Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Add the very high number of guns easily had in this country, and of course where there are high crime rates, there are also high incidents of gun violence."
And MOST of those guns were gotten ILLEGALLY, which goes to show all the LAWS IN THE WORLD WILL not STOP GANG BANGERS AND DRUG DEALERS FROM GETTING THEM.
True, but of course the fact is that with so many guns purchased legally, so too is it all that much easier to obtain them illegally, because they're everywhere!
All a bad guy needs to do is go to some other bad guy who has legally purchased lots of guns for no good reason, and we have lots of guns either way, purchased legally and/or illegally. This is why I know the problem of gun violence will never really be ended or mitigated to any satisfactory level in this country already overloaded with guns by just about any comparable measure. "Genie is out of the bottle."
Fact remains, however, we are a country where the rule of law is considered important. We must determine what should be considered legal or not legal and what laws are appropriate accordingly, regardless the many ways criminals can get around these laws, and not just gun laws...
This has been a problem and dilemma for modern society through all of modern times and before!
The "gun free zone" really started with the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) signed into law by President George H.W. Bush that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).
From there the feeling that guns should not be on school campuses spread to other "zones" where the feeling is people are just better off without guns, and/or that anyone feeling they need carry a gun in such a zone should go elsewhere, not necessarily a message to people who have criminal intent but to others who want to brandish a gun for whatever their personal reasons.
"Moronic" for some, even at schools. Not so much for others. A little more complicated than you seem to realize in any case...
It isn't complicated. It is very simple. When you create "gun free zones" you advertise to the criminal, and they insane they have a SOFT TARGET that is defenseless, and can't shoot back. You create more risk for the law abiding, and opportunity for the criminal. It would be like me putting a big sign on my front door of my home, saying doors are unlocked, and we have no means of self defense so come in and murder, rape, pillage, and steal all our stuff. No problem!
True, but of course the fact is that with so many guns purchased legally, so too is it all that much easier to obtain them illegally, because they're everywhere!
All a bad guy needs to do is go to some other bad guy who has legally purchased lots of guns for no good reason, and we have lots of guns either way, purchased legally and/or illegally. This is why I know the problem of gun violence will never really be ended or mitigated to any satisfactory level in this country already overloaded with guns by just about any comparable measure. "Genie is out of the bottle."
Fact remains, however, we are a country where the rule of law is considered important. We must determine what should be considered legal or not legal and what laws are appropriate accordingly, regardless the many ways criminals can get around these laws, and not just gun laws...
This has been a problem and dilemma for modern society through all of modern times and before!
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment did so because they knew the nation would be safer and more free if govt had NO authority to restrict our guns (even including the occasional mental patient with a gun at a meeting or concert etc.), than if it did have such authority.
To no one's surprise, the leftists hate that conclusion, even though the cannot refute it. And they are fighting against it with everything they have.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment did so because they knew the nation would be safer and more free if govt had NO authority to restrict our guns (even including the occasional mental patient with a gun at a meeting or concert etc.), than if it did have such authority.
To no one's surprise, the leftists hate that conclusion, even though the cannot refute it. And they are fighting against it with everything they have.
Constitution says nothing about guns. The word is not in the document.
"Arms" is not the same as guns. And it had clear connotations at that time in history.
I agree with your call for more/better education, but you too might want to think about what that means...
If all of you who obviously take pride in knowing all things about guns were to devote more time toward properly defining what weapons are obviously the target when referring to "assault weapons," that would be more productive than forever trying to point out where people are mistaken about what guns are being referred to.
I heard the Chief of police in Vegas describe the guns used as "fully automatic." What further definition or clarification is needed, I'm sure he is well able to provide anyone who needs it. Alternatives are not necessarily "false words" but simply the sign of people who don't have the knowledge or interest to know all things about all guns. Like we don't all always know all medical terms but understand what we need to know anyway.
Sites like FactCheck.org need not be altogether reliable in order to serve as a source of information. It's the information we can get anywhere that we are free to evaluate as true or false, worthy or not. It's a mistake to dismiss such information because of the source rather than evaluate the information regardless. You believe falsehoods are being reported by FactCheck.org. Fine. What are they?
That's what is important to note if education is the goal...
The LV shooter did not have a full auto. He had a semi-auto equipped with a bump stock. If you watch the video, your trigger finger is over a special trigger guard. As the rifle is pulled forward by the left hand, the trigger is engaged. The recoil moved the rifle back which disengages the trigger. Your left hand pulls forward and the cycle repeats.
How does this pass all of the ATF's crazy rules? There is nothing mechanical helping you. There were similar products that had a spring to move the rifle forward after the recoil. That extra spring was mechanical assistance and therefore against the ATF regulations. The ATF looked at these new bumpfire stocks twice during the last administration and both times they ruled it did not meet their definition of a full auto.
Can the average person shoot as fast as a bumpfire stock? They can get close with a lot of practice. Below is an example of a 1-5 drill. That's a total of 15 shots into 3 targets.
one shot on the left target
two shots on the center target
three shots on the right target
four shots back on the center target
five shots on the left target
"Add the very high number of guns easily had in this country, and of course where there are high crime rates, there are also high incidents of gun violence."
And MOST of those guns were gotten ILLEGALLY, which goes to show all the LAWS IN THE WORLD WILL not STOP GANG BANGERS AND DRUG DEALERS FROM GETTING THEM.
Oh, ok, and why is that. So, a gun is produced in a legal US factory, and then? Do tell.
About the laws not stopping crime, so you would prefer an environment without laws? This problem exists in each and every country, no developed country in the world has a gun violence problem of the same scale as US.
Constitution says nothing about guns. The word is not in the document.
"Arms" is not the same as guns. And it had clear connotations at that time in history.
(sigh) Another gun-rights-hater, trying to pretend he has a relevant point?
Back to the subject:
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
About the laws not stopping crime, so you would prefer an environment without laws?
People from the present day all the way back to America's founding, knew that the country would be safer and more free if government had no power to restrict people's guns at all... even despite the occasional nutcase with a gun in a restaurant or office building. Some of them wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment for that exact reason.
The hysterical leftists hate that idea. The idea of people being free to defend themselves, and even choose the means they use to do it, strikes at the heart of the leftists' agenda to have them completely dependent on government. No matter how inefficient and counterproductive that dependency is.
I agree with your call for more/better education, but you too might want to think about what that means...
If all of you who obviously take pride in knowing all things about guns were to devote more time toward properly defining what weapons are obviously the target when referring to "assault weapons," that would be more productive than forever trying to point out where people are mistaken about what guns are being referred to.
I heard the Chief of police in Vegas describe the guns used as "fully automatic." What further definition or clarification is needed, I'm sure he is well able to provide anyone who needs it. Alternatives are not necessarily "false words" but simply the sign of people who don't have the knowledge or interest to know all things about all guns. Like we don't all always know all medical terms but understand what we need to know anyway.
Sites like FactCheck.org need not be altogether reliable in order to serve as a source of information. It's the information we can get anywhere that we are free to evaluate as true or false, worthy or not. It's a mistake to dismiss such information because of the source rather than evaluate the information regardless. You believe falsehoods are being reported by FactCheck.org. Fine. What are they?
That's what is important to note if education is the goal...
The ATF gives us the definitions not the NRA or anyone else. The ATF defined bump fire stocks as a part.
In the course of a dispute like you describe, threats like you describe can and do happen. Whether that is a fast path to bringing out the guns is determined by how we deal with such problems. I had a similar incident with a neighbor woman, over a dispute about their tree that came down and did damage in our back yard, to our pool, brickwork, our patio -- a real mess.
She accused me of all sorts of nasty things that were absolutely not true, all in an effort to win her case in court. I had to get my FBI friend to write up a counter reference, and he told me that he sees that sort of thing happen all the time. Fortunately all went well for me in court and she was badly embarrassed in more than a few ways, ordered to pay all the damage in full.
No doubt my wife, both sisters, my daughter and just about every woman I know personally is at risk of similar threats like you describe and many others, but none own guns and despite the threats all around us, none feel the need to own a gun as compared to what else they can do to protect themselves from harm.
Also not sure how many times someone has been shot, maybe even a dirt bag like the one you describe who all considered may have deserved some form of punishment, but deserving to get shot and likely killed is usually not the punishment that fits the crime.
Possible the police were right about you over-reacting? Who knows, but just be sure not to over-react when it comes time you think you need to use that gun. Okay?
I'm not in a city/suburban area. I could call 911 if something happened, but the local officer already has the opinion that I'm "over-reacting" to the explicit texted threats of sexual assault. And by the time the police/sheriff/etc. got to my house, they'd be investigating a crime that had already happened, NOT preventing the crime from being committed in the first place. Anyway, their job is NOT to prevent crimes. Their job is to enforce the law and investigate crimes that have already happened.
So... Do I choose to be a sitting duck, hoping that man doesn't follow through on his threats? Or do I arm myself and learn responsible self-defense with a firearm? I chose the latter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
