Ok legit gun control debate

alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior MemberPosts: 8,585 Senior Member
Like it or not events like Vegas always initiate debate. We can bemoan the fact or participate in the debate. Like it or not events like Vegas are going to happen and there's nothing we can do about it. Sometimes they will be carried out by random people who go crazy and sometimes terrorists. The basic pro 2A stance is "that's ok, our 2A rights are far more important than a marginal improvement in safety." In general I agree with this, but it's probably worth recognizing that cost. Liberals will argue that if there was less access to high capacity magazines or in this case murkily legal devices to increase the rate of fire fewer people would have been shot. I have a hard time disagreeing with that statement. It's almost certainly true. The police response time was fairly quick, so fewer rounds down range means fewer casualties.

The question I have is is there any balance to be struck? Should there be? I am honestly not sure. I will say I personally have found the bunpfire stocks, binary triggers etc. to be questionable. Valuable for putting a big grin on someone's face yes, but also an easier way for a terrorist to spray large quantities of bullets into a crowd. There is limited tactical/defense value of FA outside of a warzone and even that is somewhat limited (suppressing fire).

Now this is only one event where it is likely such devices have been used and it would have been a mass casualty event regardless. But given the copycat nature of these things it almost certainly won't be the last. What are people's thoughts? Is there any balance to be struck, or is access to more and more deadly firearms always good and worth whatever harm they may cause in the hands of evil men?
"Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
-DoctorWho
«1345678

Replies

  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    There will be no such thing as common sense gun legislation or common sense debate.

    The reason is that this issue has been politicised with far too much money at stake. The right recieves a flood of money beyond measure from the gun lobby. The left wants that flood eliminated.

    Neither side cares one bit about the masses such as us or them as you may or may not choose to label. Legislatures are composed of people who have never been in a grocery store, punched a time clock, been stuck in traffic or served in the military. The exceptions to this statement are too few to matter. We the people have become pawns for the elite few. Pick your side, they both go to the same place.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,725 Senior Member
    A stack of 10 round magazines would have only marginally slowed the shooter down IMHO. As to the triggers and bump fire stocks, it would not bother me if they were never invented.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,663 Senior Member
    Alpha- you are wrong. There would be no increase in safety from restricting items from the law abiding. If a determined mass killer did not have that, he may have rigged up explosives, used some type of launcher, a van filled with ANFO, something. And that would have made the death toll worse. This dude had an airplane- would crashing a plane full of ANFO into the crowd been more to the left's liking?

    Gun control is an illusion. Laws only apply to the law abiding.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,568 Senior Member
    Like it or not events like Vegas always initiate debate. We can bemoan the fact or participate in the debate. Like it or not events like Vegas are going to happen and there's nothing we can do about it. Sometimes they will be carried out by random people who go crazy and sometimes terrorists. The basic pro 2A stance is "that's ok, our 2A rights are far more important than a marginal improvement in safety." In general I agree with this, but it's probably worth recognizing that cost. Liberals will argue that if there was less access to high capacity magazines or in this case murkily legal devices to increase the rate of fire fewer people would have been shot. I have a hard time disagreeing with that statement. It's almost certainly true. The police response time was fairly quick, so fewer rounds down range means fewer casualties.

    The question I have is is there any balance to be struck? Should there be? I am honestly not sure. I will say I personally have found the bunpfire stocks, binary triggers etc. to be questionable. Valuable for putting a big grin on someone's face yes, but also an easier way for a terrorist to spray large quantities of bullets into a crowd. There is limited tactical/defense value of FA outside of a warzone and even that is somewhat limited (suppressing fire).

    Now this is only one event where it is likely such devices have been used and it would have been a mass casualty event regardless. But given the copycat nature of these things it almost certainly won't be the last. What are people's thoughts? Is there any balance to be struck, or is access to more and more deadly firearms always good and worth whatever harm they may cause in the hands of evil men?
    There was some early speculation of illegal modifications/technique to achieve full automatic fire but I have not seen any today. I have heard the audio many times and it sure sounds like an AK-47 to me (600rpm vs M-16A1 700+rpm).
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    A bump fire stock is essentially a loose fitting stock, lose along the horizontal axis that is. How does one regulate looseness without outlawing all collapsible stocks?
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    No matter how well a law is written some Harvard educated lawyer will find a way to turn it and thus letting the camel’s nose under the tent. I could write say a new law governing the rules of the NC CHP that requires this and that in all good faith to where honest and responsible gun owners could carry about anywhere. Honestly, I’d like to see more training required but then I cut into the rights of some who can’t afford a $100 day course and another $100 - $200 for ammo or such. My ideas would limit someone else’s right somehow no matter how good it sounds to me. On the scale of gun control (0 being no laws and 10 being England type bans) I most likely fall around 3 but the political landscape changes every election and it seems when the liberal ideas get on the books it slides 2 steps left but when conservatives are in power it shifts only 1 step (if that) back to the right ... the camel’s nose is a start that results in the whole camel eventually ...
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    He could have driven a van or car through the crowd at high speed, set off a bomb, crashed an airplane. He could have gone on a slashing spree. It really doesn't matter how he did it, he would have found a way.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,543 Senior Member
    That guy had no criminal record and could have afforded a legal, full auto m-16 so in his particular case, the availability of a bump fire stock or trigger crank wouldn't have changed the outcome. A sick person like that is going to use whatever they have available if they want to carry out an act like this be it an airplane or wheeled vehicle loaded with flammable, explosive, or toxic materials, or any other means of attacking large groups of people.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    All of the useless gun control laws that we bemoan, to this day, came from manufactured emotional outcries that started with "we have to do SOMETHING to stop this," without any serious debate about whether it would make any difference, or enough difference.

    This guy had the money to buy anything his evil mind could conceive of, from any source he could find. The only real factor here was his willingness to commit mass murder - everything else could be bought, or learned. He didn't have to be expert in the use of weapons. He just had to do a modest amount of research, some practice and planning, and be enough of a low-life to execute it in a most cowardly fashion. The chances of stopping someone that fits that criteria are low. He had to make mistakes, and LE needed some luck, or a tip-off from a savvy observer with very good situational awareness.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,585 Senior Member
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    No matter how well a law is written some Harvard educated lawyer will find a way to turn it and thus letting the camel’s nose under the tent. I could write say a new law governing the rules of the NC CHP that requires this and that in all good faith to where honest and responsible gun owners could carry about anywhere. Honestly, I’d like to see more training required but then I cut into the rights of some who can’t afford a $100 day course and another $100 - $200 for ammo or such. My ideas would limit someone else’s right somehow no matter how good it sounds to me. On the scale of gun control (0 being no laws and 10 being England type bans) I most likely fall around 3 but the political landscape changes every election and it seems when the liberal ideas get on the books it slides 2 steps left but when conservatives are in power it shifts only 1 step (if that) back to the right ... the camel’s nose is a start that results in the whole camel eventually ...

    I would argue that the opposite has been true throughout my time as a gun owner, admittedly only since '05. I have significantly more freedom today in terms of what I can legally buy than what I could back in '05. I can legally carry a gun more places. I can now own a perfectly legal pistol with a brace and install a binary trigger in it that functions 99% like a burst fire SBR without any tax stamps. I can also plop in a fairly reliable 60 rnd magazine into the mag well. I can then legally conceal it on my person in most states in the nation. None of these things existed or were widely available 12 years ago. I'm not saying any of this is bad, but saying we have been losing is disingenuous. We have been winning almost every battle in congress and in the courts. Again, not saying that's a bad thing, but to say we've been losing is wrong. That said I understand and am sympathetic to the camel's nose argument.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,478 Senior Member
    About the best response I can think of so far is to take a hard look at the gun control laws in Europe. In some cases, they have done nothing to stop mass murders with the use of firearms. In others cases, the use of other devices such as trucks, explosives, knives, etc., have been used.

    The only way to stop so-called "gun violence" is to eliminate guns. That's just not going to happen. At best, it will create a thriving black market and turn otherwise lawful citizens into criminals. One has to look no further on how well the war on drugs or immigration laws have worked for examples.

    It is my belief that for many on the left pushing for stricter gun control laws is nothing but a way for them to gain favor with their masters.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,663 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »

    Laws only apply to the law abiding.

    Once a deranged individual decides to kill a bunch of people and not come out of it alive, what law can stop him? If he could not get slidefire stocks, he could have built one... or used the shoe-string machinegun trick. The whole premise is flawed- laws do not stop criminals if there is no fear of repercussions down the road.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,051 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I think a good number of people actually believe more laws will stop these things. They won't, but that's what they believe. I think it's the fact that they don't or can't believe evil exists. I know evil exists. Everywhere. Always has. Always will. Nothing will ever stop it from existing. It's unfortunate, but it's truth.
    This is basically the case. Most folks will find something, anything, to back up their preconceived ideas of what the facts are and discard the opposing information. They don't care who is the source: CNN, CBS, Huffington Post, Breitbart, WorldNet, NewsMax, InfoWars, Amaq, PrisonPlanet, Mother Jones, or whatever - they'll cling to the "facts" that support their ideas and discard the actual information that exists.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Jack BurtonJack Burton Member Posts: 379 Member
    I would argue that the opposite has been true throughout my time as a gun owner, admittedly only since '05. I have significantly more freedom today in terms of what I can legally buy than what I could back in '05. I can legally carry a gun more places. I can now own a perfectly legal pistol with a brace and install a binary trigger in it that functions 99% like a burst fire SBR without any tax stamps. I can also plop in a fairly reliable 60 rnd magazine into the mag well. I can then legally conceal it on my person in most states in the nation. None of these things existed or were widely available 12 years ago. I'm not saying any of this is bad, but saying we have been losing is disingenuous. We have been winning almost every battle in congress and in the courts. Again, not saying that's a bad thing, but to say we've been losing is wrong. That said I understand and am sympathetic to the camel's nose argument.

    Ah so, you were there for the sunset but not the sunrise so to speak. I'm sure you know that the increase in freedoms you experienced were the result of a decrease in freedoms in 1994. That is not a win as much as it is a tie.

    I knew many gun owners pre-1994, and only 1 or 2 owned an AR. Then the the Clinton ban, then the sunset, then 10+ million sold, then Obama, then 30 million sold.

    You wanna a lot of bump fire stocks sold? Ban them.
    Came for the fishing, stayed for the guns.
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,327 Senior Member
    I live under relatively strong gun control. Here you need a psychological evaluation to get any kind (Sport, hunting, CCW or collector) gun-owning license and I don't find the idea bad at all.
    Unfortunately in our case such measure will only stop the EVIDENTLY mentally ill because the test isn't that tough (Pretty much the same you take for a driver's license) and you can get a "Good to go" test for a little extra; some measures like mandatory bio-metric register for those taking it and even an additional psychiatric evaluation are being contemplated for the future, but so far such measure has done little from stopping a mentally deranged person to get LEGAL firearms (Black market is another story).
    Maybe in the US such measure could work, but even if not, it's finally a matter of perception what worries both politicians that don't like the fuss about anything controversial that might make them look bad, and the public that demands something, no matter how useless, to be done so they can calm their momentary fears.

    I think those quasi-automatic gizmos will literally "take the bullet"; also the "high capacity" mags (Like 100-round drums or so) no matter if they were used in this attack...already in the anti-gun spotlight. I don't foresee a LOT of gun owners raging if both items are severely controlled or even banned.

    The only thing that actually doesn't play in favor of the anti-gun agenda is that this time it was a WASP killing WASPS in a country music festival....pretty much the "despicable people" Hillary was talking about, and not the propaganda-valuable minorities or voting groups they usually say to favor.

    That said, don't allow them to take your rights, nor compromise no matter how reasonable this sounds and is; they'll "take a mile" and won't stop there until you are like the UK or worse (They really aim for worse, a tiny bit after tiny bit). We did and almost lost everything for good, and currently are under the sword of loosing everything even for the smallest transgression.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,585 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    The "he would have found another way " is becoming a tired arguement. It's true, but it's getting worn down. I know it's fact, but it's getting harder to convince folks of that.
    I really don't have an answer. Other than there's never common sense when mentioning "common sense laws". Guns or otherwise. They aren't based on common sense, they are based on feelings. Feelings are dangerous.
    I don't want anything banned. But if it turns out one of the slide fire stocks was used, and they ban those, I'm ok with it. Yeah it's a concession of sorts, but in the grand scheme, it's nothing. And of course it will DO nothing. But if it makes them feel good, that's ok.

    He absolutely could have and probably would have found another way. This guy was going to kill some people, there is no doubt about that and there's nothing anyone could or would have done to stop it. Shoot the guy could have probably taken a rack of bowling balls and started chucking them out the window into the crowd and killed at least a handful of people. The argument in favor of "doing something" is that we can make it more difficult for people who decide to commit mass murder to kill as many people. After OKC we significantly restricted the sale of Ammonium Nitrate. Sure you can still get it, but since '95 I'm not aware of a single ANFO bomb attack. He could make his own explosives, but that's difficult and often leads to LE interdiction or suicide by stupidity. Since 9/11 we vastly increased airport security and there hasn't been a successful plane hijacking since. Barricades are already used to limit where cars can go. Doesn't 100% protect people, but it limits the number of viable targets for that type of attack. Sure the guy could have afforded a legal full auto, but he would have to find one, submit to the tax stamp paperwork, and pay a lot of money for it. Someone intent on such an act probably would be too paranoid to submit to that kind of law enforcement scrutiny even if the odds that they'd find anything are minimal.

    In short, these lone wolf attacks tend to use the most readily available tools to do as much damage as they think they can do. Like it or not, spending $100 over the internet for a bumpfire stock to drastically increase rate of fire is a really easy way to do that. Way easier than any of the alternatives suggested. None of this gets to the fundamental question of where's the line on what is an acceptable restriction on civilian ownership of deadly weapons. It's a really uncomfortable question for most of us to contemplate who enjoy them and use them responsibly, but we all have a line. We accept we can't own 20mm gatling guns or 40mm grenade launchers. Most of us are largely ok with FA being highly restricted, so there is a line.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Sociopaths are rampant in the world. Unless pressed, most will not harm anyone, because there is a penalty for it. If they are mildly intelligent, they simply learn to imitate the emotions of others until it becomes second nature to them, and they stick to it because it makes life easier. But they are out there, in the thousands, or millions, and some of them are going to walk into that 'perfect storm' that tips them the wrong way. Things like this will happen, with the scale only limited by the intelligence and ability of those who do it. An aware public is the best defense, in partnership with competent law enforcement.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Alpha, I am more towards the whole 1932 and 1986 type legislation that has stayed with us. We had the AWB (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) that was a 10 years ban that was not renewed thank God or we’d be looking at huge prices and I believe higher crime.

    I will warn you ... do not try to conceal an AR pistol in all states your permit is valid in ... SC does not allow pistols over a certain length (I think it’s around 12”) to be concealed. There are other states with certain guidelines under the state issued permits but SC is one I am most familiar with ... kinda like some states spell out exactly what signage must be used for gun busters with size, wording and location or it is not valid while others just say post “conspicuously” which can be a gray area.

    If a true ban on say military style rifles, mags over say 10 rounds, etc were to be put in place, not like the 10 year AWB was, it would likely never see the support to be repelled.

    The problem comes down to who’s rights are you going to step on. I, and many here, have the means and desire to seek training, fill up stacks of paperwork or such to do things like NFA items but many people today don’t even understand NFA items are legal ... Hell the Judge Napolitano on FOX stated all FA is illegal, even LEOs don’t have them and the military only has and uses them in he battle zones. In a perfect world my ideas of gun control (training, handling, etc) would work nicely but since that world would be perfect we wouldn’t need them since no one would do evil things and would get proper training so they’d not do stupid things. Basically gun control is not going to solve the evils being done like Vegas ... you can’t legislate evil away.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,543 Senior Member
    I would argue that the opposite has been true throughout my time as a gun owner, admittedly only since '05. I have significantly more freedom today in terms of what I can legally buy than what I could back in '05.

    So you consider being able to own something that didn't exist in 2005 as having more freedom? I would say your statement is incorrect.

    I can legally carry a gun more places.

    That is because of individual states laws but the BATF still controls firearm laws.


    I'm not aware of any major changes in firearms laws between 2005 and now. Clinton's AWB expired in 2004 and we just got rights back that we possessed previously.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,051 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I get it. But.....spending $15 dollars over the Internet for a battery, electric motor, and a piece of plastic to make a gun fully automatic will still be an option.
    Like I said, I have no real answers. But bans on ______ are for the most part ways for politicians to say to their subjects "we did something".
    That's because it's easier to ban than it is to actually figure out the HOW and the WHY of things. Not just gun control: look at drugs, poverty, homelessness, social issues... Most of our methods of "combating" these problems are stop-gap band-aids that are just there for appearance sake, but do nothing to actually fix the problem. It's like wallpapering a house with holes in the wall and termites in the wood. Something's been done to fix it up, but nothing's been done to fix it because it's more expensive and more work to actually diagnose and fix the underlying problem than just making things look nice.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,585 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I get it. But.....spending $15 dollars over the Internet for a battery, electric motor, and a piece of plastic to make a gun fully automatic will still be an option.
    Like I said, I have no real answers. But bans on ______ are for the most part ways for politicians to say to their subjects "we did something".

    Sure, there are a fair number of illegal ways to go about it. Anyone intent on mass murder doesn't care about illegality. Essentially the "do something" is always about increasing the degree of difficulty. There is always a way. The only question is how easy/difficult are we willing to make it. We are always unfortunately just playing at the margins.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,259 Senior Member
    UK is going g to limit the sale of acid cause I guess some like to toss it into people's faces. Backround checks for car batteries? At what point do we just give up?
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,585 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any major changes in firearms laws between 2005 and now. Clinton's AWB expired in 2004 and we just got rights back that we possessed previously.

    We won Heller, a significant portion of states have relaxed or added CCW laws, ATF rulings on "braces" and various bumpfire stocks and binary triggers, guns allowed in national parks. All of this has lead to an increase in innovation in the industry that has lead to more pushing of boundaries. Up until the other day we were on the verge of having suppressors legalized without a stamp. It may still happen. Not saying major victories, but the movement has been all in our direction. As far as I can tell '94 was the last time we lost a significant battle on 2A rights. 23 years is a fairly long winning streak.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,568 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    All of the useless gun control laws that we bemoan, to this day, came from manufactured emotional outcries that started with "we have to do SOMETHING to stop this," without any serious debate about whether it would make any difference, or enough difference.

    This guy had the money to buy anything his evil mind could conceive of, from any source he could find. The only real factor here was his willingness to commit mass murder - everything else could be bought, or learned. He didn't have to be expert in the use of weapons. He just had to do a modest amount of research, some practice and planning, and be enough of a low-life to execute it in a most cowardly fashion. The chances of stopping someone that fits that criteria are low. He had to make mistakes, and LE needed some luck, or a tip-off from a savvy observer with very good situational awareness.
    Yes. The NFA 1934 was the result of the 1933/34 crime sprees. This demented monster could obviously pass background checks and possibly legally purchased actual selective fire assault rifles.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,585 Senior Member
    That's because it's easier to ban than it is to actually figure out the HOW and the WHY of things. Not just gun control: look at drugs, poverty, homelessness, social issues... Most of our methods of "combating" these problems are stop-gap band-aids that are just there for appearance sake, but do nothing to actually fix the problem. It's like wallpapering a house with holes in the wall and termites in the wood. Something's been done to fix it up, but nothing's been done to fix it because it's more expensive and more work to actually diagnose and fix the underlying problem than just making things look nice.

    Your premise assumes there is a way to effectively combat the root causes. I'm not saying we can't do better in all realms, but pretty much all of those things have existed since the dawn of humanity. So has mental illness and the propensity for some hairy apes to want to kill other hairy apes for various reasons. Sometimes a band-aid is all you can do. Sometimes a placebo can make people at least feel better.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,765 Senior Member
    No gun control law can protect the country from a loony tune gone off the deep edge. The bumpfire stocks increase firing rate, and give the simulated feel of FA fire. The same can be accomplished without that 'trick stock', but it requires a bit of practice. The little hand crank device does the same, and any idiot with some skill with a drill press and a file can turn one out in short order. And with a little higher skill level, the bumpfire stock can be replicated. Stopping the manufacture of a product would not make it go away; it would only make it go underground. Like prohibition.

    The the two drop in parts already mentioned can be fabricated by anyone with a hacksaw, drill press, and files. And the instructions are out there because the internet and printed instructions are out there. Cat's out of the bag, as it were and can't be put back in the bag. There are Youtube videos for the electric trigger I mentioned; I won't post links. Look it up if you're so inclined. Those two aren't the ONLY electrically actuated triggers out there; they are just the ones on Youtube. There are others small enough to fit inside the trigger guard, and the designs and instructions are out there.

    If the guy had used a 2 1/2 ton military 6-by truck he could have probably upped the body count considerably, as well as the wounded. Going to ban/restrict heavy trucks in response? How about the big tractors of tractor-trailer rigs? Just as dangerous in the wrong hands.

    Since the Oklahoma City bombing, farm grade ammonium nitrate fertilizer has been coated to prevent its use as an explosive, and urea added for the same reason. The urea CAN be removed, and the ammonium nitrate coating can be defeated, and quite easily. How I found that out is also on the internet.

    There is NO gun law that can be passed that will make something like this less likely to happen. Even confiscation of all firearms wouldn't do it. Too many cheap and easy ways to build firearms now, and relatively cheap CNC tabletop milling machines can make that happen. There's already one out there to do AR lowers, and Glock and 1911 lowers AND uppers. Software is readily available, and is even sold with some of the machines as a package deal. The machines have many uses and making them highly restricted would hurt the people who use them for other things.

    Mass murderers will find a way. People will find a way to get what they want. Humans have always been like that, and always will. And the criminals will always find a way.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,051 Senior Member
    Your premise assumes there is a way to effectively combat the root causes. Maybe not all, but on the other hand maybe there's some stuff we can work on. If we're willing to devote the time and energy.
    I'm not saying we can't do better in all realms, but pretty much all of those things have existed since the dawn of humanity. Agreed. How to deal with it is multi-faceted and multi-level. One question is, do we really want to fix the problems? Or rather, how badly do we want to fix them?
    So has mental illness and the propensity for some hairy apes to want to kill other hairy apes for various reasons. Sometimes a band-aid is all you can do. Sometimes a placebo can make people at least feel better.But at what cost? Are we willing to infringe the rights of others just so we can feel better? Are we willing to give the government more power?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,585 Senior Member
    Taking a brief break from playing devil's advocate here to post one of the more even handed articles about gun violence I've seen. It also dovetails on the point Breamfisher was trying to make about digging deeper to root causes:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/
    If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work. Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,663 Senior Member
    Your premise assumes there is a way to effectively combat the root causes. Maybe not all, but on the other hand maybe there's some stuff we can work on. If we're willing to devote the time and energy.
    I'm not saying we can't do better in all realms, but pretty much all of those things have existed since the dawn of humanity. Agreed. How to deal with it is multi-faceted and multi-level. One question is, do we really want to fix the problems? Or rather, how badly do we want to fix them?
    So has mental illness and the propensity for some hairy apes to want to kill other hairy apes for various reasons. Sometimes a band-aid is all you can do. Sometimes a placebo can make people at least feel better.But at what cost? Are we willing to infringe the rights of others just so we can feel better? Are we willing to give the government more power?

    Gun Control: What you do instead of Something
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,051 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    Gun Control: What you do instead of Something
    Pretty much. Well, it is "something." It's infringing rights...
    Overkill is underrated.
«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.