes. I also understand why people who live in wide open rural areas want their guns.

        I’m open to logical arguments from people who aren’t jerks and don’t already have their minds made up. This is why I contradicted myself earlier. Compromise. As a conservative, you may want to look this word “compromise” up because it does not seem to be on the list of usual vocabulary for the GOP or the alt-right or whatever sordid faction you identify with.

        Either way, I’m proud of those kids in Florida who are willing to stand up to bullies like you. The angrier people get, the more they will do about this. Those kids can see through your inferential statistics and bullshit propaganda because they’ve been fed it since birth in FLA. I’m on board, someone needs to do something about increasing controls on guns in the USA. This had officially gone too far when Sandy Hook happened. We’ve been procrastinating.

        Your anachronistic views may never change, but society will move closer to civility with or without you and your arsenal. If you like guns so much why not join the army and move to Syria? Plenty of fighting to be done elsewhere, why not leave it out of elementary schools for fucks sake? Arming teachers…what a joke that such a notion is being discussed on major networks.

        Like

      91. Oh, fuck off. If you’d bothered to read any more than one of my posts, you’d see how much disrespect I’ve gotten here, not to mention the amount of sheer ignorance I face from people who want to demand changes based on shit they simply don’t comprehend.

        You have to make up characteristics about me just to have something to hate, so let’s cut to the chase: you’re wrong. I’m not conservative, I’m not a midwest gun lover, I’ve lost people to gun violence, and I’ve prevented two deaths by using my legally carried concealed handgun – complete with police reports. I don’t endorse arming teachers, I’m not in favor of rolling back machine gun bans, and I certainly don’t want to remove all laws like many here have claimed.

        Read my blog, twit. It’s all about meeting the need to reduce gun violence without bans. That’s the compromise, right?

        I’m proud of the kids standing up for their views, but I’m disgusted by the politicians leveraging emotion and ignoring reason and fact. You can call me a bully all you want, but that’s also wrong. Like those kids, I’m standing up for my rights based on my experiences and outlook.

        In summary, I repeat: fuck off, and fuck off again. Read what I’ve written on my blog, understand that every assumption you make about me has been to increase your childish need to hate, and then fuck off once more.

        You’re not in this for discussion, you’re not in this for finding a solution; you’re in this to insist that your world view is flawless truth. You say the word “compromise” but also state you can’t see a solution that doesn’t involve banning. Read the fucking stats, look at the fucking body counts, and finally, fuck off.

        Like

      92. Since you assume I’m an idiot I’ll bite.

        I’ve read the death stats and the body count guy, why the hell do you think I’m upset?

        I wanna live in a country where kids don’t have to be afraid to go to school for fear of being shot. It’s a pretty simple concept, bro. Our GRANDparents didn’t have to deal with that shit even while they were pushing fucking Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Times have changed, the constitution was written before the car was invented by people who owned slaves. If kids can’t be educated well, we regress into a darker age. Nobody wants that, or at least I don’t. I want to move forward.

        You’re a caveman. Alt-fact type of vibes on that page of yours, I checked out your blog and it’s a lame attempt at Breitbart except minus everything except GUNS GUNS GUNS. Zero comments on anything too, which always seems fishy to me, like either this guy is fake or full of crap. In your case it looks like the latter because I think your first headline was “Another Idiot Demanding Insurance for Gun Owners”? Nice diction there, Melville.

        “Not liking the truth is no excuse for dismissing it”??? When the fuck did your opinions become unmalleable truth? You do not appear to see the divide between fact and opinion. The fact that you think something is true doesn’t mean that it is. Every person gets to pick their own version of the truth, what makes yours so special?

        Unless you have a massive Rolodex of damning evidence at your fingertips, calling people on the other side of the table “idiots” and “willfully ignorant” during a debate is a great way to look like you don’t know what you’re talking about while simultaneously getting booed and criticized by your opponents for being a callous dickhead. I suppose judging from the comments you’re either learning this the hard way or used to flame wars (guessin it’s number 2…).

        I’m being the same way, rude and venty, but you don’t see me bragging about “draining the pool of ignorance a spoonful at a time” or some whackass pretentious shit like that. I’m trolling you because I think your opinion is crap. I don’t know you, I just disagree with you on this one topic. In the wake of all these killings along with losing a friend in one of them, being one of the people who jumps to the defense of guns just totally sucks in my humble opinion, sorry.

        The strength of my argument doesn’t matter to me because I have founded beliefs that can’t really be changed unless guns begin animating themselves and giving alms and doing nice stuff to make up for all the misery they’ve caused over the millennia. I know the whole “people kill people” thing, but we are still denuclearizing. Don’t remember the last murder trial I saw that involved a nuclear bomb, but people are so in favor of abolishing those. Why not guns? People are violent creatures. More weapons equals more violence, period. That is my opinion. I am willing to debate that.

        Screw it. I just like telling you that you’re wrong. The only reason I commented when I read this article was because your comments irked me. They seemed callous and stupid and blind to sanity. Perfect mark to troll.

        I would try discussing actual policy ideas and debating at 100% if I were sparring with someone who reasons and leaves behind statistics, but frankly, all the statistics I see are on my side, on the side of gun control.

        I’ve seen the pro-gun statistics but I took university statistics up to level 3 and I notice a ton of inferences they make that make guns seem a lot safer on the graphs than they actually are. I could and have argued this with actual evidence but it is not worth my time in this particular instance.

        I looked at your blog expecting some enlightening stuff but it was just a bunch more baseless demagoguery about why firearms aren’t the real problem and that the government wants our guns and people are getting shot for different reasons that have to do with mental health, not guns.

        Don’t even get me started on the mental health thing. “Let’s just stigmatize mentally ill people EVEN MORE than we already do rather than addressing the problem!” That way we can keep shooting little critters out in the boondocks. The stigma mentally ill people have to deal with is already suffocating, why tarnish their reputation further in defense of such an unnecessary and unpleasant item as an assault rifle?

        Right wingers are so deluded and retarded these days that they knee-jerk guns as a non-issue whenever one of these shootings happens. Their literal protocol is to say “now is not the time to talk gun control, we need to deal with the tragedy and sober up before we talk policy”. Translated from Santanish into English, that statement means “we have to distract people from the gun control issue until the fallout from this massacre cools down and stops threatening our profit margins due to politics”.

        We are very unique as a wealthy society when it comes to the amount of gun violence errant in the civilian sector. Your moronic opinion doesn’t change facts no matter how loud you yell it. I also noticed, mentioning this a second time, every single article on your blog has zero comments. Good going there chief. Anything to help ya sleep at night I guess.

        Either way, I’m gonna go fuck off like you asked me to and enjoy my zippy, unimpaired brain for the day. I just didn’t wanna miss my chance to remind you that you’re on the same team as the people who are plugging children and concertgoers with bumpstock semi-autos. Real cute, bet you get a lot of action…

        And on that note, why don’t you go lick the underside of a sweaty janitor’s ballsack, douche bag? You know, moisten your big ass mouth for the road. It must be dry from all the bullshit that’s been spewing out of it. Go tell it to Steve Bannon I’m sure he’ll listen intently and make a retarded documentary about it.

        Ciao.

        Like

      93. “Our GRANDparents didn’t have to deal with that shit even while they were pushing fucking Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.”
        Right – they just lived when black were getting lynched and burned alive, and kids had to have secret service agents walk with them to school.

        “You’re a caveman. Alt-fact type of vibes on that page of yours”
        Cite anything that’s an alt-fact. Please do. Make a list if you like.

        “Zero comments on anything too, which always seems fishy to me, like either this guy is fake or full of crap”
        The blog is for me to express my views and address the arguments I see out in the wild, as well as to collect information resources. I started in November of last year and have not shared the link on any other forums, and I don’t have advertising – why do you think your expectation is valid at any level? But thanks for looking!

        ““Another Idiot Demanding Insurance for Gun Owners”? Nice diction there, Melville.”
        This is the level of your critique? Why don’t you diagram that headline and demonstrate your linguistic superiority. You’re really reaching, here.

        “When the fuck did your opinions become unmalleable truth?”
        It didn’t – it’s a slogan to address the problems I see in public discourse where people refuse to accept any information that goes against their opinion. Perhaps you can see the irony in your misunderstanding. Or, perhaps not.

        “Unless you have a massive Rolodex of damning evidence at your fingertips, calling people on the other side of the table “idiots” and “willfully ignorant” during a debate is a great way to look like you don’t know what you’re talking about while simultaneously getting booed and criticized by your opponents for being a callous dickhead.”
        I call some people idiots and willfully ignorant, that’s true. That usually comes after they’ve proven themselves, which is borne of evidence. Go read through this discussion thread. When someone makes an assertion based on a constrained set of facts, and they refuse to acknowledge the validity of additional facts that provide context and a refutation, it’s pretty clear they are choosing (willful) to exclude fact to adhere to uninformed opinion (ignorance).
        For example, you’ve yet to do anything but address me and my style of presentation; do you believe that by arguing with me about me, you have somehow refuted any of my factual statements, reasoned arguments, or even position? No. You’re here to try and shout me down with personal attacks. How’s that working for you?
        “ I’m trolling you because I think your opinion is crap. I don’t know you, I just disagree with you on this one topic. In the wake of all these killings along with losing a friend in one of them, being one of the people who jumps to the defense of guns just totally sucks in my humble opinion, sorry.”
        Don’t give yourself credit for trolling, and your opinion of my opinion is fine. Mine is based on to notion of preservation of the freedom to choose, not on the essential right to keep a gun. I’m sure you don’t understand that; fortunately, my expression does not depend on your comprehension. I’m sorry you lost a friend, I truly am. I’ve lost two to accidental shootings, three to street crime in a big city, and another three to mass shootings in California. So the distinction I’ll repeat is that I am arguing in favor of freedom of choice, not specifically to defend guns. Let me know if you care about that and we can talk. Otherwise, just know that your assertion is wrong.

        “The strength of my argument doesn’t matter to me because I have founded beliefs that can’t really be changed unless guns begin animating themselves and giving alms and doing nice stuff to make up for all the misery they’ve caused over the millennia.”
        First, you haven’t made an argument. You’ve attacked me, and that’s it. Also note that guns are the cause of misery; they’ve been the instrument of misery. Just like religion has.

        “More weapons equals more violence, period. That is my opinion. I am willing to debate that.”
        I’m glad you’re open to debate on that. Please check the rate of gun sales versus the rate of gun homicides.

        “Screw it. I just like telling you that you’re wrong. The only reason I commented when I read this article was because your comments irked me. They seemed callous and stupid and blind to sanity. Perfect mark to troll.”
        Aim high. Or at least higher than your reading comprehension. You think my arguments are stupid and blind, but they’re built on accepting reality of data, history, and social dynamics, as well as a pretty good understanding of both legal and ethic theory in application to our political structure. I’m afraid your personal bias won’t let you see that.

        “I would try discussing actual policy ideas and debating at 100% if I were sparring with someone who reasons and leaves behind statistics, but frankly, all the statistics I see are on my side, on the side of gun control.”
        You can’t reason while leaving behind statistics unless you’re just talking pure philosophy. As for your claim that stats all support your view, I’ll remind you that you’ve not made an argument, nor have you provided any statistics or facts. It would seem that you only see the stats posted on anti-gun groups who are almost universally guilty of the sin of omission.

        “I’ve seen the pro-gun statistics but I took university statistics up to level 3 and I notice a ton of inferences they make that make guns seem a lot safer on the graphs than they actually are. I could and have argued this with actual evidence but it is not worth my time in this particular instance.”
        Because you’d be wrong, as it turns out. Let me guess… you like to cite Hemenway, who is not an actual researcher? You like to use Everytown for Gun Safety and the Gun Violence Archive? Sweetie, I get the same data they’re using straight from the sources where publicly available. Hemenway almost never uses data sets, but goes out to collect his own so he can condition the material. As for your stats class, so what? I went through statistical physics up through quantum mechanics – quite a bit higher than ‘level 3’. What is that… economics?

        “I looked at your blog expecting some enlightening stuff but it was just a bunch more baseless demagoguery about why firearms aren’t the real problem and that the government wants our guns and people are getting shot for different reasons that have to do with mental health, not guns.”
        It’s clear you didn’t actually read – you skimmed just enough to feel like you could smugly say you read. How do I know? Because I don’t blame mental health. I describe the need for distinguishing between mass shooters and street crime, and further dividing mass shooters into political and social targets. I also point out that there are leading indicators in most cases, not that those are indicative of mental health problems, but of a self-driven need to punish. If you actually read anything, you’d know that.
        In fact, I don’t want people to just claim mental health problems for violence, for exactly the reason you note: it stigmatizes anyone who seeks help for any reason. Funny that you completely missed that.

        I’m not a right-winger, btw. I’m centrist. I always advocate talking about solving gun violence problems. The reason many people don’t want to talk immediately after the tragedy is because emotion often replaces reason, and most gun control argument rely entirely on emotion to do just that – keep you from thinking critically and accepting information that contradicts the goal of reducing gun ownership. The distraction is gun control advocates screaming about everything except fact, demanding action now without thought, “do something” is the cry, and they are more than happy if doing something accomplishes nothing so they can continue crying to do something more.

        I’ll point out that you’ve yet to provide one fact. Not even an argument. And you’re in the same group as people who want to propose changes that don’t reduce body counts, don’t address core issues, and oh, yes… vote against their own gun control proposals because they don’t want to compromise, they just want their way. Did you notice that? Dems literally blocked their own fucking bill because they couldn’t tolerate compromise. Look it up, sugar.

        The rest of your attempt at expressing anger is delightful. Another clear demonstration that you have to use strawman arguments even to attack me, because all you’ve got is emotion. And that emotion happens to be the simplest, easiest to incite, and most basic to manipulate. You’re being used because you like the feeling of hating something, which ultimately keeps you from looking at truth.å

        Liked by 1 person

      94. I wanna live in a country where kids don’t have to be afraid to go to school for fear of being shot. It’s a pretty simple concept, bro. Our GRANDparents didn’t have to deal with that shit even while they were pushing fucking Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Times have changed, the constitution was written before the car was invented by people who owned slaves. If kids can’t be educated well, we regress into a darker age. Nobody wants that, or at least I don’t. I want to move forward.

        That was prior tio the 1968 Gun Control Act.

        Why were there “none of that shit” back then?

        Like

      95. Is that anything like asking why didn’t we have speeders before we got speed limit signs? “back in 1824 we didn’t have speeding accidents goddamnit and we didn’t have damn speed limit signs. Therefore the problem is speed limit sights”
        What a goober.
        We didn’t have that many crimes committed with automatic or semi automatic weapons because there weren’t that many in population.
        I bet if some propagandist told you that milk leads to heroin use, because most people that do heroin also drank milk, you would believe it.

        Like

      96. Yes there were Gatling guns and Mitrailleuse, what does that have to do with discussion? No wonder you don’t know what you’re talking about, are you do is blabber nonsense when you don’t understand something or tell lies like suggesting people want to ban people based on their race as apposed to their actions.
        John Cleese did a video that explains your predicament.

        Like

      97. And again…
        I bet if some propagandist told you that milk leads to heroin use, because most people that do heroin also drank milk, you would believe it.

        Like

      98. I don’t have an argument that doesn’t involve banning things because I personally believe that guns should be unnecessary and are unnecessary in the civilian sector of a peaceful, developed nation.

        So you admit that you have no argument at all.

        I’m on board, someone needs to do something about increasing controls on guns in the USA.

        What needs to be done is rolling back on controls on guns in the USA. Existing controls failed to eliminate murder while putting people in prison for victimless crimes.

        Like

      99. At what cost?

        All this to say, with the existence of our oppressively ruthless oligarchical system I get highly skeptical of when privileged folk begin to legislate and (inadvertently?) declare this “war on ‘guns.’” Is it not fair to think that this will seemingly only take us one step closer to legalizing things such as “New York City’s morally indefensible racial dragnet program called stop-and-frisk,” or at the very least give more “reason” to the militarization of police perpetuating a culture of brutality?
        Not many people know this but the “the KKK began as a gun-control organization…” As The Wall Street Journal acknowledged, “It was a constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and revolt.” While in 2003 the book “The Challenge of Crime” acknowledged that felons or “second-class citizens,” own the majority of stolen or illegally owned guns many who I suppose have been imprisoned for drug offenses.

        The reactive political pushback towards the idea of decriminalizing marijuana that will in consequence lower the rates of incarceration, just further exposes the mechanics of systemic structural violence (e.g. capitalizing on systemically oppressive racism).

        I wonder: Is this “war on guns,” really there to stop the violence or is it just another reason to incarcerate the innocent? Because if it were truly to stop the violence should we be going after the colonizer or the colonized?

        If black youth, that are three times less likely to engage in the illegal sales of drugs than white youth, are being imprisoned at unspeakably higher rates, then why would I believe whites, that are twice as likely to purchase guns, will be the one’s in which these laws are being targeted at? As progressives let’s not get caught in doing the same exact thing with guns, in which we accuse the conservatives of doing with drugs.

        Those that will be arrested and imprisoned will be those communities that have already been riddled and beaten down by Reagan’s supposed war on drugs.

        I get very skeptical when people start to talk about abolishing the second amendment by legislating new laws that will seemingly just incarcerate more black and working class white people (who ironically will vote for Trump) and also don’t realize that it doesn’t work that way. Yes, more whites purchase more guns, but gun violence disproportionately effects the fiscally poor and already oppressed.

        Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/the-war-on-guns/#PIYPFXiutzqqPVhZ.99

        Like

      100. Your war on guns, is as valid as the so-called war on Christmas, in other words there isn’t one. The war is on commonsense gun regulation. I am very aware the KKK was about gun control, but only for blacks like, you said, just like when they claim Hitler took away guns, no he didn’t, he promoted guns, he just wanted him taking away from Jews.
        We have a pseudo-ban on blacks owning guns today, perhaps you could point out where the NRA was out raged by two recent legal black gunowners being shot to death for simply having a gun, and no other reason? Oh, but you think the NRA’s about gun safety and not greed and politics.
        https://www.salon.com/2016/07/07/nras_offensive_hypocrisy_when_will_the_organization_demand_justice_for_black_gun_owners_shot_by_police/

        You didn’t actually comment on the link I posted, at least none of your comments made lead me to believe you read it. You seem to have a mix of agendas, you understand the institutionalized racism in our system, but yet you fall for all the propaganda from the NRA the same time.

        States that have less people being shot by guns, are going to be states that have less minorities being shot by guns. States that follow the Second Amendment, and regulate guns have less people being killed by guns. (I don’t need to back that up again, because that’s the link I gave you you didn’t read) Gun regulations, just like traffic regulations, saves lives and only the paranoid think that leads to gun confiscation, or car confiscation.

        Like

      101. in spite of that, we still register them, license them, demand safety features on them, regulate their speed on the roads, ban using them when under the influence, demand more training /licensing for larger vehicles, and we take away your right to use them if you abuse them.

        And these regulations are designed to mitigate the risk of injuries and property damage from unintentional</i collisions.

        They do not address the use of automobiles to commit premeditated crimes.

        Nor do they regulate sale or possession. People convicted of drunk driving are not prohibited by federal law from purchasing motor vehicles.

        Think about that last sentence.

        Like

      102. I love the logic of the argument that gun control wouldn’t work.
        There are laws against the consumption and selling of narcotics, yet narcotics are reasonably easy to buy and consume, ergo, we should make all narcotics legal, right?

        If narcotics are still reasonably easy to buy and consume, despite the fact that thousands of people are in prison for violating these laws, and criminal gangs like the Crips, the Mafia, and MS-13 have a monopoly on the narcotics trade, then these narcotics should be legal.

        Like

      103. Look at all the Russian guns Bill Clinton let them sell to Americans back in the 90s and the 1300 still missing from Fast and Furious.

        We need to focus more on mental health and mental health facilities. Too many loonies walking the streets and their families know who they are.

        The guns in this family have NEVER hurt a human…a lot of deer, duck, turkey and elk, but no humans. So I will never understand why anyone will feel safer when our guns are out of our hands.

        We once lived in a country that was forever having skirmishes with a big, bad neighbor. Firearms were only permitted for the police and the military. Their advice to all foreigners IF we were invaded was to jump into our cars and head cross country to a neighboring country. Trouble is there were no gas stations in the middle of that scrubby desert. In 200 miles you would be out of gas and be stuck.

        No, let’s make sure we have something to protect ourselves and so we can hunt if the need arises. The slippery slope of taking away our rights in centimeters will soon find us without any rights.

        Like

      1. Of course it was. But what’s your point? That because poor decisions were made with regard to Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, the country shouldn’t do anything about AR15s in the hands of potentially everyone? I’ve heard some weak arguments based on flawed logic in my day, but wow.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I don’t think Michael Ejercito’s comments are real. I wasted a lot of time on his insane posts and started thinking they are only meant to generate controversy. I hope this warning isn’t too late.

        Like

      3. “something must be done now”

        I wonder if that phrase was ever said in response to reports of polio before ‘55?

        I wonder if that phrase was ever said in response to reports of rounding up of Japanese for internment in ‘42?

        Maybe in your head you’re making a point?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. If I may…
      Using the 5.56 round, soldiers are trained to shoot center mass because:
      1. it is a larger targe than the head
      2. The round does not have the power to enter the skull for a “kill shot”, most likely it will be deflected off the skull or helmet

      Drill sergeants do not train you to maim, that is against the Geneva Convention and Article of War. Anyone who has spent time in the military would know this…

      The 5.56 round has excellent target shooting capability, it is an inexpensive round, has little drop, and very good accuracy out to 300 meters + The rifle was not designed for “mass shooting”

      So, the rifle is so deadly and easy to use, but no civilian should have one, but there are literally millions of AR-15 platform rifles in the US, why if this firearm is so deadly and easy to use aren’t hunters using it? Oh, right, because they are using higher caliber rounds than the anemic .223 for hunting any larger than a woodchuck.

      Where do we control people being able to get in their car drunk? Right, we don’t, there are laws to stop them from driving drunk, but we do not “manage” the desperation of these two items, why is that? Oh, right, freedom of choice. Gun ownership does not need to be managed any further, it is managed the same way drunk drivers are – through laws. If you break the law, you are penalized. This is the same when owning a firearm, you have a choice to not commit crimes with it, because… it’s illegal!

      The Constituion is vague, intentionally vague? What part of the 2nd Amendment do you find vague? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no vagarity here, and if you sincerely think there is, go read what our founding fathers thought after the fact just to be sure that future generations wouldn’t think it was “too vague”, while we are talking about history, would it surprise you that during the Revolutionary war, private citizens had war ships and cannons – they were better armed than the government.

      Oh, and thank you for letting us keep our “target” pistols and shotguns, really gregarious of you. For the record, if you look at the mass shootings since 1947, the majority of them were in fact carried out with handguns or shotguns. Long rifles are rarely used, you want to know why? Because they are hard to conceal – this is also why you don’t need a permit for them, because you can’t carry them concealed.

      What I would like to know is where was all this vitriol when an amateur sniper attempted to kill several member of the Republican party during a Congressional baseball game practice? Why weren’t you all clambering for gun control then?

      What this all boils down to is that you want to take away the “big scary guns” even though they are only “big and scary” because they have ergonomic design modifications that make the weapon more comfortable to shoot.

      The issue in Parkland was an adult decided to take lives, the method is immaterial, but appears to be the focus of this article. Perhaps instead of being concerned about the method, but the person who pulled the trigger, we could stop the next shooting?

      Like

      1. “The right to keep and bear arms” was in the context of a well regulated militia. That means training, rules and registrations not just random ownership.

        Like

      2. You make a good point. I would agree with you that modern firearms ownership isn’t well regulated, in context of the language of the day. But where do you get registration from? The framers and signatories of the Constitution and Bill of Rights never discussed registration.

        Like

      3. We’ve seen politicians and Generals in America and around the world make statements and be found to have done things to break the Geneva convention. Although it’s nice, that you had your experiences.

        Yes we have laws against driving drunk, you might go to jail if found guilty, but you’re ignoring the other motivation. After you serve your time for drunk driving, if you can find insurance, you’re going to pay a fortune for it. That is a punishment that goes beyond just being against the law. I’m guessing you’d be OK with that for guns?
        You claim the Constitution and the second amendment or not vague, and then you immediately quote the last half of the one sentence makes up the 2nd Amendment. Is it possible you don’t know the difference between a comma and period? Or is reading the whole sentence, not quite as clear, or to say “vague”? After all, it really is just one sentence, you couldn’t quote all if it?
        Shooting Republicans? Yeah same reaction, although people did mention the ironic nature of the attack. Maybe your issue is, where you get your news.
        Yes a bad guy got easily got a gun and killed lots of people, you know what he didn’t used to kill a lot more people? An automatic weapon. Why? Because their band.

        Like

      4. Point of clarification, because we need truth from both sides. The 5.56 was specifically designed to penetrate one side of a metal helmet at 500 yards. It certainly has the power to penetrate a skull even in an old-style helmet at 100 yds. Most mass shooting victims are under 10 yards from the gun.

        On the other hand, the .223 was developed for small game, at about 40lbs or under. There is an ad from Colt in 1963 (I think?) when the AR first hit the public market, noting it as a sporting rifle for small game hunting. That is how it was introduced to shooters. Not to play soldier or to fight the gubmint. It was specifically sold as a reliable, standardized, light weight sporting rifle.

        Like

      5. Why do gun lovers feel like they need to say everything they think in every damn post? It makes it hard to keep track of what your point is.
        The following has to do with your third from the bottom paragraph: Since you don’t believe in gun control, you can’t complain that we weren’t upset by that incident. Some of us don’t care about the safety of Republicans, but others aren’t impressed by things that didn’t actually happen. I know you don’t think that a bunch of Republicans who aren’t dead can be compared to a whole pile of dead children, so what were you trying to say? Conservatives have a strange habit of saying that if liberals don’t complain about everything, they shouldn’t be allowed to complain about anything. And you don’t follow your own advice. Why didn’t you say anything about flood damage, or bee allergies, or BMX bikes?

        Like

      6. It’s not that liberals should complain about everything, it’s that they should not be hypocrites. It honestly feels like most gun control advocates only complain about things that require other people to give something up, and never make a peep when the solution might involve other people not giving anything up.

        Like

      7. I think it’s the other way around, I think you’ve been convinced to “feel” things that aren’t real. Or that reasonable bans means coming to get all your guns. How many pro-gun people constantly accused Obama of wanting to come get their guns, in spite of the fact he actually expanded their rights. Those that were aware he expanded it, I even heard say “oh he’s doing that trick us” You are also relying on stereotypes, you forget or not realize there’s a lot of liberals that owned guns. You’ve been convinced that liberals are this mysterious creature that all of us liberals have never met.
        I deal with that attitude whenever I go to corporate meetings, most of them are conservatives, they can’t understand why I call myself a liberal. I tell them I’m an average liberal person, they tend to shake their head “No, that’s not we’ve been told”
        What some gun enthusiast do, is mock those people that are concerned about gun violence, because they don’t use the right terminology or don’t understand guns, when the gun enthusiast know exactly what they’re talking about. And when we hear people say things like what “are we going to ban knives then”, they’re being intellectually dishonest.

        Like

      8. Right, the idea is simple, they have an end-goal of banning guns in mind, and anything that doesn’t support that will be ignored, no matter how effective it might be.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. You should go back to peeking out your windows looking for the federal government to come take your guns, let the not so paranoid and freaky gun orders try to solve the problem. Because you’re not helping, it only takes 35 out of 50 states to change the constitution, and if you don’t start listening to the people, you’re imagined unlimited rights are going to disappear. You’re too foolish to even realize that a lot of long liberals own guns, they’re not going to have their own guns taken away.

        Like

      10. When logical arguments escape you, all is not lost, you can always slander and ridicule that which you don’t understand. Pretending it’s paranoia and that governments don’t do that sort of thing exhibits a PROFOUND ignorance of history, and human nature.
        Hell, between the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram experiment, we know people who get given authority abuse others almost invariably.
        If this is how your government acts while we’re ARMED… imagine what they’ll be like when we’re not?

        Liked by 1 person

      11. That is a bunch of ideological mambo jumbo. My statement was reasonable and your response was typical to what my point was. Our government (the people), as it stands today, are not and will not, come to take all arms from the people. It will continue to ban some arms and not others. The line where they draw that, will swing back and forth as society (again, the people) call for it. If arms are taken for political gain, it will be though the perversion of our constitution. (The actual thing that makes us free, not a guy with a gun) When a law abiding citizen is shot by police 7 times for announcing he is legally caring and nothing is done about it and not a word from the NRA or probably you, that is worse then any paranoia you’ve been played to believe, for political reasons. Hitler never banned guns …except for those other people, the Jews.

        Like

      12. If you think a piece of paper keeps you free, I don’t know what kind of Supernatural properties you think it has, but I do not buy into your superstition.

        Like

      13. Yes a piece of paper is a piece of paper, let me guess homeschooled by a mother with an IQ of 65, right, who’s also a leech like you? It’s not the paper you idiot, it’s the word, ideas and the laws it represents. And I guarantee there’s a lot more gun owners that believe in that “piece of paper” then there are little creeps that want to pervert it.
        Trolling a FE, lazy, societal leach has gotten boring. It’s literally is more entertaining to watch the monkeys toss their poop at the zoo.

        Like

      14. I think you’ve mistaken which side of the bars you’re on, George.
        You’ve literally provided nothing but pants-wetting, and won’t be missed.

        Like

      15. I rest easy in the knowledge that every assumption you’ve ever made about me has been wrong. If you think i’m Some racist who didn’t say anything about a police shooting because the victim was black? That’s YOUR bad, not mine. I’m the guy who wants the black panthers carrying assault rifles because of ballot intimidation, and because 30 round mags are good against Klan gatherings.

        Like

    3. What the author fails to mention is that an M4 is a fully automatic and an AR15 is semiautomatic. One pull of the trigger to empty an entire magazine vs pulling the trigger for each and every shot. While many might consider this just a technicality it is the key difference. In light of the lengthy comparison of the weapons omitting the single largest difference shows a clear bias. Due to his service he is clearly aware of the this. My opinion is definitely changing to to recent events but this does not help to win over the people sitting on the fence and does the cause a diservice. If you are preaching to the choir fine but they are already in the church.

      Like

      1. Yes, really, Nathan. The prohibition is against automatic weapons manufactured after 1986, which was a last-minute voice vote thrown in to the Firearms Owners Protection Act. It was a useless restriction because between 1934 and 1986 there were two or three actual murders committed with legally owned automatic weapons, two of which were done by police officers. There are currently over 600,000 lawfully registered machine guns in the US – how many have been used in crime?

        For that matter, how many times have bump stocks been used in crime? Once. Yes, to devastating effect, but there’s no serious reason to think Paddock couldn’t have been just as deadly without any modifications.

        We have legal definitions in laws for a reason; to draw clear boundaries. The boundary was set at automatic fire, and that’s a sufficient concession. The ATF previously found that bump stocks and trigger assists were beyond their scope to regulate because they act externally to the actual firing mechanism.

        What would be your argument had Paddock used an actual machine gun? Given the number of weapons he had, cost wasn’t an issue, and he had no record that would have prevented a Class III license. What then?

        Like

    4. Automatic weapons are already banned and the scary assault rifle uses a 223 ammunition that same 223 ammunition and magazine to be transferred to an M4 hunting rifle you know the ones we get to keep the ones you don’t want to take they fire at the same rate of speed only as fast as you can pull the trigger the same velocity the same ammunition the only difference one’s a wooden gun not scary looking in the other than AR-15 scary looking the same ammunition and the same magazine in both weapons

      Like

    1. James A. Singer, the fact that you gun people are always so quick to resort to name calling does nothing to reassure us that gun owners are “good guys.” Even worse is your username, which makes it clear that you have fantasies in which guns are interesting only to the extent that they can be used for fighting. I actually agree on that last point, which is why I would rather limit peoples access to the feeling of invincibility and righteousness that only a gun can provide. An unfired gun is an unhappy gun, as far as I’m concerned, and I’d rather not be part of someone’s attempt to make their gun happy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Are you purposefully obtuse? I need to know so I can maybe disagree with you less. That was a heavy-handed ad hominem attack. Fallacious arguments make you appear ignorant or show that you have a weak counter-argument. Just because someone uses a name online doesn’t mean they have “fantasies in which guns are interesting only to the extent that they can be used for fighting.”. If I called my online profile ‘Guns McGunface’ does it mean that I have fantasies of having a firearm as a face? What if I was ‘BigBear’ does it mean I advocate for big bears or that I want to be one? You can’t read minds so you don’t know what fantasies anyone has.

        Have you gone through any weapons training at all? You have to learn responsibility and proper use of a weapon. There is no ‘righteousness’ to owning a weapon. I think you’re trying to strawman all gun users which adds another talley to your use of fallacious arguments. If you go through proper training they stress safety at all times. Go through a concealed carry class and actually listen and see if they all just want to go wild West on the town.

        I was in the military like the author and I actually deployed overseas twice. She’s using highly emotional arguments, which are fallacious, to get you to agree with her. I’m not sure if she ever deployed to fight but the comparison from military to civilian is just silly. The army teaches you to reduce a threat efficiently so that doesn’t apply to the civilian world. The aim behind the army is to go to war and defend our country. The weapons maybe locked up in garrison but overseas you carry that weapon and your sidearm everywhere you go with a minimum of a magazine on your person for each.

        It doesn’t matter how easy a weapon is to use either. All you have to do for a handgun is point and squeeze. Knives are even easier to use than firearms. The army’s AR-15 and M-4 are different from civilian AR weapons. The Army frequently utilizes an automatic weapon and many of the AR and M-4 weapons have a selector switch for ‘safe’ ‘one’ and ‘three round burst’. You can’t own a military weapon legally in the US. I was taught in the military and by classes that it’s a serious responsibility to own or use a weapon and I hope you never have to decide between your life and someone else’s because it’s not a burden I’d put on anyone else.

        Rifle deaths are a statistical anomaly. Just as James was saying. Did you even look up the FBI data on homicides in the US before you decided to mount an argument? Rifle deaths are a tiny fraction of homicides. There are more murders committed each year by bare hands and blunt weapons than there are by rifles. Bare hands and blunt weapons are very user friendly and much easier to procure, should be ban those? You’re arguing for something that wouldn’t even put a dent in our firearm death rate. I urge you to get educated and stop listening to everything you read that only supports your views and hear on tv.

        Let me address this fallacious quote of yours as well: “The main thing I’ve learned, though, is that gun owners (to be accurate I should say “gun owners who would be interested in a post called ‘Fuck you, I like guns’ and also have internet access and a desire to reply to that post”) seem to be fond of name-calling, making things up about other countries, using bumper-sticker phrases from the 70’s, and paranoid fantasies about overthrowing the government”. Your experience is what we call anecdotal evidence and is yet another fallacious argument. You’re also straw-manning all gun owners again. Also, what is up with you assuming everyone has fantasies as gun owners to fight the government or to want some kind of excuse to use them? This shows your bias and your inability to properly debate anyone.

        If you’re truly looking to find how gun owners think then you need to be a little less biased. It appears as if you’ve already made up your mind and you’re just trying to get more anecdotal evidence to assert your original position. If you were really looking for information you could talk to people that are more versed in statistics, debate, and advocacy of firearms. You’re just looking at people that may not be able to fully articulate what they’re trying to say and then dismissing it which is another form of strawman.

        Want to attack me? Go ahead. I used to be a gun owner before I had my medical cannabis card for PTSD and pain from my deployments. I was mugged in St Louis in a hospital zone where people are restricted from carrying any weapons. I was also assaulted and sustained nasty injuries from the Black Lives Matter movement in St Louis because of my skin color. I wish I had a form of self-defense on my person to prevent situations like those from ever happening again. I don’t entertain fantasies of ‘overthrowing the government’ or having an excuse to use a firearm. You’re also incorrect that a happy firearm is one that’s constantly being used. A happy firearm and happy carrier of that firearm are happy to never use it against another person. It’s meant as a line of defense from losing your life or suffering as a result of being denied a weapon.If someone wants a little semi-automatic to shoot targets or go hunting with then they should be able to get it. No one should have to provide a thorough reason for the gun control lobbyists in order to buy a firearm unless they have red flags. I won’t generalize all gun owners nor provide anecdotal evidence that you employ. The statistics are there from the FBI if you choose to ignore them then that is your problem. There’s a difference between an objective truth and a subjective one. The subjective truth doesn’t exist, it’s actually just someone’s opinion. Statistics are the real truth and the numbers just aren’t at the levels of panic that people are showing. Did you know that more children die of hunger than by rifles? That’s more alarming in a first-world country.

        The last shooter was flagged multiple times by two different law enforcement agencies. They were the ones that failed to stop him. Instead of standing on graves to ban weapons we should be looking at how to control those with mental health issues. If a mental health worker has a bad feeling about someone then they should be able to get that person flagged and unable to purchase firearms as well as being checked upon regularly. Why doesn’t anyone look into the mental health system instead of blaming the tool used to fulfill their desires? If someone wants death then they can use a number of things to do it even if all firearms were banned. Explosives are easy to make, sharp weapons and blunt weapons are very easy to acquire and use. Would you chase all of the tools down and ban them one-by-one or would you rather find out what the real cause of it is and treat that problem?

        If your argument is that it only takes one rifle to cause a tragedy then I’d suggest you find a better argument. All it takes is some household supplies for explosives, no one gets screened for buying a camping knife or machete yet all it takes is just one to cause damage. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing. Would you ban all pressure cookers and household items that would create explosives? If all it takes is just one then your AR ban argument should apply for anything of an equal comparison. Baseball bats, clubs, batons, and general blunt objects cause more deaths than rifles do so do we ban anything that could be used to kill a person? All you have to do is look into philosophy and educate yourself about all of the ways to properly debate, then look at the objective statistics while keeping emotion as low as possible.

        This author is ignorant of statistics and appeals to emotion rather than logic. It’s a poor argument. She’s also trying to utilize her military experience to use an argument from authority. Education is the key to fixing things, not emotion. Anyone that utilizes tragedies like school shootings to further an agenda to ban weapons is absolutely morally bankrupt. Anyone that tries to stand on graves to win an argument is reprehensible. Standing on graves is using death and tragedy to try to obtain a moral high ground in order to claim victory over those that oppose, it’s fallacious and it’s disgusting.

        Your opinion of the strawman group of collective gun owners is disappointing. Even though I can’t exercise my 2nd amendment right I will fight for it. I’ll also fight for your right and all Americans’ right to free speech. In fact, my service and the service of my brothers and sisters, past and present, have fought for that right and paid for it in blood. Don’t lump me in with your strawmen, I don’t own any firearms at all. You can’t change a closed mind though. I hope that someday you’ll allow yourself to actually be open-minded.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “An unfired gun is an unhappy gun, as far as I’m concerned, and I’d rather not be part of someone’s attempt to make their gun happy.”

        At first I thought you were joking and then I realized…he really is just that stupid. The gun owners I know…and we know a lot since we are members of a gun club…go to the firing range quite regularly just to keep their skills up.

        You are probably one of those wild-eyed types that think guns kill people. OUR guns have never hurt anyone and we are lifetime members of the NRA.

        Like

      3. Guns don’t kill people people with guns kill people easier. People that kill people, also don’t usually admit it online. And which NRA are you a lifetime member of, the one that promoted gun safety? Or what it is now, solely a lobbyist for gun manufacturers?

        Like

      4. There you go, making a statement about someone, when you haven’t even asked them about it. There is a ton of evidence, just from following the money… Do you understand what the “following the money” concept is? The NRA profits off the sale of more guns, much of it independent of member choices. Is the next thing you’ll be telling us that when I person takes money from their charitable organization and gives it to a politician who then drop an investigation against you, is not evidence of corruption.
        http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

        Like

    2. Go tell that to the families, friends, and victims of Columbine, Orlando, San Bernadino, Sandy Hook and all the others. That’ll make it all better. Now look at you. You did your research an you still look stupid.

      Like

      1. If your only response is outrage to supplant reason with emotion, you’re not truly invested in solving the problem of death by gun so much as punishing gun owners for something they didn’t do. Face it – you hate gun owners on principle. That principle is we chose something you did not, and you have convinced yourself we’re a force-multiplied threat, holding some power over you. The only way for you to deal with that is to drag us down so you can feel safer telling people who disagree with you that you simply outnumber them.

        But the reality is we don’t hold any power over you. We are not threatening you with our guns to get our political way; we’re defending a right we’ve always had, both from people who want it stripped and people who abuse it by slaughtering children.

        I didn’t have to do any research to write this – I was able to critically evaluate your statement and demonstrate that you have no logical footing, only emotional. That is how children address problems, not adults. You can come to the table and work, or you can sit in the corner and throw a tantrum. Try choosing the table for once.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. You left out some numbers that are needed, maybe you’re lacking statistics experience. If military guns account for 1/2 of 1% of all shootings, but they make up only 1/100 of all guns, you have a problem, do you understand that? That would make any military gun much more likely to be used to kill somebody then any other gun.

      Like

      1. MILITARY “weapons” are NOT used in virtually any crime. Fact: <2% of All Crimes in which a gun is used is a rifle of ANY kind. Of that less than 2%, less than 25% of THAT number are military "style" rifles.

        Like

      2. My understanding statistics are fine, but whatever you need to do to deflect your lack of knowledge. I do understand it’s easier than demonstrating that you’re right.

        Like

      3. I’m a scientist. Masters degree, ie 8+ years of advanced mathematics. Your use of numbers is “literally cancer,” Mike. I was going to let it go but you doubled down. Please, stop.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. LOL – claiming university in the chat room, why stop there, add a PhD to that masters? Nothing like showing your hand, anybody smart enough to get a good education, know that claiming University in the chat room has absolutely no value at all. Only your ideas too. You think by saying look how smart I claim I am… LOL.. Thanks for the fun!

        Like

      5. My lack of knowledge? Mike, you are a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I’ve demonstrated I’m right – your failure to understand does not change that fact. You couldn’t even process a basic English sentence properly.

        Go ahead and write out what demonstrates my lack of knowledge. Please. Share it with everyone. Cite, quote, hell – grab screenshots and post them to a blog, then share the link here.

        Then we’ll crawl over your crayon scribbling on the wall here and compare notes.

        Like

      6. I already did, you claim zero effect, (no source by the way surprise surprise) I gave the facts that show there was an effect. Don’t say zero when you don’t mean it and you won’t Find yourself making excuses. And you can be all arrogant as you want doesn’t hide what the real issue is. I think trolling is getting harder, right?

        Like

      7. The article you cite, the one you posted to refute my claim, actually supports exactly what I said.

        The real issue is you are so very incapable of keeping up with adult conversation.

        Like

      8. Today you’re claiming your physicist what will it be next time you don’t have an argument? Again, claiming university in the chat line is kind evidence that you don’t have it.

        Like

      9. Sure thing, Mike. Did I make the claim in order to support an argument as an authority? Did I say it to you as a persuasion that I am asserting some knowledge about science? Did I trot that out so you’d be impressed?

        Please – you are not that important. Trying to chime in on a comment I made to someone else is pretty clear demonstration that what you want is my attention. Have you met my little friend MK? Did the same thing. In fact, you two have very similar styles of interaction, which is to say immature and stupid.

        Yes, I’m calling you a name, Mike. I figured you would understand that level of intellectual engagement.

        Like

      10. Yes, yes, probably. That is why people make claims of university on line. It also hints that they want to be important, but don’t feel important. I’m important to those that matter to me, that is how it should be, for everyone.
        This is a comment thread, people make comments on other peoples comments. You’re confusing private messaging with a discussion board.
        If you believe I’m “immature and stupid’, or you just arn’t use to being challenged out side of your echo chamber, don’t respond to me.

        Like

      11. Sure thing – I was responding to Booker who mentioned he/she is a scientist. Nothing to do you with you, but nice attempt at making it that way. Tell me: how would I know you would see that specific comment, literally addressing another person, and know you of all the people here would understand that secretly I craved your approval?

        Stunning bit of insight, that.

        I’m not concerned in the least with your opinion of me, just as you shouldn’t be with mine of you. If we were having this discussion in person, you’d hear exactly the same language directly to your face and I’d still be buying the beer/coffee/whatever, and probably cracking more jokes.

        I can have these kinds of discussions without disliking the person; I do it several times per year on various topics.

        Like

    4. You’re a nutter- its not worth reasoning with you – the guy in Florida took an AR15 for maximum kill chances – what don’t you understand?

      Like

      1. I could’ve done just as much damage or MORE with my shotgun. STOP blaming an inanimate object. Evil comes from people not metal, wood or plastic. Argue actual Facts not emotion. You know, fear of guns IS a irrational fear/illness….”Hoplophobia.” Get help.

        Like

      2. You can list weapons from lease potent to most potent, that is a logical concept. It is a logical to suggest the shotgun I grew up with, 2 shot, is this potent and can’t do as much damage as even a handgun. I am going to be much more concerned of a homeless person with the gun then I am of a homeless person with a stick. That is logic.

        Like

      3. I understand that it will be as easy to stop gangs from selling AR-15s to kids like it is to stop gangs from selling heroin to kids.

        I also understand that gangs do not settle disputes over illegal markets in court.

        Like

      4. We understand that ARs have been used 13 times in mass shootings over the last 35 years. Do you suppose the others weren’t interested in killing? I mean Virginia Tech only took out 32 people with two handguns (one of which was a .22 rimfire). Clearly he wasn’t interested in killing.

        It really looks like there’s a case to be made for the media and gun control influence in shooter’s choices. As more stories about outrage over the weapon used circulate, they are starting to appear more. The technology hasn’t changed since they were introduced in 1963, so are you proposing that we’ve only started to understand efficiency in the last two years?

        What don’t you understand, Hamblett? Are you the same mike and other troll that keeps trying to engage me?

        Like

    1. Who ever wrote that link you just posted is not very educated. They argue the statistical data of people shot in other coubtries but I don’t think that the author realizes all of these stats are input using “per capita” not just the number of people in the country. Yes America is a larger country then most so it reasons that they would have more shootings. That does not change that on average for the number of people you have in your country compared to the number of shootings is astronomically higher then those countries with stronger gun control. The facts in this persons page are very stretched from reality if not a blatant lie.

      Like

  2. I’m just glad I live in Australia. The nutters here don’t have access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons, so students don’t get blown away just because someone is having a bad hair day.

    Like

      1. This post is about dead children, grieving parents and that any crazy can get hold of a military killing weapon because the NRA bribe politicians.

        Like

      2. Wrong.

        This post is about locking up black men convicted of victimless crimes so that some white people can feel safe.

        All this to say, with the existence of our oppressively ruthless oligarchical system I get highly skeptical of when privileged folk begin to legislate and (inadvertently?) declare this “war on ‘guns.’” Is it not fair to think that this will seemingly only take us one step closer to legalizing things such as “New York City’s morally indefensible racial dragnet program called stop-and-frisk,” or at the very least give more “reason” to the militarization of police perpetuating a culture of brutality?
        Not many people know this but the “the KKK began as a gun-control organization…” As The Wall Street Journal acknowledged, “It was a constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and revolt.” While in 2003 the book “The Challenge of Crime” acknowledged that felons or “second-class citizens,” own the majority of stolen or illegally owned guns many who I suppose have been imprisoned for drug offenses.

        The reactive political pushback towards the idea of decriminalizing marijuana that will in consequence lower the rates of incarceration, just further exposes the mechanics of systemic structural violence (e.g. capitalizing on systemically oppressive racism).

        I wonder: Is this “war on guns,” really there to stop the violence or is it just another reason to incarcerate the innocent? Because if it were truly to stop the violence should we be going after the colonizer or the colonized?

        If black youth, that are three times less likely to engage in the illegal sales of drugs than white youth, are being imprisoned at unspeakably higher rates, then why would I believe whites, that are twice as likely to purchase guns, will be the one’s in which these laws are being targeted at? As progressives let’s not get caught in doing the same exact thing with guns, in which we accuse the conservatives of doing with drugs.
        Those that will be arrested and imprisoned will be those communities that have already been riddled and beaten down by Reagan’s supposed war on drugs.

        I get very skeptical when people start to talk about abolishing the second amendment by legislating new laws that will seemingly just incarcerate more black and working class white people (who ironically will vote for Trump) and also don’t realize that it doesn’t work that way. Yes, more whites purchase more guns, but gun violence disproportionately effects the fiscally poor and already oppressed.

        Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/the-war-on-guns/#bgrRUKyQQLEBehrA.99

        Like

    1. The most optimistic estimates of the 1996 buy back tout up to 20% compliance. That means 80% of Australian gun owners said “fuck off” and kept their semi-automatic guns. And what does that tell you? That they weren’t the problem in the first place.

      Like

      1. Dear Truly,

        You invite us to imagine sitting in a bar and hearing that a drunk driver just killed a family of four, and that because you are all having a drink you must all be complicit and responsible….

        I am myself a “drinker” and the law prohibits me from drinking and driving – I follow the law – I get (understand) the reason for the law. A very high percent of accidents are caused by drunk drivers.

        I believe laws are made for good reason. Laws I like – you can’t drink and drive – you can’t be 18, have mental illness issues and purchase the kind of weapons that have been used to kill at Sandy Hook, Pulse, Florida and the concert in Vegas to mention a few. I don’t get it – why do people like these killing machines, am I missing something? Are they fun? Beautiful – what?

        Like

      2. Stephanie – you are hovering around the point without quite getting it, so let me try to clarify. You are a responsible drinker, probably not *because* of the law but because it’s the right thing to do when you know the possible consequences of causing an accident or killing someone. Even if it weren’t a law, many of us still would not do it. However, there’s an obvious need to codify it and provide for punishment, right?

        How did we craft those laws? What is being addressed?

        Behavior. We punish the behavior of the individual if they break the law. Knowing that punishment is a deterrent for most people who would otherwise be ambivalent or delude themselves into thinking they are totally safe to drive. If they demonstrate they still can’t obey the law, we take away their license and lock them up, and eventually take their car.

        At no point do we turn to all other drivers who go to bars and tell them they can’t have their cars. Wouldn’t that be absurd? We do put some obligation on bartenders, and I’m OK with that because it’s a reasonable preventative. And still, it’s aimed at judgement and an individual, not an entire population.

        When we talk about guns, we suddenly blame all gun owners. Why? Well, frequently it’s because we’re talking after a mass slaughter and emotions are high, which means logic and reason are pretty much non-existent. That’s a ban is, though – punishment for an entire group. It’s not a preventative, it’s not even a deterrent. It’s punishment for those of us who are never, ever going to commit harm with our guns.

        Putting aside your remark about “killing machines”, they are attractive to gun owners because they’re light, reliable, inexpensive to shoot, pretty durable, and easy to customize. Let’s say there are between five and ten million of them out there this instant (I have been misquoting 30 million based on a bad data set – I need to go correct my comments where possible). Anyway, 5-10 million. How many have been used in mass shootings?

        13 over the past 35 years. what’s the percentage of 13/5,000,000?

        Really, really small.

        Lots of us do have alternative solutions to offer, solutions that are carefully considered to have a measurable, useful, preventative effect without restricting our rights. Just being measurable puts most of our solutions miles ahead of banning ARs.

        Like

      3. or what remained became too expensive for those who misuse, which is likely what reduces misuse of expensive weapons in the USA.

        Like

      4. NAME: “or what remained became too expensive for those who misuse, which is likely what reduces misuse of expensive weapons in the USA.”

        Uh… no. Australia promptly started buying new guns. They now have more than they did before the buy back, but still no problem with gun crime or mass shootings.

        People who want to do damage with guns generally buy whatever is available and pretty cheap, because they probably know in advance that they want to commit harm. Street thugs get the cheapest thing they can, sometimes only having one magazine of ammo, which may not even be full. Mass shooters are being studied and seem to have months of planning behind them, but they usually spend less than $1,000.

        The rest of us may spend more because we want reliability and precision. If your plan is to bust a cap, you’re not concerned with getting a Kimber custom. Likewise, if you feel the need to punish society by killing kids, you’re not making your choice based on ease of maintenance.

        Keep stretching.

        Like

    2. Hey Mike….A little FACT for you….There ARE Tens-of-THOUSANDS of “banned” firearms in your country that were NEVER, and NEVER will be surrendered. And, more are smuggled into Australia every year. And, how many of Native born Aussies have committed gun crimes….Oh, yeah. Last one was committed by a muslim piece-of-shit.

      gunfighter32908.com

      Like

      1. “Yep. Keep up the ignorant fallacies and DemoRATic talking points” Touché! You showed him who the adult is.

        Like

      2. According to that lady there’s alternative facts. Is that what you’re talking about? I would it be easier just to call me a name instead of debating the issues?

        Like

      3. No it’s not, but you clearly are a connoisseur of propaganda and appear to be one big ideologue. Those are two things that make you dangerous to a free nation. Dude, using stereotypes like you do, you might as will put a dunce hat on.

        Like

      4. Well according this guy that means you are a “democratic/Liberal/Leftist/Socialist”

        I make a point to avoid stereotyping, it is a tool the gullible. All Republicans are not racist, all Republicans don’t masturbate with their guns, all Republicans are not idiots. Even if 50% Republicans had sex with their guns, all Republicans don’t. I tend to travel a lot, I always find it humorous as people sit there and tell me what liberals are and they’re not even close to any that I know. Reminds me of the old days (1995?) when people would say I don’t know any gay people while talking to someone who’s gay.

        Like

  3. Impressive! A heated, yet generally thoughtful and cerebral conversation about a divisive topic. Let’s leave aside questions of whether or not AR style rifles should be banned. For the sake of argument, let’s not ban them. But let’s make them somewhat more difficult to get. Let’s close background check loopholes where they exist, and ensure that it’s at least somewhat more difficult for psychopaths to get powerful weapons. Let’s increase the age limits. It doesn’t address the mass shooting problem, but let’s require barrel “finger” printing and smart gun technology to increase accountability. There are a host of solutions that are not panaceas, but they can help. Why is the NRA so staunchly against ALL of them?! (I remember when the NRA was primarily concerned with education and safety.)

    And please don’t complain about your “rights.” Please. One a**hole put explosives in his shoes and now 100 million travelers a year have to remove theirs to get onto a plane. You can’t smoke in public places (anymore). You can’t drive your car 100 mph on a public street. These are all impositions on your “rights,” and yet, you probably happily comply because you want you and your family to be safe.

    Like

    1. You don’t have a right to fly, you don’t have a right to drive on public roads, and we’ve decided as a society that blowing smoke in the vicinity of other people is infringing on their rights.
      Meanwhile, one of the few enumerated rights that the founders and signatories of the Constitution decided was supremely important includes the right to keep and bear arms. They thought it was so important, that they even included a phrase that appears nowhere else in the list of enumerated rights, namely that the right shall not be infringed. Remind you that the constitution does not bequeath these rights upon the citizens, rather is a contract between the citizens and their government, limiting the power of that government and protecting the rights of the citizenry.
      Your comparisons, when taken in context of the times, the language of the day, and the intent are entirely out of line with a purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Why don’t we try these solutions? Because they don’t pass basic logic, is why. Skipping the part where we explain physics and psychology, you are right about the general concept of preventing access by people intent to do harm, mentally ill or not.

      For ease of discussion, let’s call them all criminals, including those who have not yet broken a law but intend to. We don’t need to make ARs or any other current gun more difficult for everyone to get, we just need to figure out a way to isolate the criminals. A more focused solution is generally a better and more applicable one.

      You mentioned background checks ( don’t ever use “loophole” because that’s just wrong – it’s an intentional exception in the law ), which is a reasonable device. In order for those to work, they have to be consistent and up to date. That means removing the state’s ability to choose what is reported an what isn’t. So solution proposal one: federalize the background check system and impose uniform reporting metrics and times on all states.

      Another proposal would be to enable tools for citizens and law enforcement to appropriately enact an emergency confiscation, with all due process and civil rights protections. At least a third of the mass shootings in the last four years could have been mitigated or prevented this way, but LEOs are overwhelmed and it’s hard to tell which of the hundreds of possible situations will actually develop into an event. Solution proposal two: develop infrastructure that allows concerns to be appropriately managed while protecting rights (this is difficult, but not impossible).

      There are others, but these two would address an awful lot of shooting problems, both mass shooter and some street crime. Far more than a ban would.

      Your last paragraph is just nonsense, though. We will always complain about violations of our rights because that’s what we are obligated to do. None of those examples are rights. We do accept reasonable limits on exercising rights, but generally at the behavior level. When we tell you not to yell fire in a theater, we’re restricting and setting up punishment for behavior, not duct-taping your mouth shut. Further, prohibitions on yelling fire are not violations or infringement, because the right that’s protected is the ability to openly criticize the government, not to say whatever the hell you want.

      Like

      1. Wow… that’s some great comedy, there.

        Your failure to comprehend basic concepts is not my concern. If you read that whole passage and you think you’re being clever, you truly are on the left.

        The left of the IQ curve. Way, way to the left.

        Blather on – I’ll address you again when I feel you deserve it.

        Like

      2. Distract distract distract. Your arguments are not weapon specific, they can be used for anything, that is the fallacy of your argument. So yelling, “squirrel” makes perfect sense for you. I’m using the most basic logic to weigh the value of a claim and you see it as low IQ. A John Cleese video comes to mind about not knowing enough, to know you don’t know it. 😉

        Like

      3. “Distract distract distract. Your arguments are not weapon specific, they can be used for anything, that is the fallacy of your argument.”

        we appear not to be having the same conversation about guns, Mike. Your logic is so basic that it’s actually not logic any longer. And I already pointed you out as an example of DK; or did you not know what that meant?

        Like

      4. Man you really are a physicist. You believe people function in a vacuum, explains a lot about the way you think. I am starting to respect your tenacity but still disagree vehemently with all of your viewpoints.

        Like

      5. I am a physicist, but that means I accept and understand complexity, along with accepting my own limitations on grasping that complexity. Would you like to ask how I apply that to the goal of reducing gun violence?

        What’s that? You don’t think I actually have that as a goal? Hmm… did you not read my post on “Gun Violence Reduction Platform”? You can browse my blog again if you like, but here are the proposed elements of how I feel we can address deeper problems than removing one kind of gun:

        * Standardize reporting across the states, including level of reporting and timelines
        * Enable community and law enforcement tools for reporting concerning behavior, while engaging civil rights oversight to provide for appropriate protections
        * Provide federal requirements for safe, appropriate storage that is based on context of the particular environment
        * Provide incentives for purchase and use of safe, appropriate storage
        * Direct the CDC to work with various public and private agencies to generate data-rich profiles of the various gun violence segments
        * Form a federal commission on evaluating advanced proposals
        * Enable no-cost access to the NICS by private parties that protects anonymity
        * Increase penalties and provide additional resources for addressing trafficking, including straw purchases
        * Provide resources for tracking and prosecuting felons who fail background checks or attempt to purchase firearms
        * Provide restrictions and penalties for firearms involved in domestic violence situations

        Which of those look like I’m blaming mental health? Reporting concerning behavior does not presume mental illness, only the observable characteristics that we are learning about by examining mass shootings. There is more and more evidence to suggest there are red flags that we just ignore. The CDC’s 2013 report, requested by Obama, even says the same thing – there are leading indicators that are becoming clear.

        Notice I did not say one thing about paying more for mental health, but I do advocate directing the CDC to do more research. Before that research is done, we can immediately act to restrain current owners who exhibit concerning behavior, we can make sure states report criminal activity in a timely manner with uniform metrics and standards, we can make harsher penalties for crimes involving guns, and we can allow private sellers to use the background check system rather than paying a dealer to process the paper work.

        So my approach is to do something *now* while setting up the potential for learning more and creating even better solutions in the future. These solutions address both street crime, which accounts for more than 9,000 gun homicides per year, as well as getting ahead of mass shootings.

        Tell me again how I’m only here defending guns and blaming mental health?

        Like

      6. I don’t feel like arguing with you anymore, it has become less interesting than the outside world, and you already have your mind made up. I just like bitching conservatives out for their ridiculous viewpoints. Every single one of your points could be addressed by simply banning firearms. Sure maybe some criminals could get them but the less there are out there the better. I have the same philosophy about guns as most Americans do about drugs. You’re ironically becoming outraged in an extremely similar manner to drug users when people start spouting off on why all drugs should be illegal. The truth, not my opinion but the actual facts, are that both of those things, guns and ALL drugs, should be totally legal and government regulated in a free country. I don’t like guns, a lot of people don’t like drugs, but they’re gonna be around regardless so I guess we just will have to agree to disagree.

        The only actual point of argument in my favor I’m going to allow you is that the info in your respons is totally inconsistent with a bunch of stuff you said in previous posts. Of course you will probably flat out deny this and use it as a point of argument as to why I’m wrong . Your opinion basically seems to change to counterattack whatever anyone else is saying to you. In that last post you sounded quite rational and in favor of being patient with the mentally ill, but only after I called out in a loud, rude manner the fact that they are discriminated against.

        Like

      7. “I don’t feel like arguing with you anymore, it has become less interesting than the outside world, and you already have your mind made up.”
        You never argued – you tried to attack me for exactly what you accuse me of, to wit: your mind is already made up. The difference is I came to my conclusions based on evaluation, data, social and cultural constraints, and law. You? You cried.

        You can bitch conservatives out all you want; I’m not conservative. Holding the view that freedoms are to be both protected and given respect is not inherently conservative.

        “Every single one of your points could be addressed by simply banning firearms.”
        None of my points could be address by banning firearms. This claim is more evidence that you’re not engaged in solving problems, just getting your way.

        “You’re ironically becoming outraged in an extremely similar manner to drug users when people start spouting off on why all drugs should be illegal.”
        Again, your insistence on ignoring reality is pathetically clear. I don’t endorse all drugs being illegal – I heartily support legalization of marijuana. Do you see that you have to assume and invent in order to characterize me so you can hate? That’s irony, my dude, because you’ve been wrong on every count.

        “The only actual point of argument in my favor I’m going to allow you is that the info in your response is totally inconsistent with a bunch of stuff you said in previous posts.”
        Copy/paste. Dare ya. Please, oh please… show me where I’m inconsistent.

        As for counterattacking, I’m not sure you understand that word. You haven’t raised an argument, just made ad hominem attacks sprinkled with a few contrarian observations, and baked deep with personal invention. That’s why you’re so full of shit, your eyes are brown: you *claimed* I blamed the mentally ill, but the bullet points I pasted above are from an article I posted before you opened your poop chute (I felt obligated to persist in the shit metaphor – nothing personal). I never blamed the mentally ill, nor do any of my proposals involve spending more on mental health care. While I do support increased funding there, it has nothing to do with guns or violence; it has entirely to do with the fact that we marginalize anyone who doesn’t fit the middle of the bell curve.

        Your introduction to this thread was to get pissy about a post where I explicitly said I was venting, and you proceeded to make up characteristics about me so you could take aim. But you missed because the targets were all imagination. Read more of my blog and maybe you’ll understand that my focus is combating lies and misinformation. My premise on gun control is that we can achieve better reductions in violence by approaching the problem in myriad, collateral ways that support each other; I believe bans would only work if you make them complete, and that is not an acceptable solution to me. Not because I lurvez me sum gunz, boi, but because we have the right and I believe it can be exercised responsibly, as demonstrated by tens of millions of current gun owners.

        You see, I’ve been taking what I get from these discussions to build a collection of opinions, information, and solutions so that I can help address the actual problem of gun violence. I’ve worked with my state reps and other local politicians on developing frameworks for exactly that, in particular domestic violence and trafficking. My blog is mostly for my own personal churn, which is why I don’t go promoting it. All I’ve seen from you is your direct attacks on me in this discussion thread. I have no idea if you put any effort other than cruising forums looking to make personal fights. Do you?

        Like

      8. Well, we can see Freymane likes to make accusations, then runs off after saying “you’ll just deny it” rather than actually post any proof.

        This kind of nonsense is exactly what keeps problems from being solved. People like Freymane are the heart of willful ignorance, standing in the way of solutions because they refuse to do anything but make ad hominem attacks and assert moral authority, feeling they don’t need to actually THINK about issues, just FEEL about them.

        Congrats, freymane – you are the real problem. Not just a cause or a piece, THE problem. Good job.

        Like

    3. “And please don’t complain about your “rights”.”
      …sorry, but there is no other acceptable answer to this than “fuck you!”.

      The only thing the constitution actually lacked was a punishment description for those who violate it.

      Like

    4. ” You can’t drive your car 100 mph on a public street. ”

      But you CAN own a Dodge Demon without a permit.

      See what I did there?

      Like

      1. That’s all true, but you also can’t hide a Dodge under your jacket and take it into the class room. There are also a huge areas that private automobiles are banned. Around most public monuments, and other than designated parking garages, in every office building in every city. And if they’re only purpose was to practice or actually running over to kill animals and people, they would probably be banned in even more places.
        See what I did there? I showed the comparison between cars and guns is a false equivalency.

        Like

      2. Those are examples of property rights. People have the right to exclude motor vehicles from their property.

        We do not ban ownership of motor vehicles just to reduce the likelihood that someone may bring a motor vehicle onto someone’s property without permission.

        Like

  4. Dear Americans, are you ashamed to accept that under the garb of a civilised society, you are just a primitive tribe going around with spears killing humans and animals that endanger your families and tribe?

    Like

    1. Funny, whenever a tribe around the world is threatened, they plead for Americans to come over with their spears to save them. When we do, we’re raked over the coals for our methods. When we don’t, we’re raked over the coals for not getting involved.
      “It’s better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.”
      “No one loves the warrior until the enemy is at the gate.”

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Perhaps you’re unaware that this primitive tribe still leads the world in medical and technical advances, is the reason for English being the default language of business and politics around the world, and is the key metric for financial health on planet earth. We have our faults, but if you’d like us to keep our toys (drugs, medical equipment, excess agricultural output, money, and soldiers) on our own soil, many would be more than happy to comply.

      Like

      1. Also OT I think, but “leads the world in medical and technical” needs a method of measurement. Also, indexing to respective “tribes” population improves relevance.

        Like

      2. NAME (?) you can look at publication records such as patents, distribution numbers, and drug registries as a metric. I’ve *heard* that the US produces more doctors per capita as well, but I don’t really know that to be true – and that’s subject to interpretation, since level of skill and specialization is probably not well controlled in a statement like that.

        Lots of countries also send their engineering and science students here, so we’re at least able to keep up on a global scale in those industries, even if we’re not at the top (I don’t think we are for electrical engineering).

        Like

    3. So what you’re saying is that leaving the american government as the only gun-wielders in the country might NOT be a good idea?

      Whoda thunk?

      Like

  5. After the horror of the Sandy Hook school shooting, President Obama cried (as all of us should have) and begged for a solution. But he didn’t go and tell his secret service agents that they should disarm or limit themselves to hand guns because guns were bad and were killing innocent children. I’m sure he realized that he was in danger and the guns were important protection for him. If as great of man as President Obama finds safety and security through firearms, who can fault any other law abiding citizen? I sure wish we didn’t have so many violent criminals in our country, 17,000 homicides in a year! It is frightening.

    Like

    1. I agree with you! Let’s force everybody that owns a gun to go through the same training as the Secret Service. And like the Secret Service, if they fail to pass, we don’t let them keep their guns. Or did you mean like the Secret Service, but not really like the Secret Service?

      Like

      1. The gist of the Relies on Secret Service argument is: Obama, Trump, Clinton, Bush, et al relied on SS, so we must provide SS for every American.

        Like

      2. So for those who fail, are you going to provide them with Secret Service protection?

        and how do you ensure that the training requirement will not be enforced the same way Alabama enforced literacy tests for voting 100 years ago?

        Like

      3. If you fail a driving test, you don’t get to drive. If you apply for Secret Service job and you fail the test, you don’t get the job. Not sure why they should get Secret Service protection for that. And I’m not so much worried about Alabama literacy test from 100 years ago, how about there gerrymandering and active voter disenfranchisement that’s going on there now.

        Like

      4. Would requiring photo ID, proof of residence, a proof of citizenship or permanent residency, and a Social Security card; paying $431.50 plus the cost of two color photographs; to wait an average of eight months for voter registration to be processed, and then attend a lengthy in-person interview; and, if the applicant has not lived in the United States for seven years (and many immigrants can become citizens after just three years, remember), to provide a certificate of good conduct from their foreign government, to be able to vote or register to vote, count as voter disenfranchisement?

        Like

      5. Yes. Along with gerrymandering, limiting polling places in poor neighborhoods and purging polls based on bullshit reasons.

        Like

    2. Let’s let Trump back up the “guns are all you need” arguments. Let Trump (and LaPierre) rely on only concealed carry, since “the police are only 5 minutes away blah blah”.

      Like

  6. @trulyunpopular

    “….almost all of the mass shooters in the United States from Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora theatre shooting, Fort Hood, Washington Navy Shipyard, Isla Vista, Orlando nightclub, Las Vegas, to the latest disaster in Florida met the NRA definition of “law abiding citizens”––until they became mass killers.” *

    So how do you regulate a large group of people, where at any point, anyone of them, could for whatever reason, become a mass murderer, using legally purchased assault weapons or other firearms?

    * https://law.stanford.edu/2018/02/18/another-mass-shooting-qa-us-gun-laws/

    Like

    1. The same way you regulate a large group of people, where at any point, anyone of them, could for whatever reason, become a mass murderer, using legally rented vehicles and legally purchased chemicals.

      If you like, I can go through a reduction of Donohue’s remarks, but I’ll focus on your question as if you’d asked what my proposed solutions are. I think that’s more productive.

      First, you follow the jurisprudence in US legislation that leans towards addressing behaviors of individuals before escalating to broad preemptive restrictions. Since murder is already illegal, we clearly need some kind of preventative measure. What’s been common to those events in your citation? Planning. Except for the Las Vegas event, there were leading indicators that could have been used for intervention.

      Granted, there are lots of people who appear to “plan” that never carry them out, and some never make their plans known to others, but a growing number do give signs that they’re going to cause harm. One approach would be to give law enforcement and the public tools to report and investigate, and if deemed necessary confiscate weapons (caveats about rights and other protections applied – I am trying to save space here). You don’t need a registry to do this, and you can place a temporary flag on people so they show as a hit in the background check system (temporary, say 1-5 years, requirements for evaluation, etc).

      Another thing we must do anyway is to fix the background check system. At the moment, it’s only required for FFL-related transfers (e.g., buying from or selling to a dealer), and the states are not obligated to report in any particular manner. Change this to require a short reporting time frame, and homogenize the reporting requirements across all states. That means federalizing gun purchase laws and getting the states out of the way.

      Also related to background checks is to make the system available to citizens for private transactions without having to go through an FFL, and make it free to use and voluntary. The problem addressed here is unintentional transfers to prohibited persons. Criminals won’t use the system anyway, so by making it a requirement you’re just punishing those who follow the law already. Making it voluntary encourages good behavior, and that means more transfers go through the system – higher participation means higher success rates.

      All of those things are relatively inexpensive compared to a fight over banning an object that is statistically underrepresented in any crime, including mass shootings. Plus, they have direct, measurable effects without ever getting to the point of sweeping rights changes.

      Part of the appeal for a ban from gun control advocates is that they have convinced themselves that gun owners are almost by definition bad people. There are nearly a hundred million of us, though, so you’d expect a far higher rate of crime if we were actually the problem. We are statistically less likely to commit any crime than the general population, and we don’t like people using guns to commit crime because we view them as abusing our rights.

      Like

      1. You’ve listed some good points. Although it’s still lacks responsibility. If somebody wants to sell a private sale gun without doing a background check, their choice, but if that sale ends up to be to someone who can’t pass a background check and is used in a crime, let’s open them up to be sued. Let’s hold him responsible.
        You have a right to a gun, and we have a right to expect you to be responsible, if one of your kids get your gun and kills your other kid, you should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Or instead they shoot to the wall and kill your neighbor. Because you clearly didn’t do enough to protect your children from your gun.
        You also keep repeating that gun control advocates, think all gun owners are bad people, that was BS yesterday and it still BS today. Apparently you think those same people don’t own guns. Wherever you’re getting your information from, is feeding BS and you’re just regurgitating it.
        The reason many people believe bans work, is because right now automatic weapons or banned and they haven’t been used in any mass shootings. Those people also understand that batting semi automatic weapons today, would take decades to be effective. In a free nation you don’t round up guns, you have to wait for them to go away on their own. Let’s be clear, this isn’t saying too ban or not to ban, it’s simply contradicting the BS of what you think people believe about gun owners.

        Like

      2. Those people also understand that batting semi automatic weapons today, would take decades to be effective.

        So all we have to do is wait and the War on Drugs®™ will be won?

        We have been waiting for five decades now in that context.

        Like

      3. “could for whatever reason”
        “could” doesn’t happen as often.
        Also. vehicles are regulated differently than other vehicles, and differently than certain chemicals, which are regulated differently than certain other chemicals.

        Like

      4. “If somebody wants to sell a private sale gun without doing a background check, their choice, but if that sale ends up to be to someone who can’t pass a background check and is used in a crime, let’s open them up to be sued.”
        Praytell – how do you know where they got the gun if the feds don’t allow registration? I agree that *knowingly* providing a gun to a criminal should be a trafficking offense, but again, we’re back to a philosophical point: do you get better results through threat of punishment or enabling good behavior?

        Part of the package I submitted to my state representative talks about encouraging use of a voluntary system. Let’s say you opt to choose the system and everything checks out; there is only a record that you and the buyer requested a clearance to transfer. The buyer then goes out to commit a crime, but they have a clean record. Is the seller to blame? No – they get automatic indemnity unless you can prove they had prior knowledge of intent. On the flip side, if you can *prove* there was a transaction, even without knowledge of intent, then sure: make it a misdemeanor on the premise that the seller did not go through due diligence. That way people are more likely to edge towards caution, and you haven’t burdened law enforcement with trying to track down private sales that didn’t use the system.

        “if one of your kids get your gun and kills your other kid, you should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.”
        See, this is why it’s so tiring talking to people like you. I’m more than happy to hash out solutions, but you want to find blame. It turns out parents are already culpable if they did not appropriately store their guns – it’s called criminal negligence, and it varies by state. So, wish granted – we already do this.

        “Because you clearly didn’t do enough to protect your children from your gun.”
        Agreed – I believe I wrote about safe storage requirements, but implemented as an incentive. Just like above, if you choose to use the incentive, and you use the safe properly, you are protected from legal actions like you described. If you don’t take the incentive, then it’s open season, same as if you took the incentive but didn’t use the safe.

        “You also keep repeating that gun control advocates, think all gun owners are bad people, that was BS yesterday and it still BS today.”
        This is a fair generalization when you encounter online gun discussions. There are plenty of people here who say they have guns, but favor a ban on ARs. They then demonstrate they don’t actually know how ARs work (not a prerequisite for owning other guns). By doing this, they assume that other gun owners who choose an AR are inherently irresponsible. The numbers of ARs in private hands compared to actual use flatly contradict this.

        “Wherever you’re getting your information from, is feeding BS and you’re just regurgitating it.”
        I’m getting from interacting with people like you, and it bears repeating because many people in this discussion have piped up with slanders against gun owners in general, and AR owners in particular. I’m not regurgitating, I’m stating observable behavior.

        “The reason many people believe bans work, is because right now automatic weapons or banned and they haven’t been used in any mass shootings.”
        These same people believe we had an epidemic of automatic weapons mass shootings prior to the 1994 ban, and they don’t realize that the 1994 ban was on AWs, not automatic weapons. Further, they don’t know how many times legally owned automatic weapons were used prior to 1986, but after the 1934 NFA tax and registration requirement. That number would be either two or three. So we banned an object that wasn’t being used. It’s like swatting a dead fly and claiming victory because that particular fly is not buzzing around.

        “In a free nation you don’t round up guns, you have to wait for them to go away on their own.”
        So Australia isn’t free? Because that was a compulsory buy back coupled with a ban.

        Note that lots of people use guns that were made in the 50s and 60s, including some ARs from the late 60s. If you try to ban sales going forward, you will also have to ban all the parts that can be used to repair and maintain them. When machine guns were banned from new manufacture and sale in 1986, the number froze at about 100k or so. The ATF estimates there are still about that many around.

        You are looking at lifetimes before they “go away”, because most people will simply stop using them as often. That’s because most people were never going to use them in a crime anyway. As you said earlier, though, mass shooters will just choose another weapon, and then what have we accomplished?

        Nothing.

        “Let’s be clear, this isn’t saying too ban or not to ban, it’s simply contradicting the BS of what you think people believe about gun owners.”
        You didn’t contradict anything; you highlighted that most people advocating for gun control don’t know what they’re talking about.

        Like

      5. Dude, I know you’re not used to talking to people outside of your echo chamber, that shows by you calling people names whenever you don’t like the questions or the statements.
        Now, if you have the option to do a private sale and do a background check, you don’t choose to, I don’t care if you weren’t aware they are a domestic abuser or not, if they killed their wife with that gun, the family should be able to sue you for everything you’re worth. And how would they know? They would do an investigation, and they either have evidence to support it or they don’t. But the law would be there, saying take damn responsibility for yourself!

        Your statement about accidental deaths, is BS. You seem to just make stuff up when you don’t have an answer. There’s a reason why I don’t remember seeing any sources for your statements, because you probably find them inconvenient, it’s hard to find something doesn’t exist . All states do not have laws holding parents responsible, and the ones that do rarely enforced them. It seems the number one thing about a gun fetish, is not taking responsibility for yourselves.
        https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/crime/2015/07/21/criminal-charges-accidental-shootings-nonexistent/30497073/

        You can’t afford to buy a gun safe? You want the government to give you a tax cut so you can buy safe to put your gun in? Again I really good example of not taking responsibility for your choices, you buy a gun it’s not my job to make you want to put it in a safe place. What the hell is wrong with you? I don’t pay taxes to finance your gun fetish. Look for your own damn safe.

        Like

      6. Thanks for the response and while there are several useful proposals I’m not convinced that they constitute effective preventive measures. You ask the question what’s common to the mass shootings that I cited, and you volunteer the answer as being “planning”. While that might be true, isn’t there a more obvious commonality? Without firearms and a stockpile of bullets, the murderers’ “plans” would never come to fruition.

        Your proposal is to follow the same approach used for regulating people who may use “legally rented (not sure why they have to be rented) vehicles” to carry out a mass killing. Fair enough, so that would mean all prospective gun owners would need to pass a written test, pass a training course on weapons safety and use, obtain a police clearance certificate (done in most countries before issuing a driver’s licence), and pass a performance and safety test before being issued a license to own a gun. For each weapon an insurance policy would need to be obtained by the gun licensee. Similar to a driver’s license, the gun owner would have to periodically renew his/her license by undergoing an assessment and also, submit an updated police clearance certificate. Considering that both you and the NRA believe that mass shooters are mentally disturbed it would also be logical to include a psychiatric assessment prior to issuing a gun license. If this is not the starting point to gun regulation, your proposals have little viability in reducing, leave alone preventing another mass shooting.

        Peace and stay sane cause it’s a crazy world out there.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Good points, I’ve always liked idea of putting the control into the free market, if you have a record of spousal abuse and you have to have insurance to buy a gun, you’re not gonna be buying a gun unless you can afford huge Insurance premiums, just like drunk drivers getting insurance. Just like you would have to do with the car if you lost your drivers license.
        Of course this is where they start yelling, but what about the millions you don’t know about! We have to start somewhere. And at the point that you’re hiding guns? Then you’re not a law abiding citizen anymore.

        Like

      8. I’ve explained the insurance fallacy, Mike, so unless you can actually refute the argument, give it up.

        “if you have a record of spousal abuse and you have to have insurance to buy a gun, you’re not gonna be buying a gun unless you can afford huge Insurance premiums”

        No. Fuck no. If you have a criminal record of spousal abuse, you don’t get your gun back until appropriate psych evals and a legal waiting period, if ever. Using insurance this way just makes it so richer people can keep abusing and killing their family. No need for insurance. Did you really think that through?

        “Of course this is where they start yelling, but what about the millions you don’t know about! We have to start somewhere. And at the point that you’re hiding guns? Then you’re not a law abiding citizen anymore.”

        Who said this:
        One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

        You are attempting to portray gun owners who refuse to comply as active criminals, but what’s really going on is you propose to turn gun owners into criminals by the stroke of a pen. Would you support telling Muslims they have to pay for random background checks in order to live in the US? Doesn’t that presume all Muslims are responsible for suicide bombings? But the background check just makes sure, right? They shouldn’t have anything to hide, and the cost is totally worth the benefit of living here.

        If anyone honestly proposed that, I would be right at the front trying to prevent it.

        Like

      9. That’s a good question, could be anything from losing their guns to being forced to have a holding company hold them until they can be sold or insurance required. Just like automobiles, if you’re a law-abiding citizen you’ll have your insurance, your guns and not have to worry about anything. And as far as registering guns, I absolutely support that just like we register cars. For those that scream loudest about the government overstepping and they need secret guns to stop them, I would put high odds that they’re the ones that will overstep the constitution.

        Like

      10. No gun registration, leads to anarchy. Want proof? If we didn’t register cars today we would have anarchy in this country. LOL.
        Doesn’t matter what they did, Handgun bans are useless unless they’re national.

        Like

      11. Dude your arguments a fallacy, what purpose does that serve you? Does it just make you feel good? No ban work 100%, everybody knows that, is something going on you twisted head that you don’t think they do? We ban five-year-olds driving cars, sometimes they still do, what’s sick perverted ides do you get from that?
        Society makes rules because it improves conditions, it doesn’t make them perfect and that really is your entire argument.

        Like

      12. I did say that, you can’t ban something if somebody can legally go next-door and buy it. If they released the band for machine guns in Nevada and Indiana, we would end up with machine guns everywhere in the country. It’s not a hard concept to understand.
        This fact is true whether you believe bans work or not. If you ban lead in paint everywhere except Nevada in Illinois you going to end up finding lead in paint around the country, it only works if you ban it everywhere.

        Like

      13. George – Would you mind picking one or two of the proposed solutions and explaining your concern? I am honestly interested in developing useful solutions that can be measured, based off available, actionable information.

        I can address the apparently obvious commonality of guns and ammo, though: like it or not, those items are generally protected by rights. I know many people who advocate for stronger gun control don’t want to hear that, but it is indeed true. So look at the right as a constraint on any solution we propose. That’s not to say there isn’t some wiggle room, but we have to give amazingly strong justification to reduce ability to realize a right. It’s even more burdensome when there are demonstrable alternatives with much greater potential for success.

        Proposing testing and certification isn’t necessarily a bad idea – most states that issue concealed permits do indeed follow those methods, and I agree with that. We also have to renew those permits through testing and renewed background checks.

        I am not sure where you got that I believe the shooters are mentally disturbed. That’s a generalization I’m not prepared to make because I don’t really know how that is defined in a legally applicable way. What we do know is that Adam Lanza was disturbed because he had a history. Others don’t have a history, so I don’t believe it’s fair to assert that the cause of mass shootings is specifically a mental health problem.

        You posit that if we don’t do everything you list, then we don’t have any chance for success. However, real world information contradicts that perspective. Again, in my state there is a background check, written and practical test, with renewals every four years. You are subject to immediate revocation if you are convicted of any prohibiting event. No psych test necessary. In my state, those who have CCWs are statistically less likely to commit crimes of any kind. Before you get a hunting license, you have to take a hunter safety and firearms operation class. We pretty much don’t have any incidents with hunters or CCW holders. Other states report the same general situations.

        Lots and lots of gun owners have multiple firearms, and lots of ammo. I have no idea what the actual averages are, so my anecdotal experience is that 500 rounds is common for general gun owners, with sport shooters having 10,000 rounds. So, it’s highly variable. Most mass shooters, by contrast, seem to show up with far fewer than 500 rounds if available news stories are to be believed, but I’m still trying to find credible resources for that. Except for the Las Vegas shooter and possibly Pulse nightclub, shooters don’t fire off 500 rounds, so “stockpile” limits seems useless.

        So the obvious commonality is not always the most useful, especially when it’s over broad. The most effective solutions are at opposite ends of the spectrum – you either focus several smaller solutions on discrete characteristics, or you just trash the whole system. Gun owners outright reject full bans, and not many people are seriously proposing that. Banning one type of rifle is shown to be pointless (substitution is well known), and banning all semi-automatic rifles is still too broad. Plus, you’d probably never get more than 10% compliance (just a guess).

        Since the background check system does generally operate well, and we have several examples of human error in reporting, that seems like a directly useful topic. If we’re doing failure analysis on mass shootings, what failed was the reporting system that humans have to maintain; the gun is not the failure.

        Like

      14. Fair enough, so that would mean all prospective gun owners would need to pass a written test, pass a training course on weapons safety and use, obtain a police clearance certificate (done in most countries before issuing a driver’s licence), and pass a performance and safety test before being issued a license to own a gun. For each weapon an insurance policy would need to be obtained by the gun licensee.

        How will these policies deter gangbangers from doing drive-bys? Are you implying that gangbangers would not do drive-by shootings if they were only proficient in weapons safety?

        Like

      15. Dude, I would suggest you move. I live in Northern California and I have never had a gang banger drive-by and shoot, ever, don’t know of anybody who has had that happen. You should at least stop doing whatever you’re doing that’s making them want to drive by your house.

        Like

      16. Dude I’m not here to be your third grade reading teacher. Read slower and your comprehension will improve or get an actual argument that you won’t have to play silly games.

        Like

  7. 100% correct. i’m a Desert Storm veteran and i agree, wholeheartedly, with the author. wake up, America – your obsession with military-grade civilian weapons is helping bad people murder our children.

    Like

    1. You do realize that “military grade civilian weapon” simply means reliable operation and standardization of parts, right? The specifications that lie squarely under military control are firing modes. The 5.56 specification requires that the round penetrate a steel helmet on one side at 500 yds, but not necessarily through the other side. The .223 round has less power, which is what the AR generally fires.

      For reference, a 30-06 will completely pass through both sides of that same helmet at 1000 yds and still have enough energy to kill a deer when it comes out the other side.

      Is anyone talking about removing 30-06 from private hands? They come in semi-auto, too, but they’re not called AR-15s. Please enlighten me as to the distinction.

      Like

  8. I have not finished reading or digesting but to first address that you may turn off comments I would have to say, why would you do that? If people are going to take the time to read they should have the ability to comment or some could consider it just a waste of time. Why would anyone exercise the power to stifle the comments of others?

    Like

  9. My sister who is a teacher sent this article to me, I think because of the most recent school shooting. I think it’s fair to say that it’s mass shootings in schools that really gets people fired up – rightfully so. I hope both sides can agree that using guns of any sort on children is absolutely deplorable.

    I don’t know for certain but it seems like most of the high profile school shootings with mass casualties have actually involved long guns. (I’m no expert on guns, but I’d say “guns like AR15”. Assault style weapons with large capacities, etc). Isn’t that true of the recent high profile school shootings? And doesn’t the gun rights debate generally center on such weapons? In that light, doing something to prevent bad people from having access to such weapons does seem like a reasonable response to these tragedies.

    Secondly, I have not actually heard here any specific things that gun advocates would willingly propose to prevent school/mass shootings? (From a regulatory perspective that is, not arming teachers or paying security guards at our already cash-strapped schools.) Trulyunpopular – I think you alluded to having such suggestions but I don’t recall reading them. Be specific. Make a list of the what’s and the why’s. I think you would be surprised at how many people find themselves in the middle of these debates, rather than at either end of the spectrum.

    One more thing – I read several times that one of the solutions should be tougher penalties for gun crimes. I think everyone agrees with that, right? But how specifically does that help the families and friends of kids who are killed in school shootings? Harsh punishment for a perpetrator does little to replace a lost child. I guess I’m saying that most people would prefer to hear solutions that prevent the crime, not deal with the aftermath.

    Like

      1. The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. -Next suggestion…..

        Like

      2. That is a statute, not a constitutional provision.

        Congress could pass this law.

        “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense shall have full authority to use any and all resources at its disposal to keep the people of the United States safe.”

        Like

    1. Hi James – you are right that school shootings take the top of the emotional response list, and rightly so. And it may be true that most of the high profile school shootings involved rifles, but that’s an inherent bias – there is more outrage when a rifle is used, and the media (thus the public) focuses more on the gun. Most people have no idea what was used in the Virginia Tech shooting. Why? Because it was a pair of small handguns, one of which was a .22. That took 32 lives, but nobody cares about the gun used because it wasn’t something the media pushed.

      The *current* gun rights debate does focus on the AR platform, and in general what people consider “assault weapons”. Your assertion, however, fails both logical and ethical tests: gun owners are not collectively responsible for an individual committing murder with an AR any more than Muslims are collectively responsible for a suicide bomber, or gays are collectively responsible for a murdering pedophile. That’s just not reasonable. A ban on ARs is punishing all gun owners collectively, because the object itself is not statistically significant in overall crime. Further, mass shootings overall have been rising, including with pistols and non-AR rifles.

      You may not have heard specific proposals, but there are several here. I’ve posted mine a few times, so here’s the thumbnail sketch: strengthen and homogenize the background check reporting system; federalize reporting rules so states are obligated to report on time and the same way; safe storage requirements; voluntary background system access by private individuals; tools for community and law enforcement to report AND DEAL WITH people who show concerning, threatening behavior.

      I personally reject proposals to arm teachers, and I’m not a fan of more guards, but that may be a necessary step in the short term. I’m also not opposed to federal funding for additional safety features in schools, such as bullet blankets for windows, automated door locks, etc. Those have to be evaluated carefully, but that’s the core concept.

      Tougher penalties for gun crimes is great, but we have lots right now that are not enforced or are neutered. Case in point: California says you are a felon if you own a gun that does not fit their configuration requirements. You are not given any lenience, and you have a minimum sentence that makes you a felon for life. On the other hand, they just continued a bill that removes the mandatory felony sentencing for *USING* a gun in the commission of a crime, and allows judges to reduce sentencing to a misdemeanor.

      Read that carefully: If you have a prohibited gun locked in a safe that you never, ever take out, but someone reports you, you are now a felon even if you have a totally clean history, pay your taxes on time, and deliver meals to the homeless. Now you are no longer ever allowed to own a gun legally, and you are obligated to report as a felon when you apply for a job. On the other hand, you can have a string of misdemeanors that don’t legally prohibit you from owning a gun, and you go to rob a liquor store, firing a shot at the clerk. You get 200 days and another misdemeanor. You’re allowed to go to a gun store the day you get out of jail and buy a new handgun.

      Does that make sense to anyone?

      “Harsh punishment for a perpetrator does little to replace a lost child. I guess I’m saying that most people would prefer to hear solutions that prevent the crime, not deal with the aftermath.”
      YES, this is absolutely true. We know penalties don’t stop mass shooters, but intervention does when it’s applied. This is a segment of gun crime we must get in front of through preventative measures. Every solution I listed above is preventative and known to work in smaller scales.

      I should write up a solutions proposal on my blog, where I can explain the concepts and cite research and data.

      I appreciate your questions, James.

      Like

      1. TrulyUnpopular –

        One thing I don’t understand is, from your perspective, what is the value of having ARs in society? Please don’t answer with the counterfactual — I’ve heard plenty of arguments regarding why not to ban them (would-be shooters would just use other guns; it punishes the collective, etc). But none of those arguments address why those types of guns, specifically, should be readily available to the public. Do they serve a unique and special need? Is it just because they are fun to shoot? Again, I don’t want an another answer of why banning them won’t work – I just have yet to see an argument of why they should be available at all.

        Thank you!

        Like

      2. The several state legislatures answered your question 226 years ago with th 2nd Amendment. It’s frankly none of your business what kind of firearm your fellow citizens possess, and you have no say in the matter, nor should you. I cannot imagine your asking the question. People want an accurate, high capacity, easy to use, EFFECTIVE rifle with plenty of ammo so they can target practice, function in a militia, prance around with it in the front yard, go hunting, or slaughter marauders intent upon harming or snatching them, their loved, or their property.

        Like

      3. I give trulyunpopular credit for answering the question in a detailed sincere fashion. Our founding fathers felt a couple concepts were so important and straightforward that they put in one sentence only divided by s comma: well regulated – right to bear arms.
        It wasn’t “let’s have a well regulated militia and on a completely different subject everybody can have alarms” There seems to be a desire by some people to suggest our founding fathers were illiterate, they would actually write two different subjects in one sentence only divided by a comma, both concepts with no relationship to each other, our founding fathers were brilliant not stupid. There’s a reason why they put “well regulated” and “right to bear arms” in the same sentence. And regulating, by its nature, is other peoples business. Without reference to guns, what is regulating a militia? Making sure they stand up straight they know how to dance to a reveille? No, a militia was going to be our first line of defense from insurrections and foreign enemies, they had to be well-trained and armed to do it.

        Like

      4. Regulation football is just like every other regulation football. Regulation arms means that each and every militiaman has access to the same grade of hardware.

        Like

      5. So our brilliant founding fathers made that the first part of the second amendment sentence, because they wanted to make sure everybody had the right to the same kind of musket or flintlock… well here’s the regulation for a regulation football, please present our us with our founding fathers
        numbers for their regulations gun.
        A regulation football is 720–730 millimetres (28–29 in) in circumference, and 545–555 mm (21.5–21.9 in) transverse circumference, and inflated to a pressure of 62–76 kPa (9.0–11.0 psi). In the AFL, the balls are red for day matches and yellow for night matches.

        Like

      6. So you want our military fighting with the same hardware as it began with?
        Because that’s what “on par with” means.

        Like

      7. Let’s be fair. We both know what I meant, and you’re being obstinate. The answer is “the best thing available in sufficient quantity”.

        Like

      8. Even when using word salad, punctuation is a good thing, try it.

        “Common Sense Free Speech Control Treating the First Amendment like the Second”

        Like

      9. Great now I’m a Nazi. When you don’t use any punctuation, we don’t know where to pause, where you’re stopping and starting. Are you making a sentence or are you giving me a list… I rarely call people on their spelling, grammar or punctuation, especially if I can understand in spite of it, but when you don’t use any? It really is hard to read, kind of look lazy too. Here’s a fun link to why punctuation is important:
        https://www.vappingo.com/word-blog/the-importance-of-punctuation/

        Like

      10. At the risk of sounding pedantic, there are several ways to answer this question depending on personal perspective. I’ll try to make a clear distinction between opinion and fact, though, and I can’t speak for other AR owners. Also, I’m long-winded, but you’re asking a great question.

        TLDR Version: ARs are a comparatively low power, rugged, standardized system that is useful for small game, property defense, and sport shooting. They have exactly the same need as any other kind of rifle, and do present a unique choice to the firearms community.

        The factual elements are that the platform (that is, the shape, configuration, and ‘action’) is designed to be rugged, easy to maintain, and reliable. The parts are generally standardized, meaning you can build up an AR from dozens of different companies and have everything work together. Some configurations are able to take additional components, sometimes called “furniture”. This includes things like different accessory rails, hand grips, barrel shrouds, lights, and optics. None of these accessories change the function or performance of the gun in any appreciable way, but they frequently help a user build a gun for a specific use, such as high precision or light weight.

        The value of those characteristics lies in flexibility and longevity for the shooter. As parts wear out or get damaged, you have a wide selection of replacement parts. Nearly everything on an AR can be upgraded or downgraded, depending on interest and cost.

        AR-15s fire a .223 cartridge, which is fairly small, and by virtue of popularity, very inexpensive. The round was developed to be high velocity with low mass, giving it interesting ballistics and target characteristics. For defensive purposes, the bullet is meant to cause damage, but not overpenetrate. Police frequently use low-powered loads with expanding tips for entry situations specifically because they combine good stopping power with minimized risk of the round going all the way through a body and hitting unintended targets. This sounds grim, but if we’re being honest about value, this is key.

        Now the speculation and opinion! For civilians, I see five different groups of people interested in ARs: casual and recreational shooters that go to a local range for fun; competitive shooters who do ‘practical’ or precision shooting; small game or varmint hunters; property defense users; nutjobs. I’m sure that last one will set some hair on fire, but it’s true – there is an elements of the gun culture whose only real desire to own any kind of gun is defense against tyranny. They’re small, but loud. For this discussion, we can ignore the last group.

        Value is perception, and perception is reality, right? You can I could take $10 and find completely different things we enjoy, and each might wonder what the hell the other was thinking. So ‘value’ is pretty subjective. Casual shooters find the AR to be very easy to clean and cheap to shoot. The pistol grip is more comfortable, but ultimately less accurate over long distances. Most of us in this group enjoy the platform, and rights aside, many of us wouldn’t care if we had to sell them back to the government.

        Sport shooters and hunters like that the rifle is lightweight, reasonably accurate, and has low recoil. A solid, traditional stock sends all of the recoil to your shoulder, making follow up shots a little more difficult to get precise. The AR is well suited to fast follow up if you’re sighting for accuracy. That’s especially important for small game hunters – you want to not lose your sight picture in case you have bad placement and have to send one more down for a clean kill. Hunting with the .223 round is generally limited to small ground animals, but some use them for coyotes and medium cats (cougars, for example). Because of the ballistics, the round is far less likely to skip or ricochet off the ground or rocks, making them a bit safer than larger calibers.

        Property defense with an AR is questionable for indoors, in my opinion, but great for larger outdoor properties. If you have a ranch or other piece of land, you need more precision than a pistol will give, but you don’t really need high power or extreme precision. You also need to be able to get a good sight picture quickly, and the AR is very fast to get a “good enough” aim.

        So they do serve a need – they’re faster to acquire a sight picture, they have low recoil, can be loaded with lower power rounds, they are light and easy to maintain, they are very flexible, and the cost of ammunition is very low. There are actually several options for ammo, from tactical to hunting to plinking. Many other calibers have limited selection and cost more, and are frequently more powerful than the .223 or even the NATO 5.56 military version. For example, you’re not allowed to hunt deer in most states with a .223 because it’s not powerful enough, but a .30-06 from a standard stock rifle can pass completely through a buck and keep right on going. There’s no need for that kind of power if you’re not hunting.

        Is there a way to define “should be available to the public”? No more than any other gun, to be honest. Putting discussions of rights aside, it’s about choice. Sport shooters may have the biggest claim because the point is to put holes in paper with reasonable accuracy and speed at low power, and hunting rifles can’t do that very well overall. Casual shooters are also not very interested in power, just the ‘zen’ aspect of having an activity. Property defense also benefits from a light weigh high velocity load, which causes the bullet to lose energy relatively quickly, meaning missed shots are far less likely to cause harm the further they go.

        I’ve already blathered on too long, so if you are interested in following up, let me know. I tried to balance informative with brevity (ha!), so took some liberties here and there.

        Like

      11. trulyunpopular – thanks for the genuine reply. In reading your paragraph where you outline your proposals, that seems like a significant amount of bureaucracy. Is that something that gun owners would support? (I’m not talking bans, just restrictions or checks or whatever the correct terms are. But not bans.)

        Or perhaps the better question is: does or would the NRA support those ideas? Because isn’t it the NRA that pressures politicians so effectively, not individual law abiding gun owners? It seems like four out the five groups of gun owners that you identified would support your ideas. Yet I often hear that the NRA is generally against ANY restrictions or additional bureaucracy related to owning/purchasing guns. (Perhaps I am wrong in that assertion, its just my understanding from my own reading, etc.)

        What types of solutions are actually on the table nationally that the NRA and gun owners do support?

        Stronger background checks, and “tools for community and law enforcement to report AND DEAL WITH people who show concerning, threatening behavior” both address the prevention of gun violence. But those things would inevitably result in mistakes and people feeling like their rights are being infringed unnecessarily or unfairly. (Not many mentally ill people believe that they are mentally ill, right?) I presume this is the argument that the NRA makes when arguing against restrictions? The analogy I’m thinking of is the federal no-fly list. And didn’t the NRA recently argue against the idea that people on the no-fly list shouldn’t be able to purchase guns? How does the average gun owner feel about this?

        You also mentioned safe storage requirements. In relation to shootings were the perpetrators are minors living with an adult who owns guns, do you think parents/people who’s guns are used by their children (or by anyone else) should be severely punished for failing to keep their weapons out of the hands of others? (Didn’t the Sandy Hook shooter use his parents gun(s)?) To a non-gun owner like myself, it seems fair to charge a parent with murder when his/her child commits murder with his/her gun. If my dog attacks and kills a child, I am in big trouble because I am presumed to be responsible for that dog. Shouldn’t the same idea be applied to ownership of something that is so potentially dangerous? Would gun owners (and/or the NRA) support these kinds of penalties? Would they be beneficial to our nations current problem?

        Thanks again for your time and consideration.

        Like

      12. James said: “In reading your paragraph where you outline your proposals, that seems like a significant amount of bureaucracy. Is that something that gun owners would support?”
        The ones I’ve talked to support those ideas, as well as the Democrat politicians I’ve talked to in my state. It would take less bureaucracy than proposing a ban; many of the core systems are already in place, just not properly deployed or extensive enough. Nearly everything I proposed is intended to build on current systems and apply what we’ve learned from how they worked or failed.
        “does or would the NRA support those ideas?”
        I honestly don’t know – I’m not a member. However, the NRA strongly endorses background checks so long as they are done as quickly as possible and do not constitute a registry of any kind.
        “I often hear that the NRA is generally against ANY restrictions or additional bureaucracy related to owning/purchasing guns.”
        I think they take that as a default position so they can have a base to work from, but a more accurate description is to not put any *additional* restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Even though they want to protect manufacturers, they recognize that to do that they need to protect the customers, too. That doesn’t mean they want everyone to have a gun, but they do want people to have the choice.
        “What types of solutions are actually on the table nationally that the NRA and gun owners do support?”
        No idea… the only ones I really see getting media attention are bans, and now age restrictions; the NRA is going to fight bans until they run out of money, but I don’t know if they are opposed to raising the age limit. It seems like a reasonable thing to try, especially because most gun buyers are over 25.
        “Those things (checks, community tools, etc) would inevitably result in mistakes and people feeling like their rights are being infringed.”
        There will always be mistakes, but I would prefer mistakes be made on the side of waiting little longer to resolve an issue than mopping up children’s brains or hosing blood off sidewalks. The American public needs to understand the concept of a graded approach, rather than “all or nothing”. As technology gets better, false positives and mistakes become less frequent, and implicit in the suggestions I make is legal protection and redress, which is already in place in those systems anyway. If you get a false positive during a background check, you can petition for a correction. The No Fly list did not have that protection, and the ACLU filed a class action suit against the federal government because of so many false positives with no way to get off the list.
        “Didn’t the NRA recently argue against the idea that people on the no-fly list shouldn’t be able to purchase guns? How does the average gun owner feel about this?”
        Yes – the NRA opposed the No Fly list approach because of serious violations of the 14th amendment. It turns out that getting ON the No Fly list is incredibly easy, and you don’t know you’re on it until you try to get on the plane (or through TSA screening). All it takes is a call to the FBI to report suspicious behavior; if the agent can’t verify or investigate within some amount of time, your name gets added as a ‘watch’ until they can investigate. That could take months or longer, and you never know. Lots of kids have been on the list, and frequently people with similarly spelled names to actual bad guys get held up and denied.
        I’m not sure average gun owners are really aware of the situation, to be honest. Most are not really politically active enough to keep tabs on such things.
        “You also mentioned safe storage requirements. In relation to shootings were the perpetrators are minors living with an adult who owns guns, do you think parents/people who’s guns are used by their children (or by anyone else) should be severely punished for failing to keep their weapons out of the hands of others?”
        As a baseline, they should be held accountable, but a trial or at least legal review by the relevant prosecution should have wide latitude. Jurisprudence says parents are generally culpable for their children’s behavior in criminal events, so you have to decide where the crime happened and why. In the case of a minor getting into the parent’s closet and shooting up a school, yes – there should be criminal liability, but not as an accomplice. It’s typically covered under parental negligence of some kind, which varies from state to state.
        “If my dog attacks and kills a child, I am in big trouble because I am presumed to be responsible for that dog. Shouldn’t the same idea be applied to ownership of something that is so potentially dangerous?”
        Are you charged with murder if your dog gets out of your yard because the county meter reader left your gate open? What if you’re walking them on a leash, and a child rushes the dog and reacts faster than you can? How about you’re in your home and your toddler falls on Fido, and one quick reflexive bite kills your baby? Should you spend your life in prison?
        “Would gun owners (and/or the NRA) support these kinds of penalties? Would they be beneficial to our nations current problem?”
        Most of the appropriate penalties are already in place, including giving other people or minors in your home access to your guns. Penalties for such things aren’t that effective as a deterrent because most people don’t believe they’re at risk, and are seldom prosecuted to the legal extents for various reasons. However, simply asking isn’t enough, so there needs to be something more to encourage good behaviors when you can’t enforce them. A tax break or one-time refund helps encourage good behavior which then reduces real risk.

        Like

  10. Thank you for your service. I can somewhat relate, being a Marine Vietnam Veteran.
    Military rifles are popular because they are made to be easy to use in combat. Anyone, no matter their IQ, can load and fire a military rifle. The AR15 is light, easy to carry, easy to load, easy to fire, easy to clean, and easy to store; I slept with my M16 fully loaded, bolt back, ejection port cover on, safety on, finger on trigger and thumb resting on the selector. Never had an accidental discharge. The 1903 Springfield is heavy but has a manual bolt; M1 Garand is heavy, semiautomatic, but limited 5 round clip that could sometimes give it’s operator the “M1 Thumb”; M14 is still heavy but more refined rifle than the M1 with same fire power, more accuracy, and 18 round magazine. All of these military rifles are excellent game hunting rifles and many are in civilian circulation because returning military were allowed to keep them.
    Like you, I trained with my rifle (M14 back then) to hit the target before graduating boot camp. Advanced Infantry training taught me how to use my M16 in quickly evolving combat situations, in semiauto, squeezing the trigger quickly (so quick that most clueless journalists will say it’s on full auto). But nothing makes the AR15 any more dangerous than an M14, it just looks uglier and scarier. An Uzi would have done more harm than the AR15 with it’s slow rate of fire.
    Your M4 is a nice easy semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 caliber (5.56 MM NATO) projectile. There are many AR style 22 caliber rifles on the market, only they don’t shoot the NATO round. Any 22 semiautomatic rifle would have done just as much damage as the AR15.
    So what, you might ask? Is the AR15 killing weapon? Of course it is, they all are; all firearms are killing weapons.
    My point is that it’s not about the hardware, it’s about the nut job.
    Semper Fi

    Like

  11. I have made a number of copies of this opinion and, frustrated by trying to find something to do to somehow help the situation, have started sharing them with people hoping to open up a discussion on the matter and help find a way to take action. Agingmillennialengineer gives us a viable option to begin the process to gain control over this unacceptable killing of students, regardless of age, while allowing gun owners to still feel that the Second Amendment allows them to have guns. THREE CHEERS FOR DICK”S SPORTING GOODS – if our lawmakers and elected officials do not have the courage to take action, then we the people should step forward!!!

    Like

    1. No – a ban is not a viable option. It IS a complete disregard for fact and honesty. This has been covered many, many times in this discussion thread. The “people” are taking action out of ignorance and emotional manipulation, a stark contradiction to the oft-cited “truth and science” position typically taken up by gun control advocates.

      Like

      1. I would say both sides have repeated BS over and over again, some more than others. I’ve got the impression you don’t like abstract, I love abstract, it’s a great tool for weeding out even my own bullshit with myself. We see were banning thing works we also know that when we hear comments like “Chicago bans guns, but they have a huge gun problem” somebody’s not being honest. If there’s candy in my house I eat it, so I ban it from my house, I don’t just ban it from my office and have just outside the door in the living room, that doesn’t work. Common sense. We ban automatic weapons, that’s a ban that seems to work, why? The top two reasons, it’s been a round for a long time, it’s everywhere not just in my “office.” The article that you cherry picked from 😏, by the way all the cherries you picked I had posted them there along with the cherries you didn’t want to pick… I posted both to be accurate. The authors final statement was, that if the ban had remained in place, evidence suggested the benefits would have increase over time. Banning something that had been in circulation for a long time, is not a short-term solution for anything other than people’s feelings, but over the long term it has its benefits. Personally, I want to see current bans maintained, let’s keep automatic weapons out of the hands of goobers. As far as semi automatic, I don’t think we have the will to do the kind of ban that would work, not yet at least. If we don’t do anything, there’s going to be a backlash, we’re kind of seeing it today. Eventually, if it keeps getting worse, there’s going to be enough people to want to overturn (or to explain that a well regulated militia isn’t the same thing as a regulation football, rolling my eyes) the Second Amendment.

        Like

      2. I actually prefer abstraction, but most people don’t get it, so I try to find metaphors to make the ideas more relatable. You are right that a ban has to be complete in order to work, and laws have to be considered in context – Chicago is a great example of why we really should federalize gun laws and take the decision away from states. That would piss off both California and Arizona, but it’s unavoidable if we want to have any chance of actually reducing crime, in my opinion. One of several things we should do sooner rather than later.

        We agree on maintaining current bans, which is against automatic weapons. But I don’t believe banning ARs or SA guns in general is reasonable. Consider this… gun rights advocates frequently hear “you won’t know until you try” regarding banning ARs. Ok, then why is that not a valid response to fixing background checks and the reporting system? We have direct evidence that the current NICS has deterred over a million prohibited purchases, including those with domestic violence convictions and restraining orders. The failures in the system have always pointed to two major causes: human error in filing reports; differences in reporting standards between states. That alone addresses several mass shootings and quite a few individual “crimes of passion”.

        If we add to that a way for private transactions to use the system without paying a dealer’s fee, you’d get even more protection. Does this address people without prior indicators or convictions? Of course not – those happen to be very few and far between, and if you take away ARs, you know they’ll choose whatever’s available, right down to revolvers, which do show up more frequently in mass shootings than ARs.

        Sure – eventually a ban will work in reducing the number of ARs you see in crime. But does that address the rate of crime itself? Or even body count? Unless you have a full ban, we need to find other methods that have a proven track record or rely on actual data, not guesses and speculation.

        Like

      3. MIke, you seem to be missing a very important fact within your position. The fact is simple “Automatic Weapons are NOT banned. Automatic weapons have been regulated much more strictly but are not banned. Another issue you fail to bring to the discussion is the fact that Automatic Weapons were used almost exclusively by organized crime and became much more prevalent during the prohibition of alcohol (another side affect of bans and prohibitions is the creation or intensified criminal activity that always follows these acts). AR’s and other semi-auto weapons are seldom used in crime and the lethality of their use is no greater than attacks with pistols. The desire for public safety when going after stricter regs on automatic weapons was found acceptable because it went after organized crime. A ban on AR’s would be going after, according to CNBC, somewhere around 5-10 million gun owners to reduce homicides by a fraction of a percent. Thats a hard sell and given the facts that there are some common factors in these school shootings and mass shootings that are not being discussed there are things we can do without passing more legislation. To start with there have been many systems breakdowns with NIC’s not actually with the system but with authorities reporting prohibited individuals to the system. I know right now Ohio has over 100 court systems that are up to a year behind reporting to the NIC’s. We also have a breakdown in the mental health system and agencies bot law and mental health are not following up on credible tips or reports of dangerous people. This has been the case for many of these mass shootings. Then there are the psychotropic drugs with all their negative side affects including violent and suicidal behavior that have been associated with almost every school shooter. So you can see, if you open your eyes, its a hard sell to restrict 5-10 million responsible gun owners to pass a law to stop a handful of mentally ill individuals (which by the way this in no way would stop the attacks they would just use pistols and shotguns as they have in the overwhelming number of attacks now.). Even more so when you realize that we are not adhering to the laws we have already passed and have been on the books for decades.

        Like

      4. “Banned” rarely means for everyone, I could define it further in my comments to make the hairs harder to split, but someone will still split them. Methamphetamine is banned, but there are peopled that can get it legally.
        How much regulations work are completely dependent on who you ask. The NRA is predictable, if it hurts gun sales, it won’t work, at the other end if it makes them feel good, it works. The answer is somewhere in between.

        If you don’t consider this a ban, I bet Mr. Trulyunpopular will have something to say about it. 😉

        Requirements:

        *You need to be eligible to possess firearms in general.
        *You must live in a state where NFA items are permitted and machine guns, specifically, are legal to possess.
        *The machine gun you wish to acquire must have been manufactured on or before May 19, 1986. That is the cutoff date for entries to be made in the NFRTR (National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record), the registry of all NFA items in the United States including machine guns.
        *You must locate a Class III dealer (FFL01+SOT) that sells or can transfer in the machine gun you wish to acquire in your state of residence.
        *You must purchase the machine gun upfront prior to transfer and have it shipped to your Class III dealer. For a full-auto M16, this will be anywhere from $12,000 and up. Typical prices for an M16 hover around $14,000 to $16,000.
        *Once purchased and with your dealer, the dealer will fill out the Form 4 application on your behalf to submission to the BATFE and collect your $200 NFA transfer stamp tax.
        The application will be submitted. Now you wait 8+ months for the full FBI background check and BATFE processing to complete.
        *Once the Form 4 is processed, it will be returned to the dealer along with the tax stamp which is part of your paperwork. You can then take possession of your military grade fully automatic firearm and take it home.
        *The tax stamp must be kept with the firearm it belongs to at all times! The tax stamp is your only affirmative defense to prove you are not in possession of an illegal machine gun. *The tax stamp is proof you paid the transfer tax and legally transferred the machine gun. *Ranges that allow Class III will want to see the stamp. If you get pulled over and the gun is discovered/inspected, law enforcement will definitely want to see it too. You may be required to present the firearm for inspection on demand by the BATFE.
        *You may not transport the fully automatic firearm across state lines for any purpose without prior consent of the Federal government. You must request this in advance and provide details on where the firearm is going, when you are leaving and when it will return to its registered location of residence.
        *You cannot leave the presence of your fully automatic firearm. If someone else is shooting it, you must be with it, legally speaking. The one exception to this is if you have formed a legal trust for the purpose of possessing the firearm, in which case all beneficiaries of the trust (usually family or employees) may have access to the firearm.

        Like

  12. I JUST HAVE TWO COMMENTS. ONE. METAL DETECTORS ON DOORS OF ANY BUILDING WHERE THERE IS A THREAT TO HUMANS, WITH AN ARMED GUARD SITTING AT EVERY DOOR INCASE A GUNMAN SHOULD SOME HOW GET IN. TWO. NO AUTOMATIC WEAPONS SOLD TO THE PUBLIC. ONLY SMALL HAND GUNS FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION AND SHOT GUNS AND RIFLES FOR HUNTING. THESE TWO STEPS WOULD REALLY HELP. WOULD STOP LOTS OF PROBLEM PEOPLE. WE DON’T NEED OR WANT A LARGE AMOUNT OF TEACHERS , ETC ARMED. WHO KNOWS IF THEY WOULD HAVE THE NERVE TO USE THEM

    Like

    1. What part do you not like? The part where there’s open debate to discuss the issues, is that what you don’t like? Is it you don’t like the fact that you can’t blabber nonsense like you’re doing your echo chamber? Dude we know exactly where you’re coming from. You’re a puppet, and the NRA’s your puppet master.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. If we break this down into a mathematical problem, and say we know that out of a population of 1 million, on average, there is going to be one individual that has a defective mind, they are violent and absence of empathy. A very bad combination, their mind are wired in a way that it is going to function much like a cancer does. We know that if these individuals were to have access to weapons of mass destruction, they will use them. In 1790, they couldn’t do much damage with the flintlock, and other weapons that could do more damage were very hard to come by.
    With today’s technology, it’s not uncommon to have a weapon of mass distraction in your father’s closet.
    Do we except this as a byproduct of the Second Amendment, that is, one out of a million committing mass murder, or do we find a way to mitigate the damage? If the founding fathers had an understanding of the facts I’ve outlined above, defined the rights what carefully.
    I’m not interested any response from somebody who’s going to claim a God doesn’t wire people incorrectly, that’s your opinion right along with flat earth’ers.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/inside-a-teen-school-shooters-mind-a-plot-to-kill-50-or-60-if-i-get-lucky-maybe-150/2018/03/03/68cc673c-1b27-11e8-ae5a-16e60e4605f3_story.html?utm_term=.07d96805f434&wpisrc=al_trending_now__alert-national&wpmk=1

    Like

    1. So, yhou want to place restrictions on the 999,999 who have done no wrong.

      Does this same logic apply to black people? After all, only 0.0175% of them commit murder. Why would it be wrong to take away the rights of the 99.9825%?

      Like

      1. “So, yhou want to place restrictions on the 999,999 who have done no wrong” so you’re OK with the mass killing of innocent children?

        Like

      2. “So, yhou want to place restrictions on the 999,999 who have done no wrong” so you’re OK with the mass killing of innocent children?

        No, which is why I support punishing the perpetrators.”

        A percentage of humans are amoral, without empathy and do not care if they die, punishment means nothing, and buy your own words, that’s all you want to do. So what you’re saying is, you’re willing to punish people, knowing it will not stop them or deter them whatsoever, from committing mass murder of children. By definition, you don’t care about the mass murder of children, Just as long as afterwords they’re punished.
        This is the problem when you have short answers without putting any thought into it, the question is do we put a level of restrictions on law-abiding citizens to help prevent the mass murder of children, you clearly have said no, that only leaves punishment after the fact. Your words:
        “So, yhou want to place restrictions on the 999,999 who have done no wrong”
        My answer is yes, reasonable restrictions on law-abiding citizens if it helps prevent mass murder of children.

        Like

      3. I’m not going to explain to you the difference between restrictions on people and restriction on actions. Your statement was stupid.
        You seem to be willing to go to any extent in support of the mass murder of children and you wonder why the general population is getting fed up.

        Like

      4. Nothing I’ve said supports The imprisonment of people victimless crime‘s black or white. But you’re agaist every idea to prevent the mass murder of children.

        Like

      5. Well golly geewhiz, I don’t agree with a lot of the author either, I think the problem is you have a hard time with checkers while other people are playing chess.

        Like

  14. Posts like this are great for debate, and debate is a great thing. Hearing the opinion of a veteran who has had hands on experience with defense and offense involving guns might be just what we need in today’s America.

    Like

  15. I believe every person should have the Right to own a firearm. Do i think they should have to do classes and speak with someone amd be approved yes and thats how it is where i live … People get guns no matter what types of “controls” are in place. What other rights do we need to give up because there are people out there who have had lack of love and parenting who are dealing woth this depression and decide to kill innocent people. I also agree its a sad situation but why not lock school doors noone enters with out an id and has a student at the school there should be an officer at the maine entrances . what about protocals for keeping them safe rather then taking our gun rights away . let me ask you this people accused our president of racism why ??? Bc he wants to ban illigal immagrants??? Well now let me ask you not all terrorism and rapes ect. are of everyone of the muslim and the Mexicans. You think hes crazy for wanting to ban them from coming into the country unless doing so legally how is this different?? People are commiting terorist acts with cars and bombs ect but people are so quick to say let them stay its not all of them. But how do we pin point just who it is… Now this nick cruz kid shot up a school horrible yes but you wanna limit our gun rights or strip them away compleatly? How is this different bc in both innocent lives aRe being taken ??? This is America home of the Free and the brave . if i was walking down the street im a female and a man approached me and say tried to rape me. I had my fire arm and shot him would i be in the wrong bc i used my self defence ?? This whole argument is unsettling and has no valid point what so ever. Bc terrist acts are commited by humans killing innocent people . but dont ban them ??? Kids texting and driving killing innocent lives but dont take them to deadly things away ???
    Drugs and alcohol is addicted and alters the mind of people and nakes them ct in certain ways but dont ban them ??? Yes heres regulation for these things in such but is there doctors prescribe drugs ?? Why not just take them off the market completely… No valid points …. I love my wnd amendment right !!!! Yes my kids will know how to shoot and handle a fire arm thats how it should be rather then them not knowing how and coming across one !!! Simple

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You have every right to shoot a rapist in defense, you should also be held responsible if you make a mistake. I’m a little confused, are you for attacking everybody to stop a few or not? When it comes to guns you’re not but when it comes to terrorist you are? One is covered by the Second Amendment the other is covered by the First Amendment. If you want people to respect the second, why do you disrespect the first? You can’t ban people from coming to this country based on religion it’s unconstitutional. The nationality of most of the 9/11 terrorist, we’re from Saudi Arabia, trump excluded Saudi Arabia from the ban. I personally don’t think that makes Trump a racist, he just promised to ignore the constitution and ban all muslims, he wanted to make his “patriot” bass happy. Even then he didn’t want to ban his rich Muslim friends in Saudi Arabia.
      And this nonsense that everybody wants to take away your guns, that’s just a lie, the majority of American simply want strong regulations. You know, like rigorous background checks, like we do with immigrants. Banning bad people from possessing guns, just like we ban bad immigrants.

      Like

      1. That Was a prime example. I’m for regulations yes however we have backround checks we have age limits certain ages can by certain guns … Now our 1st amendment is just that. Ours … Peopl dont come her legally tho they come as they please . and i don’t agree with that because how can we regulate who comes n goes ???? You wanna be able to choose what guns we posses how is that someone elses choice but our own ??? Yes im for the regulations that are in place 9x out of ten people commiting these crimes are not licensed to carry Guns. I do not agree with people picking what guns i posses NO. Thats my right and i will choose it …. Am i for the regularions in place yes i am . where im from you have to have backround checks get a letter from your citys police chief get 6 letters of recomendations and go to a gun safty cource and still be approved . what more do u want ??? And people coming into the country on their own free will no im not for it i think yes the regualtions we have should be enforced !!!! Same with the guns! But dont go trying to change them … I think people who are here illigally should be sent back its that simple . if you wanna enter learn to speak and write english get your paper work done show you want it and can be responsible to enter such a free place… And im not just talking about 9.11 im talking driving into people knifing a man 50 x killing people with cars guns anything they can get their. Hands on … With the schools shootings yes its sad its terrifying but if the cop on duty went in instead of set by and watch used HIS fire arm he could of prevented it or minimized the number by alot . or if we had officer standing at every entrance… Yes for enforcing the regulations in place No for changing anything . i think whats wrong here is our society and the way things are portrayed. … Wish i was on my computer it woild be easier to see whats been written. I dont think others opinions on the matter are necessarily wrong . everyine has that right but i also dont agree with most of them and thats okay to …. I hope this makes sence here

        Like

      2. I question you respect or understanding of the constitution when you make statements like this:
        “Now our 1st amendment is just that. Ours”
        If tourist visit a nations and can be arrested and held without due process, outside of the nations constitution, it is not a free nation. I personally think your flavor of entitlement is what’s hurting our nation.
        In a lot of ways, our system of government keeps us safe and equal, so we can excel to make America more competitive in the world, making us great. It wasn’t meant to let people gather around their personal fetishes, demanding them no matter the cost to society. Or to allow people to claim they’re better just because they’re born American. I’m guessing there is another side of the face they will talk out of when it comes to Chinese nationals that come here to give birth to their children and then take them back to China. Will you defend them as much when they come back as adults with all the rights as an American citizen? Or were you start to recognize that there’s more to being American than simply being born one.

        Like

      3. I never said you have to be BORN here to be American… Which is funny because my step father is from iraq not even an American citizen . if you had read my last post that was refereing to the illigal immagrants everyone else is so quick to defend or the terrorist. People think guns are so bad but when u compare the bonbers or the knifers thats far better then shootings ti some and i beg to differ… Im for regulation yes and whoch is why im for people comming here legalling following regulation !!! I know America is founded by immagrants… But we have laws and regulations to protect the American citizens so no if your not born here or your not here legally i dont believe these amendment’s are theirs but just that as ours.

        Like

      4. You should be more careful with your words, I quoted you verbatim.
        “Now our 1st amendment is just that. Ours”

        Like

      5. No i dont think so . bc it is ours us United states citizens… Not a citizen of canada or afganastan or cuba or Russia or china !!!! Ours as Americans . If your a citizen else where im sorry your NOT American if you dnt like that im sorry but back to the topic if Gun control .

        Like

      6. I think your twisting my words honestly . yes u quoted me ! However i never said you had to be born here…. But to be here with out the proper documentation our rights and laws are not for them just because the decided to show up in America the wrong way … See your a prime example of someone who is all for everyine and anyine from coming here to America as am i if they do so with the proper entrance and the proper status . I’m not saying ban them but im saying get our country under control . same with the fire arms i believe people who wont to posses them need to go about it the right and proper way follow protocol. !!!!
        Yea i believe our rights and laws shouldn’t be available to people that arent here LEGALLY!!! If your not go back to their country go thru back round checks do what us Americans have to do to have our guns. You want to be an American do it the right way ….

        People commit terrorism on Our people . and people like you are so quixk to defend them and say people like me a wrong. But why ??? Because we wanna protect our love ones from such hanes acts kinda how you guys feel with the gun stuff … Again im for regulations but people nwed to look at a much bigger picture then WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT !!! .

        People are the problem our government not doing their parts is the problem …. Not the guns in them selfs. Look at all the school shootings on average they are children killing other children . theres a problem there … Like okay lets look at the columbine shooting kids 17 and 18 years old the question what made them do it ( bullying) of the other students then factor in the depression!!! How dis they get the guns ? Is another question… There needs to be so much more then gun control people… BULLYING NEEDS TO STOP CHILDREN GETTING THEIR HANDS on Guns that arent theirs thats a problem ….. Psyc evaluation back round checks references classes theres more steps to this then just gun control …. And safty at schools !!! Lock your doors dont allow people in after a certain time and only if they have an id and a student their !!!! So many thibgs can be done but people are to hard headed to see theirs a bigger picture here then JUST GUN CONTROL !!!!

        Like

      7. I believe you’re a sensor person, but you are very uneducated on the US constitution. People within our borders have constitutional rights, doesn’t matter if they’re here legally, illegally, if they were born here if they rob the bank, everybody.
        Our founding fathers were very well educated and brilliant. If everybody wasn’t protected by our constitution, all a government would have to do, is declare you’re not an American and you instantly would have no right to even prove that you were an American. 14th amendment guarantees this, and quite frankly, I can’t imagine why you don’t know this as much is you tought the constitution:
        “The 14th Amendment says no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The fact that the Constitution does not specifically use the word ”citizens” in that part of the amendment gives the Supreme Court a basis to conclude that non-citizens are protected.
        And your assumption that I defend undocumented people, is just your bias running rampant. I’m just not interested in doing stupid shit and wasting the nations money to do it. Did you know that they use to arrest business men for hiring undocumented workers?
        Do you know when they stopped doing it? Of course you don’t, again your gift to America, remaining uninformed. Ronald Reagan lifted enforcement of employers when he gave amnesty To 3 million undocumented. Orin Hatch of Utah trief to make it permanent, except poor blacks, whites and other minorities citizens pushed back because they were the ones that are hurt most by illegal immigration. All we have to do to fix the illegal immigration problem from Mexico, is to put business people in hiring them , it would stop. The people that run the Republican Party, do not want to stop undocumented workers, it keeps wages down, that’s all they’re interested in. They play lip service to you, because they know your booked for them and ignore their policies that steal our money.

        Like

      8. All i can say to this is lol im uneducated because i have my own opinions of things. However if that was the case then anyone amd everyone could freely walk into America… And i dont see other country usen these amendment’s do u nope !!! So i allowed you to have your opinions with out callung you names but cant do the same interesting how it works 😂
        But thats okay to … Ill ignore what you said … Lol mainly bc I’m going to school for law ! And i know our laws and rights . you portray them how you will like ☺i can and i will how id like. I say deport them all anyone who came here illigally and documented send them away !!!!! Untill they can come here LEGALLY !! If they want the same rights as me or the muslim man that had to go threw all kinds of bullshit to be a citizen !!! Yet people’ wanna come here and people like you defend them and act like its okay…
        Im done with this because god forbid people dont agree with you .. Lets make it like you know everything .. How many Americans have to be killed for people like YOU to see that illigals need to leave and atleast i agree their needs to be regulations with gun law . but your got Gun laws but not that interesting how both clash right !!!!!

        Like

      9. I didn’t say you were ignorant, I said you were uneducated about the constitution, if you’re going to be lawyer, you really need to learn the difference. You’re also going to find out, that opinions don’t matter much in court you’re going to have to have evidence, of which you have shown none in this conversation. For example, I quote your words when referencing you, and I quote the constitution, when referencing the constitution, you just make claims.
        You also will have problems in court, when somebody says they want to stop illegal immigration and then you just ignore that and say they don’t… I don’t understand what you get out of that. You voted for Trump, that’s nice, I guarantee, even you, one day, will pretend you didn’t.
        I think our conversation is done, be safe.

        Like

      10. I already said the conversations were done and ignorant means uneducated so … Yeah … Im always safe thank u . look up who the constitution applys to also . and never will i act as if i didnt bc I’m a republican and i think hes a wonderful President thank u

        Like

  16. I am tired of hearing the m-15 is an assult riffle. An assult riffle is fullly autimatic. I have an m-15 and it is not fully automatie. If you are going to put a name on something, know what you are talking about.

    Like

    1. You’re wrong on a couple of points. 1) AR-15 or M-16/M4/assorted variations thereof; NOT “m-15”. 2) An assault rifle, contrary to the hype is typically a compact weapon firing an intermediate cartridge with an effective range less than that of a “battle rifle”. Typical battle rifles like the Enfield, Garand, Moisin Nagant, Mauser, etc fire cartridges of about .30 caliber (3/10 of an inch) by about 2.5 inches OAL. As always there are variations on the theme. So called “assault rifles” rely on a high volume of fire from a less powerful cartridge to achieve fire superiority. Studies by sundry militaries around the world have shown the advantages of assault rifles in two important areas 1) Most combat takes place much closer than the effective range of a battle rifle, so a high powered cartridge is for the most part unnecessary. 2) If you kill someone no has to take care of them. By using a lower power cartridge you A) allow troops to carry more rounds for the same weight, allowing a higher volume of fire for the same troop load. B) Have a higher incidence of wounding. This normally means at least one other enemy soldier will be out of the fight to either evacuate or care for the wounded soldier.
      The first widely deployed assault rifle was the german STG 44 which is short for Sturmgewehr 44. Sturmgewehr translates directly as Assault Rifle (storm rifle, with storm in the sense of storming or assaulting an enemy position). It had both semi and fully automatic settings and used a 7.92 x 33mm cartridge, the “kurz” or short version of the German battle rifle cartridge, the 7.92 x 57mm. Meaning roughly an inch shorter, and firing a bullet about 2/3 the weight of the 7.92 x 57 at about 4/5 the speed, ultimately delivering no more than half the energy (~= 1900 joules/~=4000 joules) of the 7.92 x 57mm cartridge to the the target. The 5.56 x 45mm round (as used by most AR-15 and all M-16/M-4 rifles) has slightly better performance comparatively since it fires a bullet of about 1/3 the weight about 40/ms faster than the 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge (NATO standard battle rifle round) and delivers roughly half the amount of energy (~= 1750 J/~= 3500 J) as the 7.62 x 51 cartridge. There are of course different loadings of the assorted cartridges which yield different results, but the above were compared using common, standard military loadings. The similarities should be fairly evident. In short, it’s not the fact that a weapon in fully automatic that makes it an assault rifle (does it stop being an assault rifle when I put it in semi-auto mode?), it’s the cartridge it fires. Incidentally, most of the M4 and M-16 rifles in service today AREN’T fully automatic, but use 3 round burst mode instead to help keep more rounds on target. So Mr. Heidbrink, in closing I have two recommendations for you: 1) If you are going to put a name on something, know what you are talking about. 2) Use spellcheck.

      Like

  17. What you wrote is great, a great opinion. If something I use ar 10 for pig and deer hunting, and target practice. They also make great defense weapons. The government should not get to tell me that i cant shoot a gun because it is designed for efficiency and accuracy, would that not be the point of refining a base idea and making it better and better over time? The world can get rid of guns, but the evil ways of people will never leave. And ill be damned if i am going to have to go up against those evils with bare hands. And by the way , dont tell me how to live, as long ass I am not in your face affecting your life, dont worry about whats in my gun safe or anywhere else. And as long as you arent breaking into my house or attacking me or my family or anyone else, you will never have a worry that i would use my firearms against you, if I had any. Firearms that is.

    Like

  18. “With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime”

    You’re lying. You’re a liar.

    Like

    1. Everybody’s a liar, even my mom told me I was handsome, but…
      “In each one of the older shootings on the nation’s 10-deadliest list, with one exception, the shooters carried handguns. But in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012; San Bernardino, California, in 2015; Orlando, Florida, in 2016; Las Vegas in 2017; and Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 — the attackers primarily used AR-15s.”
      Now pull the NRA’s hand out of your butt and talk for yourself.

      Like

      1. Sorry, no. Multiple of your accounts are lies. It relies on stupid people claiming a gun that looks similar is an AR-15.

        Like

      2. Sorry, yes. You’re an ideologue, ideologues are not very bright. It’s like being a dog that can’t stop sniffing some crap in the lawn. We either fix the problem or majority of states will modify the Second Amendment.

        Like

      3. …says the ideologue, missing the irony.
        You were wrong, lying in fact, and lashing out won’t change that.

        Like

      4. And there you are sniffing that shit in the grass. You can’t even come up with your own argument.

        Like

      5. I’m pretty sure calling you out on your lies is all the argument any of us needs. It’s not like there’s anywhere else to go in the debate. There’s no point, if you’re lying.

        Like

      6. LOL, “Anyone…” No, just you. Calling people a liar is lazy, from the get go that was obvious about you. Claiming that you “Call out lies” not the same as just yelling “liar” suggest you have the intellect to do so, you don’t, you just freeload off of those that do. Anyway trolling you is boring, you can babble on the yourself.

        Like

      7. And by “lazy”, you mean it doesn’t take much work. That’s not a condemnation of anything but how obvious you made it.
        You’ve pretended you’re trolling before, whenever it becomes clear you’re being fucking owned.

        Like

  19. It’s time to do the sensible, rational, intelligent, and logical thing: Simply bank ALL murder machines (aka firearms/guns). The only exceptions should be for police. Most importantly, it’s time to repeal the terrible Second Amendment which is an anachronistic vestige of the past and has no place in a (supposedly) civilized society. With as many people who die each year as a result of murder machines, there is simply no rational reason for them to remain legal. We have such a sick and deranged disregard for human life in this country it’s pathetic. Funny how the delusional religious wackos argue that abortion is “murder”, but these are often the very same people who have no problem at all with the tens of thousands of innocent people who die each year from murder machines. What utter hypocrisy (not unusual for reich-wingers at all though).

    No sane, rational, normal human being should have any interest in murder machines. Anyone who does should be under the care of a psychiatrist. The U.S. should follow the lead of Australia, Scotland, and Japan, where death by murder machine and especially mass slaughter is unheard of. Yet in the insane U.S., the population of ammosexuals, the pro-murder and contemptible NRA, and murder machine manufacturers all keep them legal. And there simply is no reason at all to them legal. None. It’s time to confiscate all murder machines, repeal the horrific Second Amendment, and follow the lead of the sane, civilized, advanced countries of the world and not remain the sole insane outlier with free availability of guns.

    And anyone delusional enough to believe that keeping murder machines around the house will protect you from a potentially tyrannical government has never heard of drones, B-52s, A-10 warthogs, B-2s, the nuclear triad, etc., etc., etc. (even the genuinely fascist, kakistocratic, pro-Russian/anti-American, phenomenally corrupt, immoral, despotic, autocratic, kratocratic, particratic, khrematisamenocratic, and kleptocratic reich-wing government of Orange Caligula).

    So forget about your murder machines and your violent fantasies of slaughtering other human beings. Do something constructive with your time instead, like going back to school and finishing junior high school. Or, if you were somehow able to make it through it, perhaps even high school already, then try to go to college. Or volunteer helping others. Just do something positive with your time and more constructive than fantasizing about and actually killing others.

    Der Orangefarbene Fotzegrabber says he wants to make America great again. One definite way to do this would be to repeal the Second Amendment and adopt murder machine restrictions such as those in Australia, Scotland, and Japan.

    Like

    1. unrealistic comparisons…25 million mostly Australians, 5-6 million in Scotland and 127 million in Japan; mostly japanese. First, a smaller population with mostly the same ethnic group. Mostly the same religion. Immigration laws that keep out 20 million illegals and does not let in muslim terrorists. They do not provide government benefits designed for the law-abiding citizens, to be given to criminals and non-citizens who defy the government authority. Their judicial systems do not reward the criminals with benefits a working man can’t afford. Send our 20 million illegals and criminals to those countries and see how they do.

      Like

      1. If we pass gun regulation and you break it, you’re not law abiding. You put 3 trillion on my kids credit card and then cry about basically nothing going the undocumented. I wish we could toss you and your family in the street to pay it back. Damn freeloader.

        Like

      2. What exactly is the crime I committed? Which law did I break? Your lashing out is indication of how hateful anti-gun people are. Throw my crippled wife into the street? Thanks most unmerciful member of the hate groups….freeloader? I paid my taxes and served in the military fighting a war so you could protest

        Like

      3. Victim. What war did you fight that was defending the constitution? Nothing against joining the military, but grandizing it as defense of our freedom, no. Or are you much older and you were drafted to serve fighting Japan or the Nazis? Your wife is “crippled” so she isn’t responsible for her actions? If those illegal are crippled, then services are ok? Some of those kids you dumped those trillions on, are crippled. What is pathetic you claim to pay your taxes while ignoring the trillions your tax cuts dumped on our children.

        Like

      4. whatever your anger is fired up at me for is not going to resolve your problems. if there is something specific, be direct at asking. your reply sound as if you took something out of context of what was said, then pegged me with your keen ability to judge someone’s heart and judged, condemned and now wanting to execute me for what exactly? i hope you don’t have guns

        Like

      5. I possibly could be talking over your head, I’m not your mom, if you don’t understand something ask because I was very clear. Now if you just don’t have an argument and you recognize the fallacy of your culture and you’re just trying to hide it, well I’m not gonna waste my time. You’ve already shown to talk out of many sides of your face, what would be the point?
        As for the anger you keep using as an excuse… I troll hypocrites for sport, not out of anger.
        Now, if you want to defend your original comment that I tore apart, get back to it your distractions are boring.

        Like

      6. BTW, I’m not anti gun, I’m pro gun and pro gun regulation. Just like I’m pro car and pro speed limits. So on top of freeloader, we can add fake Christian to your description. …You know that “Thou shalt not bear false witness” thing you frauds think are optional.

        Like

      7. your trolling is a waste of your life…you are attacking the employee and not the president of the company…your method is typical of liberal attacks…accusing of personal character rather than the problems…you have accused me of lying…what is your evidence judge… fake? is a willful decision and you are certain of your charge? What label would I put on you by your charges and accusations? Certainly not anything noble. why are you writing me anyway? write the author of the article. that is what the issues were about. again, I hope you don’t have a gun…do I need to lock my doors?

        Like

      8. Oh geez, all you do is distract. You claim money is going to illegals while 3 trillion is charged to our children and I’m supposed to write the author about your comment? Again your culture is to take no responsibility for your own actions. As for locking your doors, whatever stops you from being scared snowflake you’re welcome to do, I follow the Golden rule and our laws.
        And yes you lied, I’m not anti-gun, you lied and said I was. Of course it’s just a political game that dishonest people use, you claim people or anti-gun so you don’t have to debate the real issue.

        Like

    2. The FBI (not the NRA) estimates that guns are used defensively up to 2 million times – they are not sure of the actual numbers because most often, the mere sight of a weapon acts as a deterrant. I will not trust my life to the police (See Castle Rock v Gonzalez – where the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals), who usually show up to bag & tag after the crime is committed. I’m not worried about standing up to the armed forces – I’m worried that some crackhead is going to try to pull a home invasion (of which there have been 57 over the past 2 years in the county where I live.) A gun is a tool that can be used for good or evil. There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners who didn’t harm anyone yesterday. And just for the record, I did finish junior high school and actually went on to complete my doctorate. You clearly don’t like guns – so don’t go near them. But don’t expect me to help you if we’re in a convenience store and an armed thug threatens to shoot the patrons.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have no problems with guns for protection, just not claims not backed up. Where is this data for how many times a gun is used for defense? I’m curious as to how they collected it and what is considered active “defense” Where is you comparable data for the higher risk to children with guns in their home?

        Like

  20. I recall when Dale Carnagie wrote a book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. He said, we were never to tell someone they were wrong. So, we went about telling everyone they were wrong and made sure they all knew it. This gun debate is pretty much the same thing. Evidence doesn’t seem to matter. Individual responsibility is barely in the conversation at all. I wouldn’t mind a GE mini gun but who wants to link together 3000 rounds for a one minute, $1000. blast? America is infatuated with toys and enjoyment and feelings. Society was a safer place when a criminal violated innocent lives and within a short period of time, they were executed or put away to never be seen again. Now, we broadcast their names across the media, sympathizing because of their drug addiction or impoverished upbringing. We give them a lawyer on retainer, a psychiatrist on retainer, free medical care, all expenses paid for creature comforts, a gym, TV, internet service, college education and a movie made about them. If they get life, they are out in 7 years. If they get the death penalty, they are alive another 18-20 years getting all the benefits mentioned and probably writing a book. Illegals breaking into our country can commit more crimes and get better care than they had in Mexico when they worked. I’ve had 200+ guns and shot well over 200,000 rounds of ammo. My kids and I would go out for the afternoon and shoot 5000 rounds from a dozen different guns. Each of my kids shot 25K rounds before they were 12. They also shot 7-8 different sub guns. The difference between them and school killers is, they were taught respect for authority. They were taught that the gun was not a tool to use to solve problems of life. At six, my boys would instinctively pount a muzzle to the ground and check the chamber, clearing the weapon if they had to.
    The gun is a tool…my boys also had carving blades, chisels, knives, each having a scroll saw, using drills and hammers and axes AT 6 years old. When they took up snowboarding, they repaired their own boards. My boys taught their wives to use a sewing machine. They fix their own cars and motorcycles. Do their own remodeling of homes. Fix the fence or fix the lawnmower.
    The intrigue and mystique of guns was gone before they finished middle school. Why? because they knew if they touched it, they cleaned it. When they shot it, they had fun. But, after 30k or 40K rounds, it is just too expensive and too time consuming to do all the time.
    We homeschooled all the way through…graduating at 16, finishing college by the time they were 20, owning several homes each, having skilled professions that earn far more in one year than I made most of my life. They were taught “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and deal with their problems without even considering picking up a gun to do it.
    The guns aren’t the problem. Millions throughout the world have lost their lives to numerous other things. None of which have the anti- groups to call for bans. The South African wars lost 250,000 lives by spears, machettes and neck laces. They didn’t have guns. In recent history, a guy killed 11 people with a sword. Barely hit the press. Glamorizing the bad and the ugly is popular in video games and movies. The good are characterized by murdering thieves and evil criminals who happen to kill bad politicians or some other bad guy who is considered far worse. The anti-gun groups think of themselves as noble, caring and humane people who want everyone to be safe. Yet, they are launching out to attack; to destroy, confiscate, put out of business, kill or imprison the law abiding gun owners who have had nothing to do with murdering school children killers. The killers violate innocent life by murdering with a gun. The anti-gun groups violate innocent life, organizations or businesses, by slandering their reputations, maligning their integrity, associating them with criminals and even accusing them of being terrorists. The NRA never teaches kids to shoot people to solve their problems. The law-abiding gun owners who like to shoot, hunt or defend themselves are not promoting terrorism or committing murder as the anti-gun groups imply.
    No, we could not have a face to face show down with armed soldiers with grenades and rocket launchers. The underground in Germany had some pretty ingenuitive weapons that were single shot or the home made blasting cap booby traps level. They couldn’t have faced off with the enemy, either. But, they showed their upright hearts and minds by standing their ground against the tyranny rather than surrendering through appeasement. Those who want to hand over their individual self-managment, independence and their identity to become controlled by a government that has demonstrated corruption, deceit and mismanagment of everything they touch, are extremely deceived to think they’ll be better off. Why not take responsibility for individual behavior and punish those who choose the life of the criminal who violates innocent life? I mean, punishment that is a deterent? A person which a gun doesn’t have to pick it up and point it at somebody. There is no supernatural influence coming off the gun. Law abiding gun owners don’t even think of using a gun to solve their problems or eliminate people who offended them. Liberals and anti-gun protesters can just say, no, I won’t pick up that gun and use it to hurt someone. No, I won’t blame innocent people for a crime somebody else did. No, I won’t deprive the hurting survivors of the grief period where they should be going through it so they heal; instead of being swept into the front lines to fight somebody else’s battles. Why can’t people be taught, “there is a law against that, so, you just don’t do it” ? It’s called, respecting authority and respecting life and property.

    Like

  21. It’s a woman, so her opinion about guns doesn’t count. Women are basically scared **itless of guns, don’t like to be around them or the people using them. Just because she was in the army doesn’t mean a thing; What was her job in the army?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s