NRA -are they Serious?!?

[Twocubdad 665]

Yeah, what Barry said, Beav. On the one hand that's a typical, federal government lots-of-money-and-a-huge-bureaucracy solution. On the other its just a good, old-fashioned red herring.

 

I go back to an article I linked on page two of this thread which was written two years ago. http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/ If you havent read the article, youve missed one of the most rational, tangible solutions out there. Without repeating the whole post, the point of the article is we have ELIMINATED school fire death not one death in the past 50 years by systematically changing the way schools are built and operated. This wasnt done with a new tax and massive federal spending, but by engineering rational fire protection codes and implementing them over the years as schools were routinely upgraded and replaced. The same could be done with to protect school kids from intruders locate and harden ancillary spaces like offices and store rooms to be used as safe rooms, make automatically-closing fire doors secure to limit movement of intruders in schools, reduce glass-walled spaces in favor of more secure space. And so on.

 

Before running off and adding $10 billion a year to the deficit or amending the Constitution, lets look at some numbers. Step back from the immediate horror of Sandy Hook and think about the big picture. If were going to devote billions and billions of dollars to saving lives of school children, is this the most effective use of that money?

 

According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but its the only compiled list I readily found) there have been 99 shooting accounting for 273 deaths at US schools and universities since 1966. That's 4.5 deaths per year. So lets say the Wiki list of off by half and double that number. Still.....

 

Of the 99 shootings, 56 of them involved only one victim and another 21 had two fatalities; in other words, over three-quarters of the incidents. It is unlikely assault weapons and high capacity magazines have much bearing on single or double murders (but you would have to look at each individual situation to really know.) It also suggests armed guards would be rather ineffective. Again, you would have to look at each particular situation, but it seems a reasonable assumption in many cases an officer would get involved only after initial shots are fired.

 

Also note that four incidences Sandy Hook, Columbine, Va. Tech and Univ. of Texas in 1966 account for exactly one third of the 273 fatalities. These mass shootings are rare occurrences.

 

Point #1 spending $10 billion a year on guards to prevent a tragedy which occurs once every 5 or 10 years isnt a wise use of resources. According to the NHTSA an average of 137 kids are killed every year in school bus accidents. How many seat belts can you buy for $10 billion?

 

Ill work both sides of the street here by noting in our school district, like Barry's, EVERY SCHOOL already has a regular, full-time, armed police officer assigned to it as a school resource officer. So net us out of the $10B. It is also worth pointing out that these officers do more than stand guard they teach drug awareness classes, deal with discipline issues, direct traffic and Im sure a number of other duties Im not aware of. So if there is a need for armed officers in schools (and again, the school district decided that here years ago), a little cost accounting shows their time needs to be billed out as more than just guard duty.

 

Bigger picture still:

 

According to the CDC, ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf page 81-82 ), who I hope we can agree is more reliable than Wikipedia, in 2009 there were 31,347 firearm deaths in the US. Of that number 18,735 were suicides -- 59.8%. Compare that to 21 total firearm deaths in 2009 attributed to mass shootings (those with a single gunman and five or more deaths, usually including the shooter). That's 0.00067% of all firearm deaths.

 

Point #2 if youre really interested in doing something about shooting deaths, the most effective changes (its really hard not to use bang for the buck) will be to deal with suicides, not mass shootings.

 

Im just spit-balling here, but Im guessing few suicides are accomplished with a Bushmaster and even fewer folks offing themselves empty a full 30-round clip to do so. The assault weapon/large-capacity magazine argument falls short. Clearly, this falls back to the mental health issue.

 

Your flight medical argument is a compelling one, Beav. Im not a pilot, but my understanding is the stuff which will get you grounded are those conditions which could cause you to pass out/drop dead at the controls heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, etc. So whats a comparable list of mental health conditions? Will telling your doctor youre feeling a little blue get you bounced? Anti-depressants are the third most often prescribed in the US. How many of those folks are a threat?

 

I spent about an hour last night reading articles on gun violence and mental health issues looking for one which provided some concrete criteria for denying access to firearms. I didnt find one. I did learn since 1968 federal law bans gun purchases by folks with adjudicated mental defect although that mean a court finding of mental incompetence and/or institutionalization. Of course we clearly dont do that anymore or at least very rarely. Somewhat disturbingly, I found a good many articles arguing against a correlation between mental illness and gun violence and expressing concern for the stigmatization of folks with mental health issues by the creation a national registry.

 

I certainly did not find what I was looking for a concise list of markers we lay folks can use to differentiate between a run-of-the-mill wing-nut and those with real mental illness. That a fifth of all injury deaths were suicides tells me the professionals arent too good at making that differentiation either. There are a number of states which do require health care providers to report patients and includes those reports on background checks. But its Swiss cheese, and I never read what the reporting threshold is. Even at that, there are the patients rights folks working against it.

 

Until the mental health community gets this figured out I dont know how some guy in a gun shop or Joe Schmo gun owner can be held to enforce this.

 

[Beavah 205]

Tut, tut. Back to da ad hominem stuff again Eagledad? Consider just engagin' in da discussion, rather than petty insults about da person.

 

For the record, I have never, not once, been an advocate of tax and spend on these forums (or anywhere). I've been an advocate of payin' our bills, though. Right now we can't pay our bills, either nationally or in many municipalities and school districts, eh?

 

So when yeh propose a $10 billion plus new federal program, yeh have to propose what new revenue you're goin' to use to pay for it. That's da way citizenship and government work, eh? If yeh feel such action is important, yeh agree to tax yourself to pay for it.

 

Yah, it's true we can learn from other nations, eh? But perhaps we shouldn't start with da one nation that is effectively in a war zone pursuing a policy of occupation and apartheid. Maybe we should consider startin' with the dozens of wealthy first-world nations like ours that do not have anywhere near the problem we do.

 

Beavah

 

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, TwoCubDad, I hear yeh. I said when this got started that da worst mass-killing of school kids was done in the 1920s with farm explosives. On a per-capita basis, da risk is low, which is why neither armed guards nor training teachers to carry are reasonable policies to pursue. Rather than waste money on armed police in the schools, those police should be out on da streets where 98% of the crimes against kids are committed. With yeh there 100%. School boards that waste taxpayer money in that way should be fired. For da same sorts of reasons, fearfully purchasing your own weaponry to defend your family against such a small risk when suicides and accidents with those guns are more likely isn't particularly rational. I agree there, too. I think it should be discouraged, because those folks are unlikely to have da background and discipline to be safe and maintain proficiency.

 

At the same time, deaths of kids are tragic, and our rate of these things vastly exceeds that for any comparable first-world country (almost none of which have armed guards or teachers in their schools). That suggests that we can take significant steps to mitigate that risk using other methods, don't yeh think?

 

This gets back to sailingpj's list, eh? There are different problems. Yeh brought up suicides, so I'll rejigger the list a bit.

 

* Accidental shootings

* Suicides

* Criminal activity / criminal enterprises.

* Opportunity crimes / spontaneous anger / rage.

* Mental health / mass shootings / sprees.

 

Of course they overlap a bit.

 

With da exception of criminal activity / criminal enterprises, all da other categories are primarily committed with legally obtained firearms that are ready-to-hand. Nobody seems to really have a grasp on da provenance of the firearms used in the third group, but it seems reasonable to believe that a fair number come from straw sales usin' the private sale loophole, theft of unsecured weapons and the like. As far as I know, law enforcement ain't seein' that many guns smuggled in, eh? The guns used in crimes are primarily of domestic provenance.

 

So it's not unreasonable to guess that well-implemented access restrictions of some kind could potentially make a significant dent over time that could save tens of thousands of lives. Similarly, it's not unreasonable to believe that a more proactive and better implemented mental health system could also have similar effects, and address other issues not encompassed by these statistics.

 

Da challenge is to craft such approaches in ways which will actually be effective, without causin' too much imposition on hobbyists or others, and in ways that can be paid for privately or publicly. Part of that is resisting lobbyist pressure to create nice-sounding but ineffective regulation, which is an approach da industry has long pursued. Some solutions might be hard, others more expensive than we're willing to pay for, others might be practical and help a bit.

 

We just shouldn't start off with "NO!".

 

I'm nowhere near competent to come up with a mental health protocol with respect to firearms (or airplanes), even if I did read a few journal articles. But I'd like those folks to take a considered look at it. It's certainly not perfect for aviation, but we have far fewer folks kill people because of medical problems in aircraft than do so with cars (on a per-user basis), so that suggests gains are possible. In the mean time, other approaches like higher levels of training/proficiency will likely lead to improvements.

 

JoeBob agreed with many of my off-da-cuff notions (in this thread or da other thread). What do you think of them?

 

Beavah

 

 

[perdidochas 658]

Moose,

 

Your fantasy idea that legitimate CCW permit holders shooting at criminals will get shot and/or charged by the police hasn't been found to be true. It just doesn't happen in real life. In the Clackamak (sp?) mall shooting, a CCW permit holder confronted the attempted mass shooter. That shooter then turned his gun on himself. Most CCW permit holders I know are cautious, serious people. They are not playing "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Native Americans." They are serious people that care a lot about their own personal safety.

 

Beavah,

 

In the 1990s, Germany (which had (and has) extremely restrictive gun control) had a per capita mass murder rate in schools that was higher than ours during that time. IMHO, there is no way to stop crazy shooters from obtaining guns and killing without being much more restrictive than what anybody (outside of Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer) would find reasonable.

[Beavah 205]

IMHO, there is no way to stop crazy shooters from obtaining guns and killing without being much more restrictive than what anybody (outside of Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer) would find reasonable.

 

But would yeh agree that this is a testable hypothesis, perdidocas? Rather than just a matter of opinion?

 

Yeh see, I think what yeh say is true. If some fellow wants to get a gun, he probably can. Just start breaking into houses or stealing lots of women's purses in areas of high gun ownership.

 

I just don't think that's relevant.

 

We can't prevent all of these things from happening, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to try to prevent some of these things from happening, eh? Or from makin' it harder for the perps, or easier for the cops. And I reckon a fairly substantial fraction of that list happen or are made worse by immediate access to firearms. Certainly road rage. Perhaps much suicide (includin' mass shooting/suicide). Attacks on workplaces after a job loss. Those things we might be able to affect.

 

Nope, we can't prevent the fellows who are determined to commit planned armed robbery of da bank from getting firearms, but they're just a fraction of da firearm related deaths and injuries. Maybe we can prevent the mentally unbalanced young man from having ready access to da tools for mass murder of kindergarteners. And if we're lucky, maybe along da way we can make it a little bit harder for the bank robbers too.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter 365]

So Norway has very restrictive gun control and had 77 murdered in 2011. In the 1960's, the Bobbies in London used to go unarmed. Over that time, the control in Great Britain has become more restrictive but now the Bobbies are armed due to the violent crime. Gun control and confiscation do not work. The left will nonetheless strip law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights and end up with a more violent society. Freedom has risks. If we give our rights away, we do not deserve to be free.

[Twocubdad 665]

Under the heading of Your Tax Dollars At Work, here's how the CDC breaks out Firearm deaths:

 

Total 31,347

Unintentional 554

Suicide 18,735

Homocide 11,493

Undetermined 232

Legal intervention/war 0

 

The CDC report lists which "mechanisms and indtents" are included in each category, but, alas, I've loaned out my copy of the "International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Second Edition." If any has a copy, let me know.

 

One interesting statistic is the relatively low number of unintentional firearm deaths. The homocide number is really somewhat of a catch-all for our purposes, since it could include both criminal activity, heat-of-the-moment shootings and mental health-related things. I did read one abstract from 2007 which appeared to be a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal which made the case the instance shootings by real homocidal mental cases is fairly low. Interesting. I didn't bookmark the article and I doubt I could get back to it so I really don't have more detail.

 

From the data, it's hard to draw any conclusions about the number of homocides which could be prevented by requiring gun owners to better secure their weapons. But to the point of my earlier post, that number will certainly be higher than the number of people killed in mass shooting. I don't think there is any question a large number of suicides could be prevented by better securing guns.

 

I'm not sure I found your list of "notions" Beav. If I'm looking at the correct post, your thoughts on insurance and liability seem like the Civil Litigator Full Employment Act of 2013. I'm not sure that helps. For one, only law-abiding folks will pay attention to it. Secondly, I don't see how it prevents shootings. If I'm so enraged that I'm going to shoot you, I'm probably not too worried about my insurance premiums going up. If your intent is to make the cost of gun ownership higher, it may work, but again only if I follow the law and buy the insurance.

 

The focus needs to be on getting folks to better secure their guns, not on collecting restitution after they're used in a suicide or unjustified homocide. The point is often made that almost all guns used illegally were purchased legally a on point.

 

I asked before about the legal liability of an unsecured gun and I still don't understand that. If you leave a gun unsecured and I get shot with it, I don't know why I can't sue you along with the shooter and anyone else in arm's reach. If you're the guy in the chain of liability with the biggest house, I don't know why I can't go after you.

That should include guns which are stolen and later used in the commission of a crime. Our state has a relatively good law which requires folks to secure firearms from access by minors. It does a reasonable job of describing what constitutes "secure" and a variety of exceptions -- for example, a gun being legally carried on your person is considered secured even if someone takes it from you.

 

Even if failure to secure a firearm is a relatively minor offense, I'm going to think twice about leaving a gun laying about if I know I'm on the hook for how it is later used. I also think this can get leveraged into insurance companies denying cover for stolen guns which were unsecured. I know there is such a thing as "vault coverage" for jewelry. Maybe if gun owners are covered against theft only if their guns are really secured that will provide a little economic incentive for more responsible ownership. We need to see a smoking hole in the side of your gun safe.

 

[FScouter 24]

Add one more statistic to the CDC data Twocubdad presented (which was for 2009):

While there were 554 unintentional deaths from firearms, there were 18,610 unintentional non fatal firearm-caused injuries during the same year. Crazy.

[Beavah 205]

I'm not sure I found your list of "notions" Beav. If I'm looking at the correct post, your thoughts on insurance and liability seem like the Civil Litigator Full Employment Act of 2013.

 

Yah, we've got a lot of parallel threads goin' here. I posted that here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=375659&p=14 (top posting)

 

You're referrin' to another thread where I just brought up da notion that made an appearance in The Economist and Forbes, on the merits of requiring private insurance. The Economist article is here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/gun-control-0

 

I agree with yeh that it would have to be accompanied by a doctrine of strict liability for gun ownership. That is to say, if yeh own a gun and that gun is used in a crime for any reason (including theft of an unsecured weapon), you are personally liable. In other words, yeh don't have to establish negligence. Buy a gun, and you're liable for whatever use it's put to, by anybody.

 

I asked before about the legal liability of an unsecured gun and I still don't understand that.

 

I tried to reply to that here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=376164&p=4 (bottom posting)

 

B

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

A lot of poor people are firearm impaired due to poverty. We need a "gunstamps" program to subsidize the purchase of firearms and ammunition and of course for "education" in using firearms!

[WasE61 23]

Yes, the death of a child is tragic under all circumstances.

 

Car accidents deaths forged the laws to require seat belts...then booster seats and infant car seats.

 

Accidental drownings forged the laws to require pool fences around back yard pools in certain locales.

 

So, should mass murders of teens and kids with firearms compel some change in the way we view, access and control firearms.

 

Seems logical.

[perdidochas 658]

I think insurance companies are the reason for the pool fence requirements. They were also behind seat belt laws (they, and car manufacturers who wanted seat belt laws instead of being required to put in airbags).

Semiautomatic rifle toting madmen are a minor part of the murder statistics in the U.S. The big problem is the illegal drug industry and their various distributors and customers who shoot each other up at a high rate. Most of these folks are already not allowed to own guns legally, and nothing will stop them from having guns. Gun control laws only stop law abiding citizens from owning guns.

[Beavah 205]

Nah, perdidochas, that's only one of da big problems, eh? TwoCubDad and sailingpj and a few others have provided nice lists of all of the problems. Surely we can address some of da problems, and reduce deaths by half or so, without havin' to solve every problem at once?

 

One of da things we don't know at the moment is where most of the firearms come from that are used in drug/gang criminal activities, eh? They aren't imports, they're domestic, so how do these folks get 'em? If we had that research, we might well be able to address da issue yeh mention responsibly.

 

Of course, da gun lobbyists got Congress to prohibit that sort of research, eh?

[Eagle732 27]

"It is popular for certain politicians and others of dubious qualification to ask "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?" In response, let's first get down to fundamentals.

 

The USA prides itself on being a "free" country. And individual liberty IS our heritage and is the dominant theme in the writings of the Founders and in the founding documents. It is clear that our ancestors had in mind that Americans would enjoy the freedom that has been so often denied to the people of Europe and elsewhere. Indeed, for most of the Founders, protecting individual freedom was the primary purpose of government. Freedom is our political heritage and our cultural identity. As an American, it is not necessary to justify freedom. Freedom is a laudable end in itself. Freedom is its own justification.

 

It is those who would curtail freedom that must justify their actions. "Why do you need your freedom?" should be an absurd question to any American, to any human being that hasn't had their spirit crushed by oppression. And so the question "why do you need an assault rifle?" is never an appropriate threshold question for this discussion. Although the cause of liberty has suffered much since the US Constitution was ratified, we have not reached the point where the default position for policy discussions is denial of freedom with the enjoyment of freedom to be "granted" by the government only on an "as needed" basis.

 

So, indeed, "why do you need an assault rifle?" is an absurd and subtly tyrannical question. The proper threshold question goes the other way, from the free man to his government: "what is your compelling reason for denying my freedom?" So let's start by addressing the PROPER question. Since we presumably want to address the question rationally, let's skip over the emotional rhetoric and hysterical pronouncements of the mass media and politicians and go right to the actual facts.

 

According to FBI statistics, violent crime, including murder, has been FALLING. In fact, it has been falling steadily for over twenty years. It has fallen by more than fifty percent since it peaked in the early 90s. That is an astonishing reduction. Hmmmmm . . . not really a compelling case for infringing on the freedom of innocent people, is it?

 

But certainly these evil-looking weapons of war are a menace? Well, no. In 2010, for example, there were 12,996 murders in the USA (again citing FBI stats). Of those murders, firearms were used in 8,775. Of those, a whopping 358 of those murders were committed with rifles. And only some unknown fraction of those rifles were of the "evil" military style. And even a smaller fraction of those were aided by large capacity magazines. The plain fact is that military style rifles with high capacity magazines make a negligible contribution to violent crime even though literally millions are in the hands of American civilians. The ONLY reason such rifles are singled out for abuse is because they look menacing and people keep asserting that we must prove why we need one. Clearly, if you want to be rational about it, you need to look elsewhere to place blame for violent crime.

 

So, having utterly failed to provide a compelling reason to deny people their freedom in this way, the argument should be over. However, since the average media dupe is going to insist that "something must be done" even if it is irrational, let's inquire further.

 

The Sandy Hook shooter murdered his mother, stole her lawfully owned gun, and killed a bunch of children with it. Exactly what kind of gun law would have prevented this tragedy? Since he didn't purchase the gun, but stole it, no controls on purchasing, no licensing requirement, no background check, would have stopped him. Even a complete ban on future sales of such weapons would not have stopped the killing since he stole an existing weapon rather than buying a new one. So EVERY law being proposed in the wake of the shooting would have failed to prevent the shooting. This is typical for legislation based entirely on emotion.

 

But suppose you eliminated ALL civilian ownership of such weapons through confiscation? You still would have the possibility of acquisition by theft and diversion from approved holders (such as the police) and, more importantly, through the black market and smuggling. Mexico and other similar countries are awash with firearms in spite of a near total ban on civilian ownership. In the US, a total gun ban can reasonably be anticipated to be no more successful than has been the ban on marijuana, which manages to slip through by the bale on a daily basis in spite of the fact that it can be detected by trained dogs (guns cannot). Additionally, a bale of marijuana goes up in smoke in a matter of weeks and must be replaced. A gun, once smuggled into the country, lasts essentially forever. While it might be theoretically possible to convince the law-abiding to disarm themselves, only a fool thinks criminals will comply.

 

But suppose (against all the evidence) you COULD keep guns entirely out of civilian hands. What would stop your homicidal/suicidal maniac from killing people with explosives like the Bath Michigan school bombing that killed 38 children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster), or with gasoline like the Happy Land arson fire that killed 87 people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire) or with a knife like the recent attack on children in China (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...media-coverage) (or Timothy McVeigh who killed 168 and injured over 800 with his home made truck bomb). Unarmed human beings are relatively fragile and it is not a difficult task to find ways to harm them, especially if you intend to die yourself in the process. It is simply folly to think you can make the world safe from homicidal maniacs by passing a law.

 

Indeed, no gun control law has ever been demonstrated to reduce violent crime. In fact, in the USA, the stricter the gun control, the greater the levels of violent crime. It is virtually a perfect correlation. As rational observers, we cannot assume that correlation equals causation and so we must admit the possibility that those jurisdictions have the most gun control BECAUSE they have the most violent crime and not the other way around. But we CAN conclude that gun control has not been effective at curtailing violent crime where it has been enacted. Not in the USA and not in the much vaunted UK, where gun control has not been followed by a reduction in violent crime, but rather by an increase. Australia and New Zealand have had the same result.

 

Gun control as a tool of crime control does not meet rational scrutiny and has a dismal track record. But since we have come this far, let's go all the way. Why not go ahead with a futile program? It certainly would not be the first. Indeed, government in the USA consists almost entirely of futile, expensive programs that curtail freedom. So why not another one? Why so much adamant resistance?

 

The Founders of this country knew their history. They knew tyranny. They knew that ANY government could become tyrannical. And they desperately wanted the government they were creating to NOT become tyrannical. The Constitution goes to great lengths to try and erect barriers to tyranny by limiting the government to enumerated powers, by spreading its powers around among the people, the states, and various branches of the government, all with powers to check the others. And then on top of that they applied a list of restrictions, in the form of the Bill of Rights, that were based on their experience with the typical operations of tyrants. The Founders knew that government was the ultimate enemy of liberty, that it was, as Washington said, "Like fire, [] a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

 

And so, when we get right down to the nitty gritty, the somewhat embarrassing answer to the question "why do you need an assault rifle?" is: "we don't trust our government not to try and enslave us." And we have plenty of history to back up the fear.

 

In the last century, governments around the world have slaughtered at least 100 million of their own people. This has happened under the auspices of many cultures, many races, many forms of government. Anyone who responds to this with the idea that we are somehow immune to murderous tyranny should now be hearing the scoffing laughter of Santayana in their ears. You ignore history at your peril. Gun owners are not going to ignore history. "Oh, but we have democracy!" Yes, and Hitler was elected. Stalin and Mao probably would have been if they had bothered with elections, but they didn't have to because they had all the guns.

 

The more sophisticated advocate of gun control will not make the foolish assertion that "it can't happen here" but will instead assert that there is nothing the people can do against the might of government anyway should it decide to enslave them. I'm always a little at a loss at this argument since the implication seems to be that since we are no match for the military, we should FURTHER disarm ourselves and not even try to defend freedom should it come under attack. I wish such people happiness in their chains.

 

Aside from being pathetic and cowardly in their willingness to abandon freedom without even raising a fist, they are also wrong on the facts. The Soviet Union, at the height of its powers, was unable to dislodge the Mujahadeen from Afghanistan. Nor could the might of the US army dislodge the Viet Cong. And we calmed the insurgency in Irag only through bribery (and only temporarily in my opinion). The historical fact is that a determined indigenous resistance, especially if well-armed, is ALWAYS a force to be reckoned with. And that is exactly why the Founders specifically denied the Federal government the power to disarm the people - because an armed population is a bulwark against tyranny. And that, sir, is why I need a rifle suitable for combat.

 

The gun control advocates may reject the idea that an armed population acts as a defense against tyranny or scoff that such is needed. That's fine. In a sense it doesn't matter whether they believe it or not. What matters, and it is critical that they understand this, is that millions of gun owners DO believe it. So when government aspires to take their guns, they see it as a direct attack on the most important of all restraints on tyranny. They see it as a direct attack on the most fundamental of ALL freedoms, the freedom that PROTECTS all the rest. To the advocate, gun control seems to merely be restricting a silly hobby. But to millions of gun owners, the very future of freedom, the future of their children, depends on them NOT allowing themselves to be disarmed. They see every attempt at licensing, registration, magazine bans, etc. as government eating away at the keystone of liberty. That civilian disarmament is the act of a tyrant has been demonstrated time and time again with catastrophic results. Whether Mr. Gun Control Advocate believes it or not does not matter in the end because gun owners do and they will not be convinced otherwise.

 

Most scholars agree that one of the reasons the American Civil War happened was because both sides underestimated the will of the other side to fight and die for the cause. Advocates of gun control think that passing a law banning guns will be a victory. They are wrong. It will, instead, be the beginning of a war in which people will fight and die. The gun control advocate's refusal to understand that only makes the tragic outcome more likely. Let's not go there." by Blake Ashley

 

I posted in a thread a few weeks ago that we are too willing to give up our rights. If you've been reading the comments here over the last few weeks you can see how true this is. This is my last comment on the subject.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[Beavah 205]

"It is popular for certain politicians and others of dubious qualification to ask "Why does anyone need dynamite? In response, let's first get down to fundamentals.

 

The USA prides itself on being a "free" country. It is those who would curtail freedom that must justify their actions. "Why do you need your freedom?" So, indeed, "why do you need dynamite?" is an absurd and subtly tyrannical question. The proper threshold question goes the other way, from the free man to his government: "what is your compelling reason for denying my freedom to stockpile dynamite?" So let's start by addressing the PROPER question.

 

Of the 12,996 murders in the USA, almost none of them are committed with explosives. And the numbers of accidental deaths and injuries from explosives are less than those from ladders. Hmmmmm . . . not really a compelling case for infringing on the freedom of innocent people, is it? So, having utterly failed to provide a compelling reason to deny people their freedom in this way, the argument should be over. However, since the average media dupe is going to insist that "something must be done" after a fellow takes his dynamite stockpile and blows up an elementary school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster), here we are.

 

But suppose you regulated purchase and use of such explosives? You still would have the possibility of acquisition by theft and diversion from approved holders (such as mining operations) and, more importantly, through the black market and smuggling. While it might be theoretically possible to convince the law-abiding to disarm themselves, only a fool thinks criminals will comply.

 

Only problem is, we did choose to regulate dynamite and other explosives, eh? Yeh can no longer buy it over the counter the way Andrew Kehoe did. And yeh know what? We havent had other folks blowing up schools with dynamite. Weve had lots of folks try to blow things up with improvised devices, but they mostly fail to do anywhere near as much damage. Yeh see, the vast majority of criminals, and even terrorists, just use da stuff that is easily available and purchasable in ways that can't be tracked. Joe bank robber ain't goin' to be smuggling rocket launchers in from North Korea.

 

Da narrative youre parroting from lobbyists, Eagle732, is a pretty typical bunch of BS. It takes a few elements of truth, mixes em in with a shallow retelling of history that conspicuously avoids da actual writings of the Founding Fathers, blends in some falsehoods from just bad research and tries to whip up an emotional conclusion. Do yeh actually believe that opposition to all gun control is the most fundamental of all freedoms? Hogwash. Democracies are being sustained just fine around the world without our level of gun violence, and dictators are being sustained just fine in countries around the world despite an armed population. As for domestic research, before yeh trust that I reckon we should lift the laws prohibiting collecting data and funding independent researchers.

 

You have been duped by cynical writers from a special interest lobby, who are preying on your sentiments and fears to get yeh to buy a bunch of crap.

 

Over in da other thread, we are discussing the actual proposals being floated, eh? Theres nothing about gun confiscation, nothing about banning all weapons, nothing about substantially curtailing freedom or any of that B.S. NOTHING.

 

Theres talk of background checks, mechanisms for securing firearms so they cant be used by others without the owners authorization, ways of reporting borderline mental health issues to prevent sales, etc. And yah, theres talk of minor controls on large-capacity mags or modern urban assault rifles, which Ill agree is probably da least likely to achieve anything.

 

Thats why as gun owners we must join the conversation as responsible fellow citizens and not as a bunch of blithering idiots spouting lobbyist hogwash. The latter gets us (properly) dismissed as a bunch of nutjobs. But if we join the conversation as fellow citizens who share the concern but who have a higher level of expertise on the safe use of firearms, then we contribute to solutions that actually might help.

 

You know, Citizenship. Da stuff we try to teach the boys. The stuff the Founding Fathers really stood for.

 

This wont be my last post on da subject, because I believe in discussin things with my fellow citizens and workin on solutions, not unloading a rant and retreatin to my bunker. I believer that with rights and freedom come responsibilities and obligations. I expect on reflection, youll come and join me.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)