What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Mass Shootings Thread (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stealthycat said:
its amazing, people flock to the "ban assault weapons !!!" which really means take away the rights of every adult in the United States AND directly affect what, 30 million AR15 owners ......... and ya'll good with that

mention locking up 1,000 or 3,000 high profile, high risk people like Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa ............... and man the same people jump and claim how unfair that would be 
Click to expand...
You are saying:

  • "ban assault weapons" = take away rights, and 
  • "lock up people" = take away rights
So both "take away rights" and therefore we should be more alarmed by taking rights away from many than from few

I think some instead view this as:

  • "ban assault weapons" = take away rights that some view as very small/unimportant/strange/at-odds-with-the-rest-of-the-world rights, and 
  • "lock up people" = take away an extremely large/important right
And therefore they can believe taking away a right they view as large from a few people is much worse than taking away a right they view as small from many people

I think it is very difficult for some people, those who, for example, have lived in a populated city their entire life, have never owned a gun, have never hunted and have never been in an isolated place, to understand the importance some other people attach to gun ownership. As one of those ignorant people, I am trying to get a better understanding from reading some of the posts here.

I can appreciate that some specific items discussed such as banning certain types of guns, etc., would likely not have any material impact on lives saved. What I wonder is, if we could somehow push a magic button and remove gun culture from our country entirely, so that gun ownership, gun usage, glorification of guns in movies and video games, our desire to own guns, our conviction that owning guns is our right and taking them away infringes on our rights, etc. simply didn't exist or was severely reduced to be in line with many other developed countries, would we be better off or not? Would something else just replace gun violence? Would people living in isolated places be less safe, or more? Do people who live in isolated places outside the US now feel unsafe because they don't have guns, the way some in the US say they would feel without guns?

And I know from some other posts you had you might say can we say the same about tobacco or alcohol, but what I think is different there is many other developed countries also have tobacco and alcohol, but they don't have the same gun culture as we do. Why is this so important to America? I understand why it was important to America in the 1800s, but why is it important now? I guess maybe it is so ingrained into US culture that it has become part of what defines America, and therefore maybe cannot ever be different. 

 
timschochet said:
A city council member? OK cool. She seems highly representative. 
Click to expand...
We were talking about a shooting in Denver and the Denver police.  Who do you think decides the funding for City Police Departments?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
No the best I can do for my fellow man is to try.and make these horrible weapons much more difficult for bad guys to obtain. The best way to do that is to make them illegal. I’ll keep trying though my own power is limited. Why not join me? 
Click to expand...
I will not join to take away 30-40 million guns from innocent, law abiding American's who've done nothing wrong to keep one type weapon away from the 20 or 30 people every year who'd use them wrong

I WOULD join you in focusing on stopping those 20 or 30 people

But that's not your interest - you want to focus on law abiding people, not the criminals. I don't understand that, I never will

 
dancer said:
You are saying:

  • "ban assault weapons" = take away rights, and 
  • "lock up people" = take away rights
So both "take away rights" and therefore we should be more alarmed by taking rights away from many than from few

I think some instead view this as:

  • "ban assault weapons" = take away rights that some view as very small/unimportant/strange/at-odds-with-the-rest-of-the-world rights, and 
  • "lock up people" = take away an extremely large/important right
And therefore they can believe taking away a right they view as large from a few people is much worse than taking away a right they view as small from many people

I think it is very difficult for some people, those who, for example, have lived in a populated city their entire life, have never owned a gun, have never hunted and have never been in an isolated place, to understand the importance some other people attach to gun ownership. As one of those ignorant people, I am trying to get a better understanding from reading some of the posts here.

I can appreciate that some specific items discussed such as banning certain types of guns, etc., would likely not have any material impact on lives saved. What I wonder is, if we could somehow push a magic button and remove gun culture from our country entirely, so that gun ownership, gun usage, glorification of guns in movies and video games, our desire to own guns, our conviction that owning guns is our right and taking them away infringes on our rights, etc. simply didn't exist or was severely reduced to be in line with many other developed countries, would we be better off or not? Would something else just replace gun violence? Would people living in isolated places be less safe, or more? Do people who live in isolated places outside the US now feel unsafe because they don't have guns, the way some in the US say they would feel without guns?

And I know from some other posts you had you might say can we say the same about tobacco or alcohol, but what I think is different there is many other developed countries also have tobacco and alcohol, but they don't have the same gun culture as we do. Why is this so important to America? I understand why it was important to America in the 1800s, but why is it important now? I guess maybe it is so ingrained into US culture that it has become part of what defines America, and therefore maybe cannot ever be different. 
Click to expand...
well so, how many American's have guns? 40%? 50% ?

how many are on the FBI watch list? 5,000 ? 10,000 ?

anti-gun people want to impact gun owners because hey, they're not impacted right? that's very easy to do ........ start talking about taking away something that COULD impact them and you're right, they'll fight hard.

I'm a gun owner - I am no more of a threat to you (nor are the other 20 million or 30 million who have AR15's) than a fly on a wall

you are more likely to get killed by a great many OTHER things than someone with a gun

you know what I'd rather see ?

push a button and remove the people who want to kill other people - and in fact, I think we can work towards that goal gun owners and non-gun owners alike and if we could do that .... nobody would have to give up any rights at all would they? people like this  Boulder shooter ........... I'd bet money if the truth came out, everyone would agree the danger to society he posed

and our Govt did nothing

 
timschochet said:
Look I think you get my point. It’s not a popular movement, not among Democrats, not even among most progressives. It’s a extremist idiotic phrase, and it was a political disaster (almost lost Dems the House). At this point it’s pretty much disappeared as an argument except among conservatives who are eager to keep it alive. 
Click to expand...
it has disappeared from the argument because where it was recently tried it was/is an unmitigated disaster.

 
dancer said:
Why is this so important to America? I understand why it was important to America in the 1800s, but why is it important now?
Click to expand...
I hunt. 

I have a variety of guns in different calibers all designed for different purposes. an AR15 platform in a .223 is a fantastic weapon to kill varmints with. They're also solid in self defense. I carry a Ruger LC9 for personal self defense. I have bigger bore handguns that I carry when archery hunting in bear country. I carried in Yellowstone a 45/70 Govt in the rare case a grizzly got out of control.

We have the 2nd Amendment and to me its as important as free speech, practicing of religion and voting. 

I'd rather be in this environment where good people fight back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKbgO9qnLs

than this one, where people want to be victims and expect others to help them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLPeTnnvwc

 
I have read a number of artices and they have not mentioned the race of the shooter?  That usually is in the first couple lines.  What was he?

 
Da Guru said:
I have read a number of artices and they have not mentioned the race of the shooter?  That usually is in the first couple lines.  What was he?
Click to expand...
Depends on when you ask the question.  In the stampede to get the most inflammatory headlines, he is a white male.  Now, he's not.  So his race is not important.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
I have read a number of artices and they have not mentioned the race of the shooter?  That usually is in the first couple lines.  What was he?
Click to expand...
Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa 

muslim  Syrian American immigrant

so whatever "race" you call Syrian's .... that'd be him

 
Stealthycat said:
anti-gun people want to impact gun owners because hey, they're not impacted right?
Click to expand...
To me, it is not "I as a non-gun owner am not impacted" but rather "I as a non-gun owner find it very hard to understand the impact on gun owners". I think there are big cultural differences that make it difficult to communicate and understand each other and figure out everything

Stealthycat said:
you know what I'd rather see ?

push a button and remove the people who want to kill other people
Click to expand...
I think even better than "remove the people who want to kill other people" would be "prevent people from ever wanting to kill other people in the first place" - is there anything we can do to get there?

 
unckeyherb said:
I'm aware.  My point was the focus on his race trickled out of the headline the moment that fact was made known.  Now he's "a gunman".  Why is his race in the lead-in to the story when he's white and not now?  
Click to expand...
I guess that it was I will never understand about our media.   If a black shoots a black, a  white shoots white, black shoots white they never mention race.   When a white person shoots anyone other than a white it is a major part of the story.  It is like they try to incite people.

 
timschochet said:
Look I think you get my point. It’s not a popular movement, not among Democrats, not even among most progressives. It’s a extremist idiotic phrase, and it was a political disaster (almost lost Dems the House). At this point it’s pretty much disappeared as an argument except among conservatives who are eager to keep it alive. 
Click to expand...
What happened in los angeles?

 
Stealthycat said:
I hunt. 

I have a variety of guns in different calibers all designed for different purposes. an AR15 platform in a .223 is a fantastic weapon to kill varmints with. They're also solid in self defense. I carry a Ruger LC9 for personal self defense. I have bigger bore handguns that I carry when archery hunting in bear country. I carried in Yellowstone a 45/70 Govt in the rare case a grizzly got out of control.

We have the 2nd Amendment and to me its as important as free speech, practicing of religion and voting. 

I'd rather be in this environment where good people fight back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKbgO9qnLs

than this one, where people want to be victims and expect others to help them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLPeTnnvwc
Click to expand...


TL:DR

I was big into hunting when I lived in Wyoming and Montana. I would fish/bird hunt 40 days a year where I would mostly fish but if i saw a duck, goose, pheasant, etc I would pop it.

I did spend enough days dedicated to bird hunting that I trained my own bird dog, a brittany.

I also hunted elk, deer(both whitetails and mulies), and antelope. I would get a deer every year, but the other big game were more sporadic over the years. I helped my friends hunt black bear and moose, but i had no desire to hunt those myself. I used a variety of calibers over the years, everything from an old 30/30 lever action to modern rounds such as the .270 short mag.

I also fished in grizz country quite a bit, both on the north side of yellowstone and on the more dangerous east side of yellowstone. There we would all carry bear spray, but there were always a minimum of two people carrying a high powered handgun. I personally carried a .44 mag.

I will be going hog hunting this year in Texas and probably some waterfowl hunting as well. Although, I have not hunted that much since moving to Texas because it sucks compared to Wyoming/Montana.

/TL:DR

I hunted alot.

I do not see the need for semi-auto rifles. They are not needed for hunting. If you cannot take the animal down in 1 shot then do not take the shot. The problem is that semi auto rifles let people that are bad shots take many quick shots at an animal and then they are more likely to hit the animal in the hind quarters, etc which lets the animal get away only to die days later.

My dad was pretty strict about that when I was first learning to hunt. I would support a of ban semi-auto rifles from big game hunting to prevent animal suffering.

Semi-auto shotguns on the other hand do have a use in waterfowl hunting. There are days where you might only get 1-2 flocks of birds come in over your spread and a good shot should be able to get a double with a semi-auto shotgun.

 
Flash said:
As expected the "more gun control" nuts flock to push their agenda again, Biden included. This was a hate crime pure and simple. If this was a black shooting all whites, hate crime.... If this was whites shooting Muslims, hate crime.... etc. But's it's a Muslim shooting whites so it "needs to be investigated", and gun control need to be tightened.

Shocking, said no one ever
Click to expand...
No matter the color...guns would be debated and should be.  So should mental health and even hate crimes.  zero reason it cant all be discussed.

 
Stealthycat said:
well so, how many American's have guns? 40%? 50% ?

how many are on the FBI watch list? 5,000 ? 10,000 ?

anti-gun people want to impact gun owners because hey, they're not impacted right? that's very easy to do ........ start talking about taking away something that COULD impact them and you're right, they'll fight hard.

I'm a gun owner - I am no more of a threat to you (nor are the other 20 million or 30 million who have AR15's) than a fly on a wall

you are more likely to get killed by a great many OTHER things than someone with a gun

you know what I'd rather see ?

push a button and remove the people who want to kill other people - and in fact, I think we can work towards that goal gun owners and non-gun owners alike and if we could do that .... nobody would have to give up any rights at all would they? people like this  Boulder shooter ........... I'd bet money if the truth came out, everyone would agree the danger to society he posed

and our Govt did nothing
Click to expand...
when people hope to depend on our government for anything keep in mind that can't even stop robo calls.

 
dancer said:
You are saying:

  • "ban assault weapons" = take away rights, and 
  • "lock up people" = take away rights
So both "take away rights" and therefore we should be more alarmed by taking rights away from many than from few

I think some instead view this as:

  • "ban assault weapons" = take away rights that some view as very small/unimportant/strange/at-odds-with-the-rest-of-the-world rights, and 
  • "lock up people" = take away an extremely large/important right
And therefore they can believe taking away a right they view as large from a few people is much worse than taking away a right they view as small from many people
Click to expand...
The whole ""ban assault weapons" = take away rights" is just drivel anyway .  We have had a law on the books,  The National Firearms Act,  for the better part of 100 years which effectively bans a whole class of firearms from private ownership  - absent a federal license and mounds of paperwork and taxation - based solely on the capabilities of the platform.  You rarely hear a peep about it.  That the government has the power to do this has been long settled.  The previous assault weapons ban was never even challenged on a 2nd amendment basis during its entire 10 year existence, though it was challenged, unsuccessfully, on multiple other constitutional points. 

As much as some people would like to pretend that this would be some egregious rights violation, it's actually just marginally moving a line that has existed for decades and hasn't even been really challenged in the last 50 years or so.  And it's moving the line back to a place it was before, where it also withstood legal challenge. There is a right to keep and bear "arms" but that doesn't mean any "arms" you might desire, no matter how much it hurts your cosplay.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
how many are on the FBI watch list? 5,000 ? 10,000 ?
Click to expand...
No idea.  Are you sure that you are not on a list somewhere?  Or more importantly that I am not on such a list?  I'm not [sure].  Before you ask "why should you be on such a list?" keep in mind that I am not saying you should.   Nor am I saying because of such and such criteria you (or I) would be a candidate.  I am just asking how can one be certain that they are not on "a" list with the FBI?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
No idea.  Are you sure that you are not on a list somewhere?  Or more importantly that I am not on such a list?  I'm not [sure].  Before you ask "why should you be on such a list?" keep in mind that I am not saying you should.   Nor am I saying because of such and such criteria you (or I) would be a candidate.  I am just asking how can one be certain that they are not on "a" list with the FBI?  
Click to expand...
I was on a list, but many years ago & it involved a big time bookie.  Got interviewed for a few hours.  Nothing happened to me but bookie got a few years in the slammer.

good times.

 
I was trying to remember more about the discussions about mental health and why nobody talks about it in these threads.  From what I remember all the back and forth ending up with in the gun thread, I think a brief summary would be something like:

  • when talking about mass shootings, a large number of the shootings come from gang violence/drug violence.
  • when talking about the ones we typically think of (school/mall/etc) many times the shooter did not have a diagnosis of a mental illness
  • when there was a mental illness, it was a wide range from PTSD, ADHD, depression, bipolar, anxiety, etc.  
  • statistically the huge majority of people with mental illness are not violent towards others - they tend to self harm. 


NOW - like I posted earlier, I think in general for the US we need to focus way more energy on mental health and make as easy and cost effective as going to the GP.  I think there should be focus on military vets.   However, I after talking through it all and because of the above I became less convinced that this focus would help put a dent into the problem we are talking about.  

 
unckeyherb said:
There it is.  Cool.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear I'm not saying we should take peoples' guns.  That comment was more tongue in cheek than anything.  I do, however, see them as a major problem.... handguns in particular.  I've talked at length on these forums about this topic, but I think we need much heavier regulations on gun owners.

 
KarmaPolice said:
I was trying to remember more about the discussions about mental health and why nobody talks about it in these threads.  From what I remember all the back and forth ending up with in the gun thread, I think a brief summary would be something like:

  • when talking about mass shootings, a large number of the shootings come from gang violence/drug violence.
  • when talking about the ones we typically think of (school/mall/etc) many times the shooter did not have a diagnosis of a mental illness
  • when there was a mental illness, it was a wide range from PTSD, ADHD, depression, bipolar, anxiety, etc.  
  • statistically the huge majority of people with mental illness are not violent towards others - they tend to self harm. 


NOW - like I posted earlier, I think in general for the US we need to focus way more energy on mental health and make as easy and cost effective as going to the GP.  I think there should be focus on military vets.   However, I after talking through it all and because of the above I became less convinced that this focus would help put a dent into the problem we are talking about.  
Click to expand...
I wonder how many with a possible mental illness actually gets checked out?  I think the stigma for people out of school is much greater, so they don't.  It's been this country's dirty little secret for too long.  

 
FairWarning said:
I wonder how many with a possible mental illness actually gets checked out?  I think the stigma for people out of school is much greater, so they don't.  It's been this country's dirty little secret for too long.  
Click to expand...
For sure we need help on the front side like that, and I think that might take care of a little of it naturally, but like I posted - statistically they are prone to self harm.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
For sure we need help on the front side like that, and I think that might take care of a little of it naturally, but like I posted - statistically they are prone to self harm.  
Click to expand...
They are, but also look at it from the gun owner's side - when they harm others instead, the results are bad.  You could have 99% responsible owners, its that 1%...

 
FairWarning said:
They are, but also look at it from the gun owner's side - when they harm others instead, the results are bad.  You could have 99% responsible owners, its that 1%...
Click to expand...
I get that, but like I stated above, we can't just say "mental illness".  That's a catch all for a ton of things the shooters displayed (again, that is the small fraction of the mass shootings too).     Unless memory serves, the deadliest shooting (Vegas) also didn't have a diagnosis either.   

So if we are saying we want to stop or limit "mass shootings", IMO we need to look elsewhere for a viable solution than mental health.  I get why gun owners would want to steer the direction that way though.  

 
Dickies said:
Just to be clear I'm not saying we should take peoples' guns.  That comment was more tongue in cheek than anything.  I do, however, see them as a major problem.... handguns in particular.  I've talked at length on these forums about this topic, but I think we need much heavier regulations on gun owners.
Click to expand...


As someone Pro 2A, and a gun owner, I'd be more than happy to make a trade.

The Second Amendment allows gun ownership, but does not specify which types of guns. Handguns (pistols and revolvers) have limited utility in combat. That's not to say they have no role. And certainly they have many uses for law enforcement  and some specific security services.

My proposal to shift gun control in a practical manner is to make a full trade

Make handguns illegal for the average citizen. Exemptions would be law enforcement and military obviously. Then for retired military and law enforcement with a minimum of 20 years of full time service. Then some protected professions like armored car drivers, some private security, etc.

Main Battle Rifles, from any established nation state with a significant stand military, would be allowed. Meaning full length, full stock weapons like the M16A2, M16A4, HK G3, FN FAL or AK47. No more sliding/adjustable stocks and no bullpups ( No Steyr Augs and no FAMAS). Nothing that can easily be used to clear the interior of a building. Nothing short barreled. No underside grenade launchers. MBRs, otherwise, will NOT be adjusted for civilian use. If the military has a burst setting, then it stays. If there's a full auto feature, then it stays. If it can accept a bayonet, then it stays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgn5kbkSTbg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c0tiiBY494

You can see in these videos that full sized MBRs are not easy to hide/conceal/carry.

All handgun owners who are registered and in good standing receive an annual discount on their property taxes. Forever. You turn in your Glock, you get up to X amount discounted on your property taxes as long as you live. You also receive a rated exchange value in surplus M16A2s. Lots of those still around not in active use. You give up your Glock 26, the US government gives you two M16A2s they have sitting around in a warehouse doing nothing for anyone. All collected pistols will be kept and repurposed for law enforcement/military uses.

I know some Pro 2A people won't like what I'm suggesting, but it's clear the anti-gun crowd is going after all guns. My take is trade them those that have the least utility for what the actual Second Amendment was designed for and and keep what has functional use for that role. No more extra arguments about magazine size or arbitrary distinctions on what's allowed or not.

You lose your Glock, but you save 500 a year on property taxes. You lost something, you got something.

Every firearm owner has to qualify each year on their weapons for safety. Expanded class requirement for first time gun owners. Anyone violating the new pistol law will be stripped of US citizenship and deported. Want to be some wannabe gangbanger drug dealer and carry a handgun in your waistband? OK. You lose citizenship. Goodbye and pack your trash. We can drop them off to nations where we deliver food aid around the world. A few viral videos of wannabe tough guys getting stabbed to death in some alleyway will start to change some people's minds about using guns as fashion accessories. If a firearm registered to you is taken and used in a crime, you lose your citizenship and are deported. You are responsible for your guns. If your kid takes your rifle and shoots up a school, off you go. Enjoy being thrown out of the country and stabbed to death in some Third World #### hole.  The new law will be all gun owners will be required to own a gun safe.

I also believe a requirement for annual gun ownership license renewal should be public service. X number of hours a year, you volunteer. Tutor kids in math. Work in a soup kitchen. Spend time helping a food bank. Do something for a library program for kids. I want gun owners out there being a positive part of  the community. It humanizes gun owners to the general public and community service is a positive thing for everyone.

This is my solution.

 
jon_mx said:
I have seen zero discussion on hate crimes on the latest shooting.  When an Arab shoot shoots a bunch of white people shouldn't we be discussing hate crimes?  
Click to expand...
Theyve zeroed in on mental illness (which I agree with) now the shooter isnt white and all the victims are.  You wont hear that about the Atlanta shooter although I bet they are pretty equal in that regard.  Still all about race. 

 
Dickies said:
Just to be clear I'm not saying we should take peoples' guns.  That comment was more tongue in cheek than anything.  I do, however, see them as a major problem.... handguns in particular.  I've talked at length on these forums about this topic, but I think we need much heavier regulations on gun owners.
Click to expand...
You literally and specifically said, “take their guns”.  My tongue in cheek monitor maybe down, but I guess you were doing that.  It didn’t come off as that at all.  So getting back to this, and based on your comment above  do you agree that a ban on ar15 rifles-guns that are connected to something like >5% of all gun deaths in America is a fools errand?  

 
unckeyherb said:
You literally and specifically said, “take their guns”.  My tongue in cheek monitor maybe down, but I guess you were doing that.  It didn’t come off as that at all.  So getting back to this, and based on your comment above  do you agree that a ban on ar15 rifles-guns that are connected to something like >5% of all gun deaths in America is a fools errand?  
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to a ban on AR-15s, but I think any ban on guns is going to be wildly ineffective.  Would prefer heavy regulations.

 
One thing that’s clear is that the people advocating a focus on mental health as the solution have no clue about it. A lot more people are on psychiatric drugs than you’d ever suspect. And probably the biggest thing that will happen is cause a lot of people to NOT seek the help they need. If you believe that a visit to the doctor will cause you to lose your right to own a gun, would you make that appointment? Not imagine you’re a combat veteran. That will make the problem worse.

No doubt there is a need for huge improvement in mental health care but it’s just a small piece of the solution. You’ll never find and prevent everyone, so at least make it more difficult for them to kill so many, so quickly.

 
Biff84 said:
One thing that’s clear is that the people advocating a focus on mental health as the solution have no clue about it. A lot more people are on psychiatric drugs than you’d ever suspect. And probably the biggest thing that will happen is cause a lot of people to NOT seek the help they need. If you believe that a visit to the doctor will cause you to lose your right to own a gun, would you make that appointment? Not imagine you’re a combat veteran. That will make the problem worse.

No doubt there is a need for huge improvement in mental health care but it’s just a small piece of the solution. You’ll never find and prevent everyone, so at least make it more difficult for them to kill so many, so quickly.
Click to expand...
Yes, the bolded would probably be an outcome, or people will seek to acquire and own them illegally.  

Also, people advocation allowing them for protection - that would start excluding a lot of people that might have them because of past attacks or relationships since that can be a cause for the list of mental illnesses that I listed.   Now a woman just getting out of an abusive relationship who might need the help of meds and be diagnosed with a mental illness can't have a gun for protection?  Hmm.  

That would take away the guns from a large number of military vets too.   

 
ekbeats said:
Yeah not at all what I was saying but good try.  I was commenting on how people mistakenly say that mass shootings are common occurrences. The numbers don’t support that notion. It’s a non-data driven emotional reaction, kind of like your posts.
Click to expand...
Data suggests your risk of dying in a violent crime is lower than the risk of being killed by firearms in the home. And tyrannical governments being thwarted by private citizens is quite a bit less likely than lightening striking. But none of those events is common.

You also said living in a rural area was scary. Doesn't seem like a particularly data-driven reason to "need" an AR-15.

 
timschochet said:
No the best I can do for my fellow man is to try.and make these horrible weapons much more difficult for bad guys to obtain. The best way to do that is to make them illegal. I’ll keep trying though my own power is limited. Why not join me? 
Click to expand...
I don't join you because I don't spend my time tilting at windmills.
The weapons that scare you so much are not the problem and passing law after law that ban them will only make you feel better about yourself.

Will you ever realize that you cannot legislate behavior and that laws mean nothing to those who choose to ignore them?

 
-fish- said:
Wrong icon post. 
 

but knock yourself out:

https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download
 

there was a cease and desist from the ATF that was suspended until after the election.  I don’t think there’s been any action since
Click to expand...
Correct. This cease is desist was targeted directly at the honey badger "pistol" by Q (manufacturer). 
 

A little background: 

The ATF had previously approved the brace used on the "pistol". 

Q's Owner Kevin Brittingham is a bit of a cowboy and ****, but he makes good stuff. The ATF singled them out because they felt their marketing positioned the Honey Badger as an SBR (short barreled rifle) because they showed the brace being "shouldered" like a stock frequently. 
 

For some reason the ATF has decided SBR (short barreled rifles - rifles with barrels shorter than 16") are extra dangerous (despite being less deadly and less accurate), and require a federal registration (Form 4 Tax Stamp) and payment of a $200 tax. This also requires you notifying the ATF whenever you plan to leave your state. It's horse ####.

Side note: these same rules apply to a suppressor... which are largely legal and cheap even in gun restrictive nations like the UK, because they help prevent hearing loss and reduce noise pollution at legal outdoor shooting ranges. The fact the ATF requires federal registration, a $200 tax, and nearly a year wait for them to process the paperwork, is completely Asinine. 

Brace exemption is rooted in a means for Americans with disabilities (lacking a second hand, largely vets) being able to shoot rifles.

A stabilizing brace is designed to allow a shooter to fire a rifle one handed by attaching the brace to the forearm and holding the grip with your hand. It's an inaccurate means of shooting, but banning them would be attacked in court as a violation of rights of those with disabilities. 

The issue is the ATF has no authority to create law.. yet they have been doing so for a while now. There has been an increasing number of pro 2A groups developing large legal warchests and have been increasingly successful in striking down ATF's overreach on a state and federal level by taking the fight to the courtrooms. Note that I'm not talking about the NRA.... #### the NRA. 
 

I own several pistol braced AR's or AK's. I like them because they allow me to run a suppressor with the gun still being a manageable length.

I like to run a suppressor so that I'm not adding cumulative, irreversible damage to the hearing of myself and those around me when I go shoot. I also like knowing that IF I'm ever forced to use my rifle in my home in self defense, I'll do less permanent damage to the hearing of myself and my family. 

The point of all this is that these infringements on gun owners are incremental, but ongoing... continuing to erode our 2A rights under false pretenses, pushed by completely ignorant individuals who have little to no understanding of what they're attempting to legislte, and the infringements are often enacted through illegal means.

THAT ongoing action is why the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners like myself are rapidly coming to the stance of not being willing to give another inch. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biff84 said:
One thing that’s clear is that the people advocating a focus on mental health as the solution have no clue about it. A lot more people are on psychiatric drugs than you’d ever suspect. And probably the biggest thing that will happen is cause a lot of people to NOT seek the help they need. If you believe that a visit to the doctor will cause you to lose your right to own a gun, would you make that appointment? Not imagine you’re a combat veteran. That will make the problem worse.

No doubt there is a need for huge improvement in mental health care but it’s just a small piece of the solution. You’ll never find and prevent everyone, so at least make it more difficult for them to kill so many, so quickly.
Click to expand...
My focus on mental health is less about gun control and more about even more people needing to get help than already do.

 
Opie said:
I don't join you because I don't spend my time tilting at windmills.
The weapons that scare you so much are not the problem and passing law after law that ban them will only make you feel better about yourself.

Will you ever realize that you cannot legislate behavior and that laws mean nothing to those who choose to ignore them?
Click to expand...
You must be an anarchist then. I’m not one, so there you go. 

 
Terminalxylem said:
And tyrannical governments being thwarted by private citizens is quite a bit less likely than lightening striking.
Click to expand...
I'm confident quite a bit more children's lives are lost as a result of the 1st amendment than the 2nd, if you're looking for a "data driven approach"... why aren't we attacking the 1st amendment. 

And it seems a bunch of civilians armed mostly with AK's have done a pretty good job of thwarting large militaries in the middle east for decades now. What was the last war we've "won" there, again?  

An armed populace may or nay not be able to thwart a tyrannical government, but they're at least enough of a deterrent to tyranny to want to have in place. Not to mention that there would undoubtedly be a fracture within law enforcement and military with a not insignificant amount of additional man/firepower that would defect to the aid of the armed populace. 

A disarmed populace is a pre-requisite for tyranny... history has shown this time and again. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[icon] said:
Tim, you're better than this. 👎
Click to expand...
He wrote: you can’t legislate behavior and laws mean nothing to those who choose to ignore them. 
 

Only an anarchist can believe this. Otherwise why have any laws at all? Why make rape and murder illegal, for example? Most of us wouldn’t do it anyhow, and for those who would, they’ll just choose to ignore the law. 

 
timschochet said:
He wrote: you can’t legislate behavior and laws mean nothing to those who choose to ignore them. 
 

Only an anarchist can believe this. Otherwise why have any laws at all? Why make rape and murder illegal, for example? Most of us wouldn’t do it anyhow, and for those who would, they’ll just choose to ignore the law. 
Click to expand...
Not taking a side here, but for the sake of argument:

How much of an impact do you think a law banning AR-15 purchases would have on an individual who's decided they aren't afraid of the consequences of the law banning murder? 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Operation Fast & Furious Scandal: Obama Administration's ATF Sent Guns To Drug Cartels (5/27/22 20:22 PST)
Replies
7
Views
531
Max Power
Max Power
GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
2K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
784
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top