Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

[Shad]

Can anyone explain why a law abiding citizen needs a firearm that can hold a hundred bullets and fire them all in about one second? They are not needed for deer hunting or target practice or self defense, are they? If you just like the way they look, get one that looks that way but holds five rounds that have to be fired one at a time. Seriously, any good reason why these weapons that fire many rounds in a short time are really needed? Notice, needed, not just liked or wanted.

The need of protection and the need of force balance or force dominance against an opponent(s).

Need(s) can be very situational. I can easily construct a scenario in which the need for such weapons is higher than the need in another scenario.

 

[Falvlun]

Please quote the post/s that you are saying that I have been fighting the idea of a certified firearm instructor if you would please. It is very possible I said one thing and you understood something else.

That is the impression I got.

Ultimately, doesn’t matter, since you now are making it clear you understand the need for a certified firearm instructor if a training requirement were implemented.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the impression I got.

Ultimately, doesn’t matter, since you now are making it clear you understand the need for a certified firearm instructor if a training requirement were implemented.

Sounds like we're all on the same side, eh.
Whooda thunk it?

 

[Underhill]

Actually, he introduces a good point, ie, that a school's students & staff are sitting ducks.
The left generally opposes "more guns", often meaning legally prohibiting guns in schools.
But murderers aren't constrained by this prohibition, since violating the law is their intent.
And with the left so often telling us they don't want to ban guns, they support circumstances
wherein a perp bent on mayhem is guaranteed soft targets.

Sure, and by using that same logic Trumps right supports a situation where a kid could grab a teachers gun and be only limited by the capacity of the guns magazine.

Such silly story telling isn't constructive. There is no such thing as a solution for every situation. Only solutions that could result in diminished incidences.

There are many solutions. The most effective would be to get rid of guns. It's hard to argue that. I'm not even apposed to it. I would happily give up my guns in a second if I knew everyone were doing the same. The problem is with hundreds of millions of guns out there, this is never going to happen. So we need alternatives.

Most crime happens with stolen guns, so keeping them locked up would be a good start. Enhanced background checks that include mental health evaluations make sense, and I don't give a rats behind if it inconveniences gun owners. Mandatory training and registration also makes perfect sense.

Basically we should follow the Japanese model.

But that won't happen either. What is likely to happen is bump stocks will be made illegal and schools will get metal detectors. And gun violence will continue with very little change outside of schools. I mean that literally. Like on the playground or soccer field, where the metal detectors at the doors will be useless.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, and by using that same logic Trumps right supports a situation where a kid could grab a teachers gun and be only limited by the capacity of the guns magazine.

Is this a demonstrable problem?

Such silly story telling isn't constructive.

Like the story that students will steal teachers' guns to attack their fellows?

There is no such thing as a solution for every situation. Only solutions that could result in diminished incidences.

Hallelujah....something to agree upon.

There are many solutions. The most effective would be to get rid of guns.

How politically achievable is that?
But until that day, the status quo is not the optimum solution.

 

[esmith]

That is the impression I got.

Ultimately, doesn’t matter, since you now are making it clear you understand the need for a certified firearm instructor if a training requirement were implemented.

You still have not answered one question. Who determines what the training must consist of and who certifies the instructor?
I would go with the NRA, who has been certifying instructors for years and who make up the majority of certified instructors.

 

[Underhill]

Is this a demonstrable problem?

It's certainly happened.

Like the story that students will steal teachers' guns to attack their fellows?

Yes, because they are based on the outlying situations. The absurd event. What is demonstrable is that most teachers don't want the job. That teachers are already under an immense amount of stress.

How politically achievable is that?
But until that day, the status quo is not the optimum solution.

Oh there will be change. But only change that will have a minimal impact on the problem at large. Why? Because to deal with the problem at large effectively there needs to be closer monitoring, which would inconvenience gun owners and may impact gun sales negatively. Something the NRA with fight tooth and nail against, regardless of effectiveness.

And in another few years, when Republicans lose control, the NRA will be left out of the discussion after another attack sparks mass protest.. and the regulation will be even more restrictive and aggravating to gun owners. The NRA will harp about it, but secretly love it as membership swells yet again.

Perhaps I am being a bit too cynical. But I don't think so..

 

[Revoltingest]

It's certainly happened.

Links would help establish the extent of this risk.

Yes, because they are based on the outlying situations. The absurd event. What is demonstrable is that most teachers don't want the job. That teachers are already under and immense amount of stress.

Links?

Oh there will be change. But only change that will have a minimal impact on the problem at large. Why? Because to deal with the problem at large effectively there needs to be closer monitoring, which would inconvenience gun owners and may impact gun sales negatively. Something the NRA with fight tooth and nail against, regardless of effectiveness.

If the left could show more willingness to work hand in hand towards a
solution, they'd get better results. But if demonization of AR-15s & the
NRA are all they have, they'll see only resistance.
But there is progress despite the anti-gunners....
Florida Senate rejects ban on assault weapons, votes to arm teachers

 

[Underhill]

Links would help establish the extent of this risk.

Links?

How hard is it to do a google search really?

Students grabbing guns from officers highlights dangers of weapons at school

If the left could show more willingness to work hand in hand towards a
solution, they'd get better results. But if demonization of AR-15s & the
NRA are all they have, they'll see only resistance.
But there is progress despite the anti-gunners....
Florida Senate rejects ban on assault weapons, votes to arm teachers

You have got to be kidding me. The AR-15 is demonized only because of the number of times it is used. It may not be the most evil or effective tool for laying waste to people, but there is a logic to it whether you like it or not.

The NRA has been the number one thing stopping this country from reasonable change. So of course they are demonized. They recently were against outlawing bump stocks in Florida. How absurd is that?

As for Florida, it's another example of the NRA working to put more guns out there. But it will backfire. We can see public sentiment moving away from them dramatically and this will not change anytime soon.

 

[Revoltingest]

How hard is it to do a google search really?

It's your claim, so one would expect you to be familiar with your sources.
Besides, it's bad form to expect others to do this for you.
I regularly provide links unsolicited, so I'm sure you can too.

Students grabbing guns from officers highlights dangers of weapons at school

From your own link (underlining added)....

Despite incidents that have made news when students were able to fire or grab an officer’s weapon, Hardy said such happenings are extremely rare and if a student does try to disarm an officer, officers are trained to deal with it.

I'd heard of that case.
It is extremely wrong that a holster would allow any access to the trigger.
Of the great many holsters I've owned, not one would allow that.
But this does speak to the need to closely regulate concealed carry in schools.....
- Holsters should be of a high security type, since rapid access is a lesser concern than safety.
- Guns & holsters should be concealed.
- Armed staff should be trained differently from cops, with emphasis on this particular environment, and especially upon safety.

You have got to be kidding me. The AR-15 is demonized only because of the number of times it is used. It may not be the most evil or effective tool for laying waste to people, but there is a logic to it whether you like it or not.

It's illogical to focus upon a particular model than on how it functions.
That would be like complaining about Fords being used as getaway cars.

The NRA has been the number one thing stopping this country from reasonable change. So of course they are demonized. They recently were against outlawing bump stocks in Florida. How absurd is that?

If demonizing the NRA is your goal, you'll achieve nothing positive.
It's not going away.

As for Florida, it's another example of the NRA working to put more guns out there. But it will backfire. We can see public sentiment moving away from them dramatically and this will not change anytime soon.

You blame the NRA (without citation), but perhaps it's just that FL lawmakers are more thoughtful & reasonable than your side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the left could show more willingness to work hand in hand towards a
solution, they'd get better results. But if demonization of AR-15s & the
NRA are all they have, they'll see only resistance.

What are you seeing as "a solution" and are you so sure that getting rid of semi-auto rifles wouldn't help achieve it?

 

[Revoltingest]

What are you seeing as "a solution" and are you so sure that getting rid of semi-auto rifles wouldn't help achieve it?

I've been proposing solutions all along.
See the post just before yours for some.
Getting rid of AR-15s not only wouldn't work, it would be illegal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've been proposing solutions all along. See the post just before yours for some.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. What I'm trying to ask you is what goal you have in mind. For the gun control side, the goals are things like:

- fewer gun deaths overall
- fewer murders
- fewer mass shootings
- fewer school shootings

Are those your goals as well? What other goals do you have?

Edit: an approach is only a solution if the problem has been identified. I think a big part of the disagreement on approach here comes from the fact that two sides have different goals and have identifed different problems, so the "solutions" they're coming up with have different objectives.

Getting rid of AR-15s not only wouldn't work, it would be illegal.

... under current law. A solution that involves banning semi-auto firearms in the US would have to include changes to the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we're misunderstanding each other. What I'm trying to ask you is what goal you have in mind. For the gun control side, the goals are things like:

- fewer gun deaths overall
- fewer murders
- fewer mass shootings
- fewer school shootings

Are those your goals as well? What other goals do you have?

I have those goals, among others....
- Constitutional laws
- Right of self defense
- Better law enforcement

Edit: an approach is only a solution if the problem has been identified. I think a big part of the disagreement on approach here comes from the fact that two sides have different goals and have identifed different problems, so the "solutions" they're coming up with have different objectives.
... under current law. A solution that involves banning semi-auto firearms in the US would have to include changes to the law.

That would require amending the Constitution IMO.
I wouldn't do that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have those goals, among others....
- Constitutional laws
- Right of self defense
- Better law enforcement

Now the $64,000 question: can your goals be reconciled with the ones I listed? From where I sit, "right of self-defense" comes with the cost in terms of gun violence.

When deciding between approaches, do you go with the one that reduces school or mass shootings at the expense of "defensive" gun use, or do you go for the one that favours "defensive" gun use but does nothing about school or mass shootings?

That would require amending the Constitution IMO.
I wouldn't do that.

So you don't actually support any goal that would need a Constitutional amendment to achieve it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Now the $64,000 question: can your goals be reconciled with the ones I listed? From where I sit, "right of self-defense" comes with the cost in terms of gun violence.

Reduce gun violence while preserving gun rights.
Looks doable, albeit with some additional expense &
inconvenience due to training & storage requirements.

When deciding between approaches, do you go with the one that reduces school or mass shootings at the expense of "defensive" gun use, or do you go for the one that favours "defensive" gun use but does nothing about school or mass shootings?

I choose none of the above.

So you don't actually support any goal that would need a Constitutional amendment to achieve it?

I find the 2nd Amendment to be still potentially useful.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The need of protection and the need of force balance or force dominance against an opponent(s).

Need(s) can be very situational. I can easily construct a scenario in which the need for such weapons is higher than the need in another scenario.

I'd enjoy seeing you try to construct any scenario where a civilian "needs" either such a number of rounds or rate of fire.

 

[Shad]

I'd enjoy seeing you try to construct any scenario where a civilian "needs" either such a number of rounds or rate of fire.

Any encounter with armed criminals. Superior firepower equalizes the numbers advantage.

 

[Falvlun]

You still have not answered one question. Who determines what the training must consist of and who certifies the instructor?
I would go with the NRA, who has been certifying instructors for years and who make up the majority of certified instructors.

I’ve already indicated that I’m not the person to determine that. I’m not sure why you think I should be.

I think the NRA would be a good partner in this endeavor, if they would be willing to work with such measures.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Any encounter with armed criminals. Superior firepower equalizes the numbers advantage.

Any encounter with criminals, huh? "hey look! a shoplifter! Better fire 100 rounds in under a second!"

Sure. OK.