NRA -are they Serious?!?

[Beavah 205]

Gun control advocates have a proven history of mission creep

 

Yah, that's sorta true. Of course, over the last 15 years or so we gun rights advocates have also had our mission creep, eh? Repeal da assault weapons ban. Allow firearms in da National Parks. Overturn handgun laws in big cities with handgun crime problems. State by state we've seen expansions of what is allowable - carrying in saloons where it was never allowed before, increased gun show sales to avoid background checks, expansion of "shall issue" laws for CCW. Now folks introducing bills to eliminate gun-free zones and encouragin' da second grade teacher to go loaded to the fingerpainting activity. Plus calls along the way for arming packsaddle's (frequently sleep-deprived and intoxicated) college students.

 

That's a lot of mission creep on our side, eh? At least as viewed from da other side.

 

So I think as gun owners we should lead da conversation about what we feel is responsible for gun owners, rather than wait for enraged fellow citizens to try to legislate and us just saying "no!".

 

I think additional restrictions on high-capacity magazines, some sorts of weapons, some specialty ammo and such are just fine, along the lines you suggest. Perhaps not an all-out "ban" but mandated insurance and higher levels of screening.

 

Laws about securin' firearms against theft or unauthorized use by others seem reasonable. Yeh can unlock your gun when yeh get home to defend against da rabid wolves, but when yeh go out to dinner and a movie yeh lock it up instead of leaving it out.

 

Closin' the gun show and private sale background check loophole seems reasonable now that electronic systems make it fairly easy to do, eh? Da exception was written back before cell phone data and such.

 

Strengthening firearm education and proficiency should be somethin' we and the NRA are at da forefront of, eh? I've got no problem with mandatory training and recurrent demonstrated proficiency, for example. Hunter education courses have been proven quite effective, so clearly appropriate education and training works. Da expectations for proficiency and training should match the intended use and nature of the tool. If yeh want to carry a concealed semi-auto in crowded places for protection then yeh should be able to demonstrate a semi-professional level of skill and judgment in handlin' your firearm in scenarios in such places.

 

I'd be in favor of a no-alcohol, no-judgment-altering drugs rule. If yeh have a loaded gun in your possession and any booze in your system, it gets treated seriously. Jail time and loss of your firearms on da first offense.

 

Movin' firearm ownership into a strict liability framework might also be called for, eh? Each of us should have enough personal responsibility to accept strict liability for da consequences of our ownership and handling of our firearms. If that means we have to purchase insurance to guard against catastrophe, so be it. No different than purchasing homeowner's insurance to guard against fire. We intend to be responsible about wiring our house or havin' a fire in da fireplace, but we still pay for da fire department and fire insurance. That shouldn't upset us, it's just bein' responsible.

 

What's more, some of these things in combination can help change da pop culture, which I think we all agree has moved far away from what any of us would consider responsible portrayal of firearm ownership.

 

Da biggest thing still, though, is findin' a reasonable way for docs, school teachers, and others to report on acute or chronic mental conditions which make handlin' a gun imprudent. Maybe somethin' like da reporting regimen we have for child abuse and neglect, eh? Mandatory reporters to a confidential agency which is empowered to halt sales until it does a more thorough background review and interview.

 

None of that seems particularly onerous to da rights of gun owners. Some of it might actually help; da rest would show our fellow citizens that we care more about them and the nation than we do about our hobby. In turn, we'd re-earn da respect and support of most of 'em.

 

Yah, and we should stop our own mission creep. Not everyone should have a gun everywhere, as YouTube demonstrates.

 

Beavah

 

[Brewmeister 132]

I think rather than by starting from the premise of, what legislation can we write that only law abiding people will follow, let's look at the deterrent end.

 

Kohlberg's stages of moral development start with "fear of punishment." So let's start there with, say, nonappealable death penalty for murder or attempted murder. Mandatory life sentences for those who commit assault with a weapon. Don't have to worry about recidivism any more...

 

Now for those who aren't motivated by punishment and don't have the little voices in their heads telling them that lighting up a classroom is bad, let's look at de-mainstreaming, and also admitting finally that psychotropic drugs are a common denominator in a lot of mass killings.

 

Well I by now I have a lot of fingers already typing on the keyboard!

 

Yeah, some of that is going to fly in the face of the current constitution, but one thing this debate has taught us is that certain parts of it are no longer relevant in a modern society and when innocents are at stake, eh?

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

"Yah, Callooh, you said it. Easier for someone to shoot straight with a rifle."

 

Yep, and Beavah you're right that the situation could have been defused even quicker with less danger to all, had one of the restaurant patrons had a weapon.

[Venividi 35]

 

1 Theschool guard is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2He maketh me to lie down under my desk: he escorteth me to the drinking fountain.

3He restoreth my safety: he leadeth me in the paths of armed protection for my safety's sake.

4Yea, though I walk through my school's halls in the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for the armed guard art with me; his bushmaster and his glock they comfort me.

5He preparest a defensive perimeter before me in the presence of mine enemies: he anointest my head with a bullet proof helmet; my cup runneth over.

6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the government provided security guard for ever.

[Beavah 205]

Mandatory life sentences for those who commit assault with a weapon. Don't have to worry about recidivism any more...

 

But do have to worry about costs, eh? So are yeh willing to increase your taxes in order to pay for all that prison time?

 

So let's start there with, say, nonappealable death penalty for murder or attempted murder.

 

Limiting appeals is based on da presumption that da court made no errors in reaching a verdict. As da advent of DNA testing in rape/murder cases has demonstrated, our record at gettin' it right da first time isn't always that great. Always go into writing legislation imagining that da legislation will be applied to yourself. If falsely accused, are yeh willing to bet your life on everyone gettin' it right on the first try? How about when your kid is accused? Willin' to bet his life? How 'bout when da prosecutor plans to run for mayor?

 

Yep, and Beavah you're right that the situation could have been defused even quicker with less danger to all, had one of the restaurant patrons had a weapon.

 

Really?

 

Da two LEOs on the scene opted not to fire until they had run the perpetrator into a contained environment.

 

Are yeh really suggesting that a surprised amateur is goin' to whip out his pistol in a crowded mall restaurant and successfully disable a mobile, active shooter across da room in da midst of a horde of screaming and scurrying civilians?

 

Are yeh completely daft? A responsible citizen carrying is never goin' to take that risk. And someone who actually believes he should be shootin' away should never be allowed to carry.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker 132]

Exactly, Beavah - the thought of people who think they are going to now play the cops & robbers game of their youth with loaded weapons in a crowded public place is a scary thought. People advocating this have watched too much TV or played too many "shoot 'em up" video games themselves.

 

If someone pulls a gun at the Mall and starts shooting, and you pull your gun and shoot back, then expect when the police come, you will be hauled off with the original shooter. That is if either of you live, because your fate may be to be killed by the police if not the shooter, or another "citizen" also trying to play the good guy.

 

Anyway if you live through it, the police will examine the bullets from all the dead & wounded, and if any happen to be bullets from your gun, expect to serve time for the wounded and life for those you murdered.. Don't expect the defense of "I was the good guy, I was trying to shoot at the bad guy, but missed.. Ooops." to help you much.

[JoeBob 606]

Beavah, I can agree with most of your ideas for sensible legislation.

 

"Of course, over the last 15 years or so we gun rights advocates have also had our mission creep, eh? Repeal da assault weapons ban."

That did little to halt crime.

"Overturn handgun laws in big cities with handgun crime problems."

Where the residents needed them the most...

 

"gun show sales to avoid background checks"

I'm with you on background checks at gunshows. Technology should enable this to work.

 

"Now folks introducing bills to eliminate gun-free zones and encouragin' da second grade teacher to go loaded to the fingerpainting activity."

Hyperbolic much?

 

 

"Strengthening firearm education and proficiency should be somethin' we and the NRA are at da forefront of, eh? I've got no problem with mandatory training and recurrent demonstrated proficiency, for example."

Totally with you on this one. Competent gun owners dread hearing stories about bozos brandishing, shooting, or killing an innocent. We know we are under hard scrutiny.

 

 

"I'd be in favor of a no-alcohol, no-judgment-altering drugs rule."

Concealed carry permits should have a clause voiding the license if ANY alcohol registers in the bloodstream. It's okay to carry in a bar. Just not carry and drink.

 

 

"If that means we have to purchase insurance to guard against catastrophe, so be it."

I understand your reasoning on this, but I fear that it would result in cries of "Only rich people are allowed to have guns!" Folks living in poor areas that police avoid have a greater need for self-protection...

 

 

There are many conscientious gun toters who accept additional responsibility for their fellow man's safety. We carry where allowed with the fervent hope that we will NEVER have to pull our weapon. The paperwork, the inconvenience, the legal fees, the guilt of shooting another human are all huge motivators for us to avoid situations where a gun may be needed.

 

That is outweighed, however, by the fear that violence may find us unprepared; and we fail to save a life because we were too embarrassed or too lazy to stay proficient and carry responsibly.

 

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

It's hard to have any serious discussions on gun policy in the US. The absolutists on either side get in the way of reasonable discussion. It doesn't help when people from one side or the other start up with compare and contrast games that are mostly exercises in false equivalency.

 

The San Antonio shooting and the Aurora theater shooting had only one thing in common - and it's actually a peripheral thing in this case - they both ended in movie theaters - that doesn't make them anywhere near equivalent. In Aurora, the shooter planned and prepared and specifically targeted that movie theater during a specific movie being shown. In San Antonio, the shooter didn't plan his actions, started off in a restaurant where at lease one person knew him (and was likely the primary target) and ended up in a movie theater because the theater just happened to be there across the street from the restaurant. It could easily have been a school, or a park, or an ice rink, or a mall, or anything else.

 

It's hard to take serious claims that citizens can save people in these situations when most of the examples that are given of citizens stepping in ignore that the "citizens" were off-duty police officers, or former law enforcement officers. No where in any mentions of these actions is there a discussion of whether a person who pulls his gun and engages in a firefight with a "bad guy" is covered under a State's Good Samaritan laws. There seesm to be an assumption that someone who "stops a shooter" won't be charged if s/he hits and kills a bystander while engaged. There's this thinking that if only a teacher had a gun, the Sandy Hook incident could have been either prevented or lessened - how much different mght the conversation be if there was a teacher who had a gun and s/he accidently killed a few kids while shooting it out with the gunman?

 

Finally, upon seeing this, I had to comment on it:

 

""Overturn handgun laws in big cities with handgun crime problems."

Where the residents needed them the most... "

 

The City of Chicago was in the news most of 2012 because of the number of shooting deaths - a record number it's said. Through all the hand-wringing and gleeful condemnation of the Mayor (and thus the President), very few people paid attention to the folks connecting the dots between the US Supreme Court ruling the city's ban on handguns was unconstitutional and the invrease in the number of handgun crimes in the City. Could it be coincidence? Sure, but if so, it's an awfully big one.

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

Darn absolutists... don't they know that if they think 2+2 is 4 and some other absolutists think 2+2 is 13, that the reasonable answer absolutely must be something in between?

So say absolute moderates.

 

[Stosh 3452]

As a hunter that has never fired more than once at a deer, I'll preface my comments by saying one well aimed round will do more good than 50 wild shots. I have hunted muzzle loaded single-shot for years.

 

There were two basic ammunition issued by the US military in WWII. The standard infantry soldier was issued a M1 Garand that had a 5 shot clip. The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) also used the same ammunition (30-06), but with a 20 round clip offered a semi-automatic/automatic option. Officers were armed with .45 caliber semi-automatic hand gun (8 round magazine) and the 20, later 30, round magazine Thompson sub machine guns. Basically the only difference between the various guns is the magazine sizes. There are times in military strategy that the larger magazines make a difference. The rate of fire between the M1 and BAR is also important, but only 1 BAR per squad was available. The 45 cal. hand gun was pretty much self-defense for the officers and the Thompson sub-mg was offensive.

 

As far as the popular 9mm weapons of today, the WWII German Luger and many of today's popular civilian/law enforcement handguns are 9mm. Of course the Israeli army issued a standard 9mm hand gun for personal protection that shoots the same ammunition with 20-100 round magazines known today as the Uzi hand machine gun. I have fired the Uzi at full-automatic, and I can assure you, that after the first or second round, all the rest are pretty much wild shots that aren't going to do anyone any good anyway.

 

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with limiting magazine sizes but the type of gun should never be restricted. Unless one is interested in simply burning up powder and wasting lead, the small magazine weapons for personal self-defense are just fine. An Uzi with a 100 round magazine isn't going to fit in one's sock drawer very easily anyway. Dialogue on the merits of sensible needs should take precedence over wild rantings anyway.

 

[RememberSchiff 3661]

8 round clip for Garand, 5 round for 03.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>No where in any mentions of these actions is there a discussion of whether a person who pulls his gun and engages in a firefight with a "bad guy" is covered under a State's Good Samaritan laws.

[FScouter 24]

More common is that one absolutist says 2+2=13 and the other absolutist says 2+2=-37. How to get to 2+2=4 when both are out of the ballpark? Of course my point of view 2+2=3.99 is closest to the truth.

[Beavah 205]

As for teachers getting trained, I was reading where Israeli teachers have been trained with firearms for many years to deter terrorist. I dont know the details behind their training and how the schools handles firearms, but I remember the first place the US went to look for ideas in preventing another 911 was Israel. However, my teacher son thinks an armed policeman is all schools really need.

 

Yah, it's important to remember that Israel has mandatory military service for everyone, eh? Service which has a strong component of terrorist prevention training, and where everyone of certain ages is a reservist (required to have a service weapon in their home, I believe, as well as engage in regular reservist drill).

 

At the point when all of our teachers have a mandatory two years of military training for handlin' firearms in crowded, confused situations, with ongoing drill and proficiency checks in a strict and professional chain of command, I've got fewer worries about 'em being armed.

 

Now, da cost of that is goin' to be huge. So, what taxes are yeh going to dramatically increase to pay for it? Da Israeli income tax rates are higher than the U.S., particularly at higher income levels, plus a national 17% VAT and a hefty corporate tax.

 

However, my teacher son thinks an armed policeman is all schools really need.

 

He'd be in da minority, and is probably unionized, eh?

 

Cost estimates for this were in da $10 billion per year range, not includin' the additional insurance costs for da school (insurers generally prefer gun-free schools as being more safe from a liability perspective). Are yeh willing to add a $25 tax per year on every owned firearm in order to pay for it? Or perhaps a tax on ammunition?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagledad 2777]

>>Cost estimates for this were in da $10 billion per year range, not includin' the additional insurance costs for da school (insurers generally prefer gun-free schools as being more safe from a liability perspective). Are yeh willing to add a $25 tax per year on every owned firearm in order to pay for it? Or perhaps a tax on ammunition?

 

Beavah