|
BamaD -> RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting (11/27/2017 9:35:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Go after criminals and gut part of the constitution, great idea.
We believe that bad guys without guns will still kill.
And that good people with them don't.
Anti gun people think everyone is good till guns,
with their greater willpower force people to do bad things.
When the back ground check system went operational, the NRA, law enforcement and everyone that deals with the aftermath of badly written regulations such as this one, said collectively it would not work as written.
Every time congress has held hearings on why the shit keeps happening, Law Enforcement, gun retailer associations and the NRA have testified as to why the shit keeps happening.
When the liberals and conservatives gutted the ATF budget in order to balance the federal budget, the industry and law enforcement said it was a mistake.
When proposals were made to change the back ground check system to prosecute people who were prohibited who tried to buy guns, there were cries of 'big government' and 'expense.'
When the argument was made about online gun purchases after Columbine, the NRA supported putting a stop to direct home delivery, and was instrumental in getting the law changed so that guns purchased online had to go through a local dealer and before the buyer could take possession, a back ground check had to be run.
When the gun lobby pointed out that people give guns as gifts, and back ground checks need to be run on the end user of the purchase, congress balked and collectively decided that was a bad idea.
Back in the seventies, when the NRA suggested that mandatory gun safety classes be a part of a gun purchase, gun owners loved the idea, congress hated it.
When the company in Houston made a gun with a 3d printer, the NRA suggested this might need to be regulated, Congress balked at the idea as too costly.
When 'custom' made receiver and barrels started showing up, the NRA suggested that certain specific machine tools that are essential to making these parts be regulated, Congress balked at the idea, stating that this equipment was used for other things as well (completely ignoring the fact that one particular machine in the list has but one function, putting rifling in gun barrels.)
When an NRA rep questioned why only three specific gun parts are currently regulated, Congress stated that it was because without that specific part, the gun would not work.
To counter that point, a forensic ballistic specialist pointed out that each gun barrel leaves unique marks on a bullet, so if one wanted to kill with a gun that was not traceable, all one had to do was change barrels, congress ignored the point.
And everything I just pointed out has been going on for the last 30 years.
Congress comes up with an idea to deal with gun violence, the gun industry and the NRA testify as to a) how to insure it will work, and b) what is wrong with the plan that will keep it from doing what it is supposed to do.
The original assault weapon ban had a list of things that made a gun an assault weapon.
Colt and a couple of other companies, at the urging of the NRA, made a few one off models to take to congress to show that each of the things that congress said make a weapon an assault weapon, could be removed without affecting the over all performance and operation of the weapon. Congress did nothing.
The NRA supported the elimination of high capacity magazines in the states that passed those laws, correctly pointing out that in non military environments and outside of a shooting range, no one really needs a 10, 15, 20 or higher capacity magazine.
And I tend to agree, what the hell does a deer hunter need a magazine with more than 7 rounds in it? If he cant hit a deer with 7 rounds, he (or she) really does not need to be hunting in the first place.
I will also agree that the hunters of the early colonies and the early United States did fairly well with single shot rifles. Hell the American bison was nearly made extinct primarily due to the Sharps single shot buffalo gun and the Remington high wall rolling block.
Both single shot rifles I might add.
When my father took me deer hunting for the first time, I used a bolt action Mauser rifle.
When I took my son deer hunting for his first time, he used a lever action 30-30.
The bulk of my 'arsenal' are old fashioned 'cowboy' style guns, lever actions, single shot or revolvers.
I even have a number of cap and ball black powder pistols and rifles that I enjoy using.
And I have a theory as to why the AR and AK rifles are so popular, and it has nothing to do with hunting, pest eradication or anything sensible, because, if these were indeed the reasons, there would not be a deer or game animal left in the United States, since so many have been sold.
They are popular simply because the majority of the people that buy them want to look like John Wayne, or whoever the current action movie hero is.
I would bet that 80% are not even fired regularly.
And personally, speaking as someone who has been in law enforcement, I think a shot gun is a better weapon for home protection, or a pistol in the hands of a trained individual.
And, speaking from experience selling guns and teaching people how to shoot safely, some gun buyers have idea of what they want, but no fucking clue as to what they actually need.
Most seem to want the biggest, baddest looking gun in the display. I have watched women who look to weigh 90 pounds head straight for the 50 caliber desert eagle and talk of a gun for protection.
Or the 44 and 357 magnums.
When you point out that law enforcement carry 40 caliber pistols because they are easier to control, you get the question "But bigger is better, right?"
Then there is the guy that comes in and buys an AR or AK style rifle, who's best shot grouping is 6 inches, even after the weapon has been sighted for them.
For the record, a 1 inch grouping is the goal.
These guys buy the gun, cant keep a tight grouping, and argue that you are trying to get them to spend more money when you offer some rudimentary training.
So, yeah, I agree that not everyone needs an assault style weapon.
I even agree that a great many people who can legally buy a gun does not, or I should say, should not be allowed within 20 miles of a loaded gun, at least not until they have taken a gun safety and training course.
I would support a law that requires mandatory gun safety and training at first time purchase.
And if someone could write a regulation that would require periodic qualification that did not violate their rights, I would support that as well, simply because if you do not shoot regularly, you tend to get complacent. The military and law enforcement both require annual weapon proficiency checks. Hell when I was in the army, we were on the range at least every two weeks.
But that creates its own problem.
Many cities have passed ordinances banning shooting ranges inside city limits.
Which makes it difficult to actually get to a range, and generally, the public is not permitted to use the department owned ranges in the bigger cities.
When the NRA said the ban did no good the were right.
When they said the background law wouldn't work, as written they were right.
When they passed the ban some of they supporters in congress admitted it was just
a feel good law that would do nothing.
As you know the oversize magazines don't function that well, in Colorado the "joker" did the
most damage with a 5 round shotgun because the oversized magazine jammed up after a few rounds.
Personally I don't like the AR but that doesn't mean no one else should be allowed to have them.
I am inclined to thing the AR is popular for several reasons.
A the one you gave.
B they are given so much publicity by gun-grabbers people thing that they are not only cool but they can do anything.
C they are light with little recoil making good for that 90lb woman you mentioned.
Personally I believe in accuracy over firepower. .
|
|
|
|
