I will just leave this here .... I am the majority !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

I have a few thoughts and since this seems to not be spiraling into a shouting match - thanks to both Craic and Dwins for encouraging that - I'll try and put a few out there...

I fully realize there are real and actual events where a gun was used to successfully defend personal life and property. I would be interested in an unbiased accounting of how often that actually happens. I have a hard time envisioning swaths of America where folks need to enact an armed resistance to criminals. Again, I am fully aware that it does happen. But for example, in my corner of the world violent crime is predominantly confined to other criminals. Clearly there will be variation, but I wonder what the actual situation is? Not how we perceive it. Personally I know several friends, coworkers, and family members who strongly believe in armed home defense, but none of them know any one who has ever had to defend their home. Doesn't mean they aren't right, but I would like to know how often these scenarios occur.

In terms of protecting minority groups (whatever they be - ethnic, religious, political, etc) from violence; erecting a visible and active well armed defense can clearly have a positive impact in deterring or even stopping conflicts. But I counter with this thought - There are places in the world where horrific and violent persecution of minority groups has taken place without anyone ever firing a shot on either side. Let alone that violent conflict at a variety of scales did not begin with the advent of firearms. Unfortunately this kind of starts a circular argument. The idea that even if no one had guns, we would likely start going at each other with clubs and shovels or something.

In terms of securing rights/freedoms through guns or other weapons, that kinda comes down to where you stand on "human nature". Is interpersonal violence somehow fundamental to our interactions? I would argue it is not. At least in a sense that there is no "hardwired" reason why people must resolve conflict through violent means. However, I do acknowledge it has always been an option and a fairly frequently selected one at that! However, stopping the conversation at the point of an armed citizenry as the final guarantee of rights/freedoms sells the whole debate a bit short, or, at least somehow fails to deal with the causal elements of the violence we are arming ourselves against. Here I am talking primarily about criminal violence and not warfare or conflict between nations.

I fully believe that it is often our failure as a society to address the reasons why some members of our own society feel the need to attempt to solve their problems through violence that causes even more escalating levels of violence. If we were better able to solve some of those problems, overall violence would begin to diminish. At the same time, I realize that until MOJOUW's social utopia and land of unicorn tears can be achieved, people will feel a strong desire to protect themselves -- so again I have kinda talked myself in a circle.

I think that all I really know for sure is that something has got to change. America is the only place I am aware of where so many people are harmed or killed by gun violence outside of warzones and failed countries. I will say I am encouraged that we are on the second page of a thread about guns and no one has called anyone "Hitler" or a "snowflake" yet. Unfortunately, this is an issue where too many people seem unwilling and unable to have grown people conversation about it.

---

Being lazy right now, I did a quick search....

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...rime-and-guns/

http://americangunfacts.com/

Great stuff I’m on the road for next little while. I’ll look through it and reply when I can

Very interesting stuff. I find it hard to believe that no one can pin down the # of DGU's accurately. A variance between 2.5 million and under 100 K is just a staggering difference. Perhaps it points to how poorly we can actually have an honest conversation about gun usage and ownership? It is interesting how I could also post a great amount of links that would present data and "science" that says DGU ends up hurting the gun owner or their family a good deal of the time as well. All of these stats can't be true at the same time - someone is cooking the books somewhere. I personally believe both sides of the issue cherry pick stats and slant their research. It is really sad that there simply can not be an honest accounting of the situation.

Another just mind boggling stat is that as best people can tell the % of households owning a gun of any kind is at a 40 year low, but the # of guns being manufactured and background checks being run are at close to all time highs! Most people who study the data are then drawing the conclusion that less American households than ever keep a firearm, but those that do are keeping multiple firearms to a degree that has not been seen previously. That goes to that divide and majority/minority perspective on the issue that started this whole thing. The country appears to be starkly divided on this. In general, you either don't own a gun or you own several guns. Of course, there are reasons for that. Several of my friends own multiple guns so that they can participate in multiple hunting seasons and shoot at the range for fun. Some folks just like to collect guns. And a very small # are trying to start their own personal militia (I kid!).

Bottom line for me is this - I believe something has to change regarding guns and American society. We can debate the rates of gun deaths and the root causes all day and night, but even one shot up high school is one too many. When we began seriously putting the phrase "hardened target" and the word "school" in the same sentence, something is deeply deeply wrong. What is that, I have no idea. But as a card carrying member of the "loony left" (I got a laminated card and decoder ring and everything, it is neat), I can say the yelling from both sides is just disgusting. Leftist screaming that anyone who owns a gun is nut and some sort of ruthless violent person is terrible. The other side saying that liberals are going to take away all your guns is non-productive. I mean, even liberals realize that the folks yelling to ban all guns and take existing guns away are not people to be taken seriously.

Another point I really really agree with was touched on by DWins, too many people who make definitive statements about what should be done about guns do not know what they are talking about. There needs to be agreed about terms, statistics, and a sober logic based conversation about this important issue. It is a fundamental freedom and while I have expressed my uncertainty about its relative importance, I am assuredly not for fundamentally curtailing that freedom. But the ready availability of this freedom is harming other citizens on a daily basis. When the freedom of one person damages the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness of others - that is when the people have to seriously considering asking their government and their fellow citizens to assist in changing how things are going.

I have read this entire thread. I will not comment one way or the other.

I'm posting just to say that you are all to be greatly commended for such intelligent, respectful dialogue. It's rare on any forum that such a hot topic stays this civil. Bravo to you all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

Very interesting stuff. I find it hard to believe that no one can pin down the # of DGU's accurately. A variance between 2.5 million and under 100 K is just a staggering difference. Perhaps it points to how poorly we can actually have an honest conversation about gun usage and ownership? It is interesting how I could also post a great amount of links that would present data and "science" that says DGU ends up hurting the gun owner or their family a good deal of the time as well. All of these stats can't be true at the same time - someone is cooking the books somewhere. I personally believe both sides of the issue cherry pick stats and slant their research. It is really sad that there simply can not be an honest accounting of the situation.

Another just mind boggling stat is that as best people can tell the % of households owning a gun of any kind is at a 40 year low, but the # of guns being manufactured and background checks being run are at close to all time highs! Most people who study the data are then drawing the conclusion that less American households than ever keep a firearm, but those that do are keeping multiple firearms to a degree that has not been seen previously. That goes to that divide and majority/minority perspective on the issue that started this whole thing. The country appears to be starkly divided on this. In general, you either don't own a gun or you own several guns. Of course, there are reasons for that. Several of my friends own multiple guns so that they can participate in multiple hunting seasons and shoot at the range for fun. Some folks just like to collect guns. And a very small # are trying to start their own personal militia (I kid!).

Bottom line for me is this - I believe something has to change regarding guns and American society. We can debate the rates of gun deaths and the root causes all day and night, but even one shot up high school is one too many. When we began seriously putting the phrase "hardened target" and the word "school" in the same sentence, something is deeply deeply wrong. What is that, I have no idea. But as a card carrying member of the "loony left" (I got a laminated card and decoder ring and everything, it is neat), I can say the yelling from both sides is just disgusting. Leftist screaming that anyone who owns a gun is nut and some sort of ruthless violent person is terrible. The other side saying that liberals are going to take away all your guns is non-productive. I mean, even liberals realize that the folks yelling to ban all guns and take existing guns away are not people to be taken seriously.

Another point I really really agree with was touched on by DWins, too many people who make definitive statements about what should be done about guns do not know what they are talking about. There needs to be agreed about terms, statistics, and a sober logic based conversation about this important issue. It is a fundamental freedom and while I have expressed my uncertainty about its relative importance, I am assuredly not for fundamentally curtailing that freedom. But the ready availability of this freedom is harming other citizens on a daily basis. When the freedom of one person damages the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness of others - that is when the people have to seriously considering asking their government and their fellow citizens to assist in changing how things are going.

---

just a quick note ...

I think as long as the number of lives saved / violent crimes prevented are even just 1 more than the homicides committed how can we take away that 1 persons right to life as his/hers is just as important as anyone else's ....

and my last point is this ....

until we end the killing of unborn babies who have no say who is anyone ( especially anyone who is pro choice ) doing in the conversation about banning guns to save lives ....

that to me is the BIGGEST hypocrisy on earth ...

abortion year to date ( as of a month ago ) 137,000 dead babies
murders via guns year to day ( same time span ) 1,443

you tell me what issue should be getting everyone's attention if the real reason behind it all is to save innocent lives .... NOTHING is more innocent than a baby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

just a quick note ...

I think as long as the number of lives saved / violent crimes prevented are even just 1 more than the homicides committed how can we take away that 1 persons right to life as his/hers is just as important as anyone else's ....

and my last point is this ....

until we end the killing of unborn babies who have no say who is anyone ( especially anyone who is pro choice ) doing in the conversation about banning guns to save lives ....

that to me is the BIGGEST hypocrisy on earth ...

abortion year to date ( as of a month ago ) 137,000 dead babies
murders via guns year to day ( same time span ) 1,443

you tell me what issue should be getting everyone's attention if the real reason behind it all is to save innocent lives .... NOTHING is more innocent than a baby

---

The realities and moral complexities of one problem shouldn’t be used to stop or change conversations regarding another.

Again, I’m not talking about preventing anyone from defending themselves. I’m talking about the fact that armed individuals should never enter a school and start killing people. The fact that this happens every other year and we don’t do anything different and just hope it gets better is just insanity to me.

Unfortunately I’m not clever enough to even propose a solution, let alone know what would work. I suspect it is some intersection of mental health, regulation, and law enforcement. What that mix is and what new elements can/should be added to the equation is unclear to me. But having the same conversations over and over again isn’t helping.

Interesting the issue of school shootings is brought up. My thoughts on that are a little different. I happen to believe the availability of guns is not the reason why school shootings are happening. Instead, it is a confluence of several issues.

Issue 1a: 24-hour news cycle/internet. We're in a place where any small happening can make the national news, and when it does, it gets cycled through all the major news channels throughout the night and into the next day. Then, the major network TV channels get in on the reporting, but of course they have to bring something new, so they find a victim's mother or school friend, and then that sets off a whole new cycle of reporting. So, this one act enters an echo chamber that gets perpetuated for days. This gets remembered by kids who feel unheard or feel as though they have no power.

Issue 1b: Social media/internet. We've seen this on our own forums ever since the early SF days. All it takes is one stupid post and suddenly, a reputation starts going down hill. Unlike in reality, online posts stay online. Comments about others stay online as well, meaning a person can't live down a moment of stupidity because someone else tweeted about it or posted it on instragram or blah blah.

Issue 2: Fear of the Gun. Modern society has driven such a fear of guns that I've read of people seeing someone else open carry in a store, and they literally dropped everything they had in their arms and ran out of the front door. Now, I'm not saying that is the typical response, but it is illustrative of the fear being driven. I remember a time when the response was, "huh, nice piece. Where did you get that?" At the very least, it was simply ignored. Hold on to this issue for a second.

Issue 3: Dehumanization in society. While I completely agree with Dwins concerning abortion, I won't even go there for this point because I believe it can be made without the abortion discussion. In our national media, it is almost sport to dehumanize the opponent now. Tea-Party members were "Tea-baggers," a belittling term that equals a slap to the scrotum. It was a way to label and dismiss an entire group. Liberals are "libtards." The same is true here. Don't forget the inevitable Hitler! and Fascist! that gets thrown around every election cycle and a million times a month in between. These are just the tip of the iceberg, just words that demean and help a person think of another as a little less than human. They're part of a "group" now and that group does not have all the positive aspects of the group "I" belong to. At the other end of this spectrum is what brought about slavery or the holocaust, where a group of people are so labeled for so long that they are no longer thought of as human. Now, I'm not saying we are at slavery or holocaust status here. I am saying, however, that dehumanizing anyone we disagree with in public debate is adding to the problem.

The Confluence: So some kid feels like he's on the outside. Perhaps he did something stupid and couldn't live it down. Maybe he just didn't feel like he was accepted. Or, perhaps, he truly wasn't. Whatever the case, (could be she, but I'm just using he here) he is now in a position where he feels left out, unheard, and wants to strike back. But, what if he does? Well, what about it? Those blankety-blanks are only blankety blanks anyway. And hey, it's okay to think of them as lesser humans because I see everyone doing to every else all day on TV and in the news and wherever else. Now, I really! want gain control back. What will cause the most fear in the shortest amount of time?! A gun! Because people run away screaming. AND, when that happens, I will get on TV and they'll talk about me for hours and hours and hours and I will no longer be ignored and my voice not heard.

--------
Now, do I believe that is the exact logic pattern every time? No. They probably don't think those thoughts at all. I do believe, however, that their actions and what drives their actions can be linked back to this pattern for all but those who act out under debilitating mental illness (Paranoid Schizophrenia, PTSD, etc. is what I'm putting in this group).

So, how to stop it? IMO

1. Stop with the gun fear. Introduce guns into school in a controlled environment where familiarity breeds complacency. Teach highschoolers what guns are, the proper way to handle them, and why they are just another piece of machinery like a car or a jackhammer. Take the WOW! factor out of it. They are not mythic pieces of retributive justice or slug-splitting weapons of death. They're just another tool that when used stupidly, causes problems like any other tool used stupidly.

2. Stop playing shootings on TV over and over and over. I know freedom of the press will disallow what I say here, but I truly believe something that will help put an end to all of this is for the media to stop reporting on school shootings. It takes away a strong impetus; providing a way for a voice to be heard.

3. Ratchet back the rhetoric about "enemies" and "Republikkkans" and "Libtards" and whatever else is out there. Moreover (and this doesn't have to be done in a religious way), start teaching kids about how special human life is again. Stop teaching humans are simply animals (again, secular humanism, which is an athiest-based belief, teaches this very thing. So it doesn't have to be religious in nature).

For me, that's a start. I think we'd have a massive drop in school shootings within a year, two at the most. Once that gun stopped being an instant "I can make everyone piss their pants" magic wand, and the results of which stop giving some voiceless teenager the biggest stage and loudest voice he can ever hope for at his age, there's literally no reason to go down that path because the rewards for doing so are not there.

Great post! Just wanted to add a related comment. It is all about fear. We are implicitly taught to fear everything that is different. Many of us live in safe communities but we are still scared. Anyone or anything different is scary and a potential threat.

When all you have is a hammer (fear) everything looks like a nail (threat).

For instance, violent crime is at some of the lowest levels ever in many parts of our nation. Would never guess that from talking to people.

first step to ending school shooting is take the dam signs down that let the potential shooter know he will be the only one with firepower at the school ....

take the target off your back !!!

replace that sign with one that says we have trained armed personnel inside to assure safety of the students and faculty ....

have a lockdown room you enter first with an armed guard a buzz in system with monitors and metal detectors ....

1 entry in all others are exit only doors that only release when a fire alarm is pulled .....

that way everyone has fair warning those doors have been breached and security can sweep the building


will it 100% end them , no .... crazy people do crazy things but we have seen massive killings by deranged individuals that never used a gun

911 box cutters and air planes ....
Tim Mcviegh box truck diesel fuel and fertilizer ...
Ted Kacynski mailed his doom out via the postal service

point is if someone wants to cause harm they will manufacture a method to do just that

but to say we can not counter 1 thing with another IMO is BS .... if LIFE is what you are trying to preserve then put your efforts to work where the most lives are lost not in an area that pales in comparison .... unless it isn't gun control at all they are seeking and it is people control then they are beating the drum that has to be beat to achieve any such goal and that my friend is what I believe the true goal is ... People control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

first step to ending school shooting is take the dam signs down that let the potential shooter know he will be the only one with firepower at the school ....

take the target off your back !!!

replace that sign with one that says we have trained armed personnel inside to assure safety of the students and faculty ....

have a lockdown room you enter first with an armed guard a buzz in system with monitors and metal detectors ....

1 entry in all others are exit only doors that only release when a fire alarm is pulled .....

that way everyone has fair warning those doors have been breached and security can sweep the building


will it 100% end them , no .... crazy people do crazy things but we have seen massive killings by deranged individuals that never used a gun

911 box cutters and air planes ....
Tim Mcviegh box truck diesel fuel and fertilizer ...
Ted Kacynski mailed his doom out via the postal service

point is if someone wants to cause harm they will manufacture a method to do just that

but to say we can not counter 1 thing with another IMO is BS .... if LIFE is what you are trying to preserve then put your efforts to work where the most lives are lost not in an area that pales in comparison .... unless it isn't gun control at all they are seeking and it is people control then they are beating the drum that has to be beat to achieve any such goal and that my friend is what I believe the true goal is ... People control

---

This!

This is the best thread I've read on ANY forum.... and I belong to quite a few. You gentlemen rock!

Not sure I am following. "People control" ? Meaning population control - keep the birth rate low? Or meaning controlling how people think? In either explanation, who or what group serves as the puppet-master? In all seriousness, it would seem that if the assumption is that somewhere there is a group of people who have a vested interest in ensuring that the American population thinks and acts in a predetermined manner. Further assume, that is so that a cohort of politicians could be ensured to hold onto the levers of power in our country. Okay, taking that as a given - wouldn't legal abortion and illegal guns be working at cross political purposes?

If the controlling cabal of people was from the left, pushing a pro-abortion platform as some means of control actually harms their long term political power. While I fully realize that pro-choice is the position of the liberal wing of American politics and has been for decades, it is also the potentially the political bloc most adversely affected by the impact of legal abortion. Making the assumption that voters who hold "pro-choice" positions will be the primary users of abortion services, wouldn't that mean less liberal voters in the long run? I realize this is a crass and morbid hypothetical to explore, but if we are going to advocate deep ulterior motives to the political positions and conversations in the country, then we need to consider the potential sources of those motives no matter how distasteful.

Turning to gun control, one can posit a scenario where a cohort of powerful individuals want to "de-arm" America in order to make some sort of take-over more possible. Again, this seems to not make a ton of sense to me. Largely one would assume the controlling interests of this would be an extreme strain of the liberal section of American political thought. A group that far to the left would almost certainly not find much of a foothold in the military community among either the rank and file or the leadership. So even if they managed to create an American populace that was ripe for tyrannical take-over, where would their militarized forces come from?

If the goal of those guiding and exerting potentially undue influence over American political thought and social reactions to events is simply to encourage or foster a pro-abortion and anti-gun stance; then I have to ask the (at least to me) logical corollary to that -- To what end? Currently it would seem to be an attempt to drive voters towards the Democrat party - since those are certainly a version of the party platform. But while it might attract some voters, it is a set of positions that are only going to solidify large numbers of voters in their allegiance to the opposition. Further, the geography of the electorate means that a true strict pro-abortion and anti-gun platform would mean the Democratic party would simply be abandoning massive swaths of the country and specifically critical swaths of the Southeast and Upper Midwest that are mandatory requirements for any Democrat to achieve electoral college victory.

Finally, if it is just an attempt to create an American populace that in general is less self-reliant, more submissive, and less questioning of authority -- well that is hard for something as intangible in our lives as "politicians" or "elites" to accomplish. At least without each individual being complicit. Culture does change from generation to generation, but our norms, traditions, and values are transmitted largely from person to person - not from government to people.

I've kinda veered WAY off topic here, but I struggle to find the connections between the two issues that seem to be implied by some previous postings. Perhaps one can argue for a moral or philosophical connection between the two -- but my read on the postings was that there was a directed and results oriented linkage between the two. I tried to lay out why that is difficult for me (and the above only applies to my thinking) to identify, but I know that others see a bright glowing connection between guns, abortion, and control. So, what is it?

Unless, the goal was to create a right leaning armed population with a higher birth rate than the left aligned population that was essentially de-armed in order to create the conditions amenable for a far-right group to stage an armed take-over of the country...? But based on all the theories I have heard in the past, this does not seem to be the scenario that most envision. Although it is a popular jumping off point for a lot of delightfully trashy science fiction...

On a more serious note than my most recent post, I honestly truly believe that we need to address the culture and climate of fear that too many of us live in. Not to sound like Yoda or something, but fear leads to hate and hate leads to anger and anger leads to violence.

Did anyone else read or hear the story that happened a few days ago about the high school kid who knocked on a door to ask for directions and the residents of the house instantly assumed he was there to rob/assault them and fired a shotgun through the door? To me that happens for only one reason -- fear.

The constant drumbeat in our news sources, entertainment, online conversations, etc is that you and yours are in daily danger from someone. Ranging from terrorists to criminals to your own neighbors to police/authorities. But the final note of far too many stories is that danger and violence is never more than a moment away from you and your loved ones.

If most people are agitated into a constant state of fear it is impossible for anyone to just take a breath and listen to others -- let alone trust anyone. I do not think that the fear really has been directed by anyone or pushed in advance of an agenda, it is just something we have allowed to happen.

those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it ....

every major over throw or change in government systems starts with disarming the people .

get a look into your history books ....

http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-co.../01/disarm.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O_svM5BY-S...un-control.jpg


those are just some of the cases , once disarmed you have no meaningful way to fight back or protect yourself vs whats to come

While I do not have the knowledge or the inclination to go through each case in detail - I do know a bit about the (supposed) Hitler quotation and the situation in Germany from the end of the first World War to the installation of Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 and beyond.

It was the Weimar Republic in the period after the first World War that basically eliminated private ownership of firearms. This was largely done to eliminate street violence between the Communists and the National Socialists (Nazis) in the period of high political instability following the armistice. To be fair, these were not the only political and partisan groups engaging in violence during this period, but they certainly drew the most attention. Many historians argue that Hitler and the Nazis would have been frustrated by this law and the subsequent series of strict regulations and permitting of weapons as it served to make it difficult for the "Brownshirts" and other street level enforcers of the early Nazi party to bring directed violence to bear on opposition groups - primarily the Communists. Interestingly enough, it is Hitler and the early Nazis willingness to confront Communists that first began to win them popularity in the period following the war - but I digress.

The only weapon law passed by Hitler and the Nazis in the period before the outbreak of World War II was in 1938. This law essentially removed all regulation on the sale, transfer, and ownership of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. The majority of the population was exempted from any regulation of gun ownership. Of course there was one glaring exception to this encouragement of gun ownership and that was the Jewish people and other target classes of Nazi oppression. Clearly, this was an attempt to ensure certain segments of the population were not able to defend themselves. Although one could argue that if the Polish Army and Soviet Red Army lost millions of citizens and soldiers in an organized resistance of the Wermacht during 1939-1942, an untrained group of armed Jewish citizens would likely not have held out very long - but again another digression.

Interestingly, the quote above and similar versions of it can not be found in any recorded written text or delivered speech by Hitler. In fact, many attribute it to a misquotation of the following statement by Goebbels "To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens by re-inventing their collective memory of the past." Such a sentiment would fit well with Goebbels belief in and implementation of massive propaganda efforts to re-write history and re-brand a variety of ethnic groups and political movements within Germany and Europe as a whole during the 1930's.

Further, the only anti-gun ownership statement that one does find in the historical record that can be attributed to Hitler is "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” That seems pretty strident and clear - but there is a caveat. It was said in direct reference to the regulations and policies that should be put in place in the conquered areas of Eastern Europe and Russia. An area already conquered by the force of military arms prior to any attempt to remove guns from the populace at large.

We can briefly look at some of the other "highlights" in that gallery of awful dictators who supposedly took over because there was no ability to field an armed resistance.

Well, the Soviets only came to power after a protracted and bloody civil war following horrors of the eastern front in 1916-17. The Soviets were a minority political group and largely were able to seize and hold power by their ability to steal guns from the Czarist forces. Then a bunch of other groups also armed themselves and they had a good old-fashioned shooting war for the better part of 5 years. Numerous armed citizens died on all sides. We do know that following consolidation of power, Stalin order the strict regulation of weapons (primarily hunting rifles) and even had the internal security forces confiscate weapons from "dissident groups" - which was likely anyone he didn't like. However, armed resistance to the Soviet regime was essentially over by this point as the fighting between 1917-1922 had broken the back of any organized resistance. Since the Gorbachev administration, private gun ownership is regulated but encouraged.

A similar argument can be made for Mao. He certainly believed that power stemmed from the "barrel of a gun". However, his rise to power and early portions of his rule were actively opposed by organized and well armed combat armies in the field and Mao was only able to achieve power after a protracted and bloody war. Again, by the time he was in any position to pass gun control (and it isn't clear that he really did) most of the people who had any interest in armed resistance to Mao were dead or in exile.

Bottom line - in all 3 cases (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) each dictator began as the leader of a minority political party that was underfunded and ill-equipped. It was only through the initial ineffectiveness and subsequent collapse of the existing political structures that each was able to seize arms, subvert the government, and wrest power by force of arms. In none of the 3 cases did the disarmament of the general populace precede the rise and solidification of their hold on power.

Overall, even if every other dictator on the picture above did engage in a concerted effort to strip their citizenry of arms - what bearing does that have on any discussion of gun regulation in America? As I have previously stated, I think we can confidently reject the hypothesis that the elimination of private gun ownership in the United States is the policy goal of any serious elected leader. I am unaware of any figure that anyone on the left takes seriously that has presented a platform that eliminates gun ownership moving forward and strips the guns already in private hands. While I am certain those people are out there and I bet more than one liberal politician has cashed their donation checks - are they to be taken any more seriously than those that advocate for the possession of anti-aircraft missiles and main battle tanks in the hands of private citizens?

Again, I ask who is attempting to control any group of people and to what end? Further, the conversation (at least for my end) was begun to consider the following:

1. Do the majority of Americans own a gun?
2. What reasonable and mutually agreeable regulations (not necessarily meaning additional or overly restrictive legislation) can be devised to curtail the use of guns on the innocent. Particularly as it relates to the "hot button" issue of mass shootings.
3. Is it possible that the solutions extend beyond simply regulating firearms and run over to mental health, popular attitudes, and general education regarding guns and responsible gun ownership? If so, what can be done to move the conversation forward on those fronts as well?

I want to stress that it was never my intention to signal that I was attempting to stop folks from owning guns or take away existing guns. I did take issue with the seeming assumption by many gun owners that they represent a majority viewpoint or position. They often do not. Simply being in the minority does not indicate that one's opinion or viewpoints are any less legitimate or correct. Nor does it necessarily mean that those opinions require any modification or revision. However, it does mean that the existence of another point of view and the potential for that point of view to be in the majority must be seriously considered. I also want to be very clear that the reverse is true - simply being the majority does not give anyone free rein to use it as a megaphone to shout down all other viewpoints.

And to close, I have read a significant number of history books. And to the best of my knowledge there are very few straight line connections between disarm populace and achieve power. The pathways to power and dictatorship are far more complex than that. It saddens me that when the issue started becoming complex and requiring a detailed and nuanced discussion, it seemingly broke down along the traditional line that any attempt to regulate guns is a precursor to tyrannical overthrow of democracy. I might counter that there are several secure and stable democracies that heavily restrict or eliminate the individual ownership of guns that have not devolved into dictatorial police states. But that was never and will never be the point of why I engaged in this conversation. I am unaware of any other stable and well organized country in the world where its children are killed in their schools. We require children to be sent to schools, we must then ensure that it is almost unheard of them to be threatened by violence while there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

While I do not have the knowledge or the inclination to go through each case in detail - I do know a bit about the (supposed) Hitler quotation and the situation in Germany from the end of the first World War to the installation of Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 and beyond.

It was the Weimar Republic in the period after the first World War that basically eliminated private ownership of firearms. This was largely done to eliminate street violence between the Communists and the National Socialists (Nazis) in the period of high political instability following the armistice. To be fair, these were not the only political and partisan groups engaging in violence during this period, but they certainly drew the most attention. Many historians argue that Hitler and the Nazis would have been frustrated by this law and the subsequent series of strict regulations and permitting of weapons as it served to make it difficult for the "Brownshirts" and other street level enforcers of the early Nazi party to bring directed violence to bear on opposition groups - primarily the Communists. Interestingly enough, it is Hitler and the early Nazis willingness to confront Communists that first began to win them popularity in the period following the war - but I digress.

The only weapon law passed by Hitler and the Nazis in the period before the outbreak of World War II was in 1938. This law essentially removed all regulation on the sale, transfer, and ownership of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. The majority of the population was exempted from any regulation of gun ownership. Of course there was one glaring exception to this encouragement of gun ownership and that was the Jewish people and other target classes of Nazi oppression. Clearly, this was an attempt to ensure certain segments of the population were not able to defend themselves. Although one could argue that if the Polish Army and Soviet Red Army lost millions of citizens and soldiers in an organized resistance of the Wermacht during 1939-1942, an untrained group of armed Jewish citizens would likely not have held out very long - but again another digression.

Interestingly, the quote above and similar versions of it can not be found in any recorded written text or delivered speech by Hitler. In fact, many attribute it to a misquotation of the following statement by Goebbels "To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens by re-inventing their collective memory of the past." Such a sentiment would fit well with Goebbels belief in and implementation of massive propaganda efforts to re-write history and re-brand a variety of ethnic groups and political movements within Germany and Europe as a whole during the 1930's.

Further, the only anti-gun ownership statement that one does find in the historical record that can be attributed to Hitler is "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” That seems pretty strident and clear - but there is a caveat. It was said in direct reference to the regulations and policies that should be put in place in the conquered areas of Eastern Europe and Russia. An area already conquered by the force of military arms prior to any attempt to remove guns from the populace at large.

We can briefly look at some of the other "highlights" in that gallery of awful dictators who supposedly took over because there was no ability to field an armed resistance.

Well, the Soviets only came to power after a protracted and bloody civil war following horrors of the eastern front in 1916-17. The Soviets were a minority political group and largely were able to seize and hold power by their ability to steal guns from the Czarist forces. Then a bunch of other groups also armed themselves and they had a good old-fashioned shooting war for the better part of 5 years. Numerous armed citizens died on all sides. We do know that following consolidation of power, Stalin order the strict regulation of weapons (primarily hunting rifles) and even had the internal security forces confiscate weapons from "dissident groups" - which was likely anyone he didn't like. However, armed resistance to the Soviet regime was essentially over by this point as the fighting between 1917-1922 had broken the back of any organized resistance. Since the Gorbachev administration, private gun ownership is regulated but encouraged.

A similar argument can be made for Mao. He certainly believed that power stemmed from the "barrel of a gun". However, his rise to power and early portions of his rule were actively opposed by organized and well armed combat armies in the field and Mao was only able to achieve power after a protracted and bloody war. Again, by the time he was in any position to pass gun control (and it isn't clear that he really did) most of the people who had any interest in armed resistance to Mao were dead or in exile.

Bottom line - in all 3 cases (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao) each dictator began as the leader of a minority political party that was underfunded and ill-equipped. It was only through the initial ineffectiveness and subsequent collapse of the existing political structures that each was able to seize arms, subvert the government, and wrest power by force of arms. In none of the 3 cases did the disarmament of the general populace precede the rise and solidification of their hold on power.

Overall, even if every other dictator on the picture above did engage in a concerted effort to strip their citizenry of arms - what bearing does that have on any discussion of gun regulation in America? As I have previously stated, I think we can confidently reject the hypothesis that the elimination of private gun ownership in the United States is the policy goal of any serious elected leader. I am unaware of any figure that anyone on the left takes seriously that has presented a platform that eliminates gun ownership moving forward and strips the guns already in private hands. While I am certain those people are out there and I bet more than one liberal politician has cashed their donation checks - are they to be taken any more seriously than those that advocate for the possession of anti-aircraft missiles and main battle tanks in the hands of private citizens?

Again, I ask who is attempting to control any group of people and to what end? Further, the conversation (at least for my end) was begun to consider the following:

1. Do the majority of Americans own a gun?
2. What reasonable and mutually agreeable regulations (not necessarily meaning additional or overly restrictive legislation) can be devised to curtail the use of guns on the innocent. Particularly as it relates to the "hot button" issue of mass shootings.
3. Is it possible that the solutions extend beyond simply regulating firearms and run over to mental health, popular attitudes, and general education regarding guns and responsible gun ownership? If so, what can be done to move the conversation forward on those fronts as well?

I want to stress that it was never my intention to signal that I was attempting to stop folks from owning guns or take away existing guns. I did take issue with the seeming assumption by many gun owners that they represent a majority viewpoint or position. They often do not. Simply being in the minority does not indicate that one's opinion or viewpoints are any less legitimate or correct. Nor does it necessarily mean that those opinions require any modification or revision. However, it does mean that the existence of another point of view and the potential for that point of view to be in the majority must be seriously considered. I also want to be very clear that the reverse is true - simply being the majority does not give anyone free rein to use it as a megaphone to shout down all other viewpoints.

And to close, I have read a significant number of history books. And to the best of my knowledge there are very few straight line connections between disarm populace and achieve power. The pathways to power and dictatorship are far more complex than that. It saddens me that when the issue started becoming complex and requiring a detailed and nuanced discussion, it seemingly broke down along the traditional line that any attempt to regulate guns is a precursor to tyrannical overthrow of democracy. I might counter that there are several secure and stable democracies that heavily restrict or eliminate the individual ownership of guns that have not devolved into dictatorial police states. But that was never and will never be the point of why I engaged in this conversation. I am unaware of any other stable and well organized country in the world where its children are killed in their schools. We require children to be sent to schools, we must then ensure that it is almost unheard of them to be threatened by violence while there.

---

dude ..... you got way to much time ........

i'll hit this one and then I got to go spent all my time reading your long post LOL


eliminate gun free zones and you take the target off the back of all those places . .... cowardice people dislike confrontation hence why many mass shooters kill themselves as soon as armed counterparts show up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

dude ..... you got way to much time ........

i'll hit this one and then I got to go spent all my time reading your long post LOL


eliminate gun free zones and you take the target off the back of all those places . .... cowardice people dislike confrontation hence why many mass shooters kill themselves as soon as armed counterparts show up

---

I do have far too much time.

I don't doubt that there is a kernel of truth to your statements about the cowardice of mass shooters and their selecting gun free zones. But I categorically reject the idea that the solution to violence in society is to harden every target, main the battlements, close the gates, and prepare to battle the rampaging hordes.

I really believe there has to be a reasonable and achievable middle ground between no one has a gun because we are scared of what a few may choose to do with them and everyone has a gun because we are scared about what a few may choose to do with them.

If we have reached a point where the only seemingly viable solution is to "harden targets" and place armed personnel inside every school, church, shopping mall, nightclub, movie theater, restaurant, and concert venue then WTF does that say about us? Nothing positive in my opinion.

Giving away your freedoms in the name of "safety" isn't the way to go either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mach1

Giving away your freedoms in the name of "safety" isn't the way to go either.

---

You and I agree on that. I have not advocated for giving away any freedoms. Unless the sale of firearms only through a licensed dealer who keeps records, runs background checks, etc and (like I believe DWins suggested) expanding access to the background check/licensing system - is taken as a removal of freedoms.

I would suggest that maybe there be some additional "regulation" of gun ownership - maybe you have to take a safety class/certification much like when you become licensed to own/operate other potentially dangerous tools. Perhaps that already exists and if it does...apologies for ignorance on my part.

I would also throw out there for debate some idea that we explore the linkage between mental health assessment and gun ownership. Perhaps individuals with specific and limited mental/social issues may have their right to gun ownership restricted by some reasonable degree. If we can agree to restrict the right to vote for certain specific reasons -- why is it unreasonable to consider the same for guns?

Again, how does the conversation have to immediately track over to people having their freedoms taken from them? Who has suggested that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

I do have far too much time.

I don't doubt that there is a kernel of truth to your statements about the cowardice of mass shooters and their selecting gun free zones. But I categorically reject the idea that the solution to violence in society is to harden every target, main the battlements, close the gates, and prepare to battle the rampaging hordes.

I really believe there has to be a reasonable and achievable middle ground between no one has a gun because we are scared of what a few may choose to do with them and everyone has a gun because we are scared about what a few may choose to do with them.

If we have reached a point where the only seemingly viable solution is to "harden targets" and place armed personnel inside every school, church, shopping mall, nightclub, movie theater, restaurant, and concert venue then WTF does that say about us? Nothing positive in my opinion.

---

see that may be part of our personal misunderstanding ... I do not think you have to " harden " every target with paid personnel but in just taking down the signs you have hardened it a bit by default....

because now Joe Conceal carry is not not forced to shop elsewhere or leave his firearm in the car to be law abiding ( unlike the guy you really want to keep out but the signs do not dissuade him because what he seeks to do is already also against the law ) so all that sign does in reality is tell him 1) he is the one gunman or 2) if anyone else has a gun they are probably intent on doing the same thing he is ... because criminals break laws hence why they are called criminals ...and honest law abiding good people are basically honest good people who will obey the law ( even when it is stupid )

I personally feel like the chances of me being in a mass shooting setting is about as low as anyone on the planet ... why ...I avoid gun free zones like the plague ..if there is a sign saying no firearms I do not enter ...

I am not leaving my gun in the car/truck and I am not entering anywhere where I can not defend myself against deadly force , I just wont do it , to many other places to shop to get what I want/need that welcome me as a law abiding citizen that carries a firearm ....

that said I do not walk around with it exposed and if we ran into one another on the street you would never know I had it on me ....

Hopefully it never clears leather in public !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

You and I agree on that. I have not advocated for giving away any freedoms. Unless the sale of firearms only through a licensed dealer who keeps records, runs background checks, etc and (like I believe DWins suggested) expanding access to the background check/licensing system - is taken as a removal of freedoms.

I would suggest that maybe there be some additional "regulation" of gun ownership - maybe you have to take a safety class/certification much like when you become licensed to own/operate other potentially dangerous tools. Perhaps that already exists and if it does...apologies for ignorance on my part.

I would also throw out there for debate some idea that we explore the linkage between mental health assessment and gun ownership. Perhaps individuals with specific and limited mental/social issues may have their right to gun ownership restricted by some reasonable degree. If we can agree to restrict the right to vote for certain specific reasons -- why is it unreasonable to consider the same for guns?

Again, how does the conversation have to immediately track over to people having their freedoms taken from them? Who has suggested that?

---

I wasn't singling you out specifically.

I have a CCW myself, and just to walk into the business's I own I have to pass a background check required by law and everybody who works for me. I don't know how it is everywhere where else but it's a $25 fee to run a background check on people here.

The mental health assessment do we give those to everyone who wants to drive a car or using something deemed to be dangerous in the wrong hands? While I agree something can be done to keep the crazies from buying guns, but if they're going to go on a rampage they will find a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

You and I agree on that. I have not advocated for giving away any freedoms. Unless the sale of firearms only through a licensed dealer who keeps records, runs background checks, etc and (like I believe DWins suggested) expanding access to the background check/licensing system - is taken as a removal of freedoms.

I would suggest that maybe there be some additional "regulation" of gun ownership - maybe you have to take a safety class/certification much like when you become licensed to own/operate other potentially dangerous tools. Perhaps that already exists and if it does...apologies for ignorance on my part.

I would also throw out there for debate some idea that we explore the linkage between mental health assessment and gun ownership. Perhaps individuals with specific and limited mental/social issues may have their right to gun ownership restricted by some reasonable degree. If we can agree to restrict the right to vote for certain specific reasons -- why is it unreasonable to consider the same for guns?

Again, how does the conversation have to immediately track over to people having their freedoms taken from them? Who has suggested that?

---

Mental Health:

Can't, and I'd be completely against it because it would open the door to demanding mental health assessments for before someone could use their freedom of association, or freedom of religion, or freedom from self-incrimination, or any other freedom found in the amendments (especially those in the Bill of Rights).

I think it is pretty clear what the way forward is. Fix the NICS system so that all states MUST report to it. Stop depending on the gun industry to support NICS (they have been the largest supporter of it for a long time). Fix the pipeline between court verdicts and NICS, Military Discharge and NICS, and so on. If a person is adjudicated mentally ill, then he or she has gone through due process and I have no problem denying them a gun. However, a psychologist, psychaitric doctor, nurse, etc., has no legal right to adjudicate some else's rights outside of their specific purview (require a three-day assessment, etc). Worse yet, allowing such a thing is RIPE for abuse. Already, there's a strong push among the more virulent left to view anyone who claims to be a Christian as mentally ill because of the claim of being in "a relationship with Jesus" and thus, talking with God. Imagine a situation where a mayor hates guns, so he pushes the county social services director to hire mental health experts who have a similar belief. Now, anyone that admits to having a gun gets labeled with mental health issues and loses their rights.

It may seem farfetched to you, but I assure you it is not. All it takes is two people in the right positions; sadly, that already exists in many counties across this country and the only two things stopping it is personal ethics on the part of the people in those positions and/or the inability to accomplish the task because of current laws.

I go to group therapy every chance I get .....










https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Da_p9gYW0AErwWV.jpg:large

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craic

Mental Health:

Can't, and I'd be completely against it because it would open the door to demanding mental health assessments for before someone could use their freedom of association, or freedom of religion, or freedom from self-incrimination, or any other freedom found in the amendments (especially those in the Bill of Rights).

I think it is pretty clear what the way forward is. Fix the NICS system so that all states MUST report to it. Stop depending on the gun industry to support NICS (they have been the largest supporter of it for a long time). Fix the pipeline between court verdicts and NICS, Military Discharge and NICS, and so on. If a person is adjudicated mentally ill, then he or she has gone through due process and I have no problem denying them a gun. However, a psychologist, psychaitric doctor, nurse, etc., has no legal right to adjudicate some else's rights outside of their specific purview (require a three-day assessment, etc). Worse yet, allowing such a thing is RIPE for abuse. Already, there's a strong push among the more virulent left to view anyone who claims to be a Christian as mentally ill because of the claim of being in "a relationship with Jesus" and thus, talking with God. Imagine a situation where a mayor hates guns, so he pushes the county social services director to hire mental health experts who have a similar belief. Now, anyone that admits to having a gun gets labeled with mental health issues and loses their rights.

It may seem farfetched to you, but I assure you it is not. All it takes is two people in the right positions; sadly, that already exists in many counties across this country and the only two things stopping it is personal ethics on the part of the people in those positions and/or the inability to accomplish the task because of current laws.

---

The bold is along the lines of what I meant. Honestly, I am not all that well versed in the specifics of how the process of gun ownership works and have been hesitant to provide too many details related to process as I suspected my ignorance would shine through!

While I had an initial "C'mon" reaction to some of your post - I then thought about it. And I COMPLETELY agree that any mental health assessment that was made in order to purchase a gun would be a system ripe for abuse and a terrible idea. To be completely honest, that was never what I was thinking. I was totally focused on where your bolded statements seem to be aimed as well. If a person is adjudicated mentally ill/unwell in an entirely separate and unrelated process - that needs to be flagged during the background check/waiting period portion of buying a gun.

I believe that if politicians wanted to have an honest conversation along the lines of your posting - they could adjust the current system in a way that infringes on no one's rights. But they don't want to have a realistic conversation on the issue...at least that is how it seems to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

see that may be part of our personal misunderstanding ... I do not think you have to " harden " every target with paid personnel but in just taking down the signs you have hardened it a bit by default....

because now Joe Conceal carry is not not forced to shop elsewhere or leave his firearm in the car to be law abiding ( unlike the guy you really want to keep out but the signs do not dissuade him because what he seeks to do is already also against the law ) so all that sign does in reality is tell him 1) he is the one gunman or 2) if anyone else has a gun they are probably intent on doing the same thing he is ... because criminals break laws hence why they are called criminals ...and honest law abiding good people are basically honest good people who will obey the law ( even when it is stupid )

I personally feel like the chances of me being in a mass shooting setting is about as low as anyone on the planet ... why ...I avoid gun free zones like the plague ..if there is a sign saying no firearms I do not enter ...

I am not leaving my gun in the car/truck and I am not entering anywhere where I can not defend myself against deadly force , I just wont do it , to many other places to shop to get what I want/need that welcome me as a law abiding citizen that carries a firearm ....

that said I do not walk around with it exposed and if we ran into one another on the street you would never know I had it on me ....

Hopefully it never clears leather in public !

---

You make a solid point. I agree that there are no words printed on a piece of paper that are really going to stop a criminal from doing anything - that is why they are a criminal.

But, for me personally, I truly believe that we need to seek other solutions than each individual feeling that the only certain way to be safe is to arm themselves every time they leave their house.

What I find truly interesting about concealed carry and laws about where you can and can not have guns is that I live in a state controlled by a heavily conservative statehouse (just for context - not for judgement). The last several years they have passed a handful of laws that expanded concealed and open carry. One of the few places the politicos refuse to budge on banning guns from? Their workplace(s). Something about that doesn't sit right with me. The politicians fought the local university system hard on the issue of guns on campus. Made arguments about safety and individual rights, etc. But then banned them from government spaces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

You make a solid point. I agree that there are no words printed on a piece of paper that are really going to stop a criminal from doing anything - that is why they are a criminal.

But, for me personally, I truly believe that we need to seek other solutions than each individual feeling that the only certain way to be safe is to arm themselves every time they leave their house.

What I find truly interesting about concealed carry and laws about where you can and can not have guns is that I live in a state controlled by a heavily conservative statehouse (just for context - not for judgement). The last several years they have passed a handful of laws that expanded concealed and open carry. One of the few places the politicos refuse to budge on banning guns from? Their workplace(s). Something about that doesn't sit right with me. The politicians fought the local university system hard on the issue of guns on campus. Made arguments about safety and individual rights, etc. But then banned them from government spaces?

---

I can not speak for every state as I have not done the research , however I know most states BAN firearms in state houses and court houses along with any federal buildings ( and rightfully so IMO )

High profile targets sitting defenseless for anyone to try and get their 15 mins of fame , pissed off over a Bill , a court decision , a suspect on trial etc etc ... I get it

at the same time ( in my area anyways ) you have to pass through a metal detector with armed sheriffs deputies manning the detector assuring us that nobody is getting in armed ...

they are protecting themselves without a firearm because they know nobody else is going to have one either ( except those paid to have them at the door )

that is the difference in those places and other " gun free zones" they take the necessary steps to insure the law is enforced and NOBODY other than the enforcers are armed ....

I believe in my heart of hearts if schools and other places do not remove the signs they should be forced to act in the same manner by providing safeguards that their signs are obeyed and if not then forced removal of the sign that stops nobody with evil intent

This in my state.

Are there places where I cannot carry a concealed weapon?

Yes. You may not carry a concealed weapon in a courthouse, juvenile detention facility, adult correctional facility, prison, jail, public school or private school.

Federal law may prohibit you from carrying a weapon in places such as federal courthouses and airports

In Wisconsin it got extended to any government building and any business, church, or school that posts that you can not carry.

Basically, what ended up happening is that you can not carry on any state owned building (or at least very few). I get courthouses, detention facilities, jails, statehouses, etc. Solid and rationale reasons for that were laid out by previous posters.

But the same lawmakers who publicly pushed very very hard for the laws being passed and pushed back against business and organizations opting out -- immediately made it so that no where they work on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (most have multiple offices) has any guns on the premises.

I know this is a bit of a pointless side rant, but what is good for the goose should be good for the gander, no? Honestly, I should just let this go and move on...it really isn't important. For some reason it just sticks in my craw...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

In Wisconsin it got extended to any government building and any business, church, or school that posts that you can not carry.

Basically, what ended up happening is that you can not carry on any state owned building (or at least very few). I get courthouses, detention facilities, jails, statehouses, etc. Solid and rationale reasons for that were laid out by previous posters.

But the same lawmakers who publicly pushed very very hard for the laws being passed and pushed back against business and organizations opting out -- immediately made it so that no where they work on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (most have multiple offices) has any guns on the premises.

I know this is a bit of a pointless side rant, but what is good for the goose should be good for the gander, no? Honestly, I should just let this go and move on...it really isn't important. For some reason it just sticks in my craw...

---

a lot of things stick in my craw ... when I was a smoker ( even still since I quit ) built in tax on every pack of smokes here in Pa its well over a buck a pack in tax ..... then they charge sales tax on the already taxed amount ( tax on the tax ) ....something seems terribly wrong about that but we are WAY WAY off topic now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

a lot of things stick in my craw ... when I was a smoker ( even still since I quit ) built in tax on every pack of smokes here in Pa its well over a buck a pack in tax ..... then they charge sales tax on the already taxed amount ( tax on the tax ) ....something seems terribly wrong about that but we are WAY WAY off topic now

---

Yeah. Sin taxes are always controversial.

Another one that makes me shake my head is that state and federal politicos pass laws that impact regular folks pay, pensions, and benefits. Then they turn around and exempt themselves from a lot of the same systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

Yeah. Sin taxes are always controversial.

Another one that makes me shake my head is that state and federal politicos pass laws that impact regular folks pay, pensions, and benefits. Then they turn around and exempt themselves from a lot of the same systems.

---

Like obamacare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

good post with exception to the bold ...

an AR 15 or AK 47 that is legally owned by private citizens are NOT Military grade firearms

an M16 or M4 is military versions of the AR they have burst mode/ full auto capabilities that the AR simply does not have

same with the AK the civilian versions like the AR have no burst mode or full auto mode

if either did they would be $8,000 and up in price and would require a federal tax stamp in order to purchase ...

this " military grade crap" is the evening news and uninformed politicians spouting off about things in which they have no clue about ...

semi auto 1 shot fired for every 1 trigger pull not much different in that found in old wheel guns ( 6 shooters / revolvers ) used in the old west


one of my AR's here

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUazJReVAAAjh5x.jpg:large



note the bullet chart ( ar is .223 / 5.56 ) I hunt deer with a 30.06 note the size in that round also in pic below

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaOncoWX0AA8gzc.jpg:large


lastly the primary 2 reasons the US Military went from 30 caliber to the M16 ( 22 caliber ) is

1) ammo weight was a huge factor you can carry way more rounds of smaller lighter ammo into battle

2) it is a far less lethal round , meaning you could shoot 1 person and effectively take 2-3 more out of the battle for a time while they drug their wounded compatriot to safer ground

---

M16-A1 has full auto, A2 has 3 round burst.

I think the issue is that the rounds "tumble"; they go in your leg and go out your chest. They are designed to wreak havoc to whatever it hits.

Personally I don't agree with having those types of weapons. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, that amendment has NOTHING to do with the weapons of today so IMO that argument is moot.

With that said, I also disagree with anyone telling me what I can or cannot own. I do agree however with being a certain age in order to buy those weapons "as a civilian". I don't care if you're former military, being former military does NOT mean you know your way around a weapon.

I was in the USMC and took the primary marksmanship instructor and coached many people to expert shooter who had never shot expert before. I could have made that my MOS but chose instead to get out to see what it's like being a civilian.

To me, owning a firearm is not worth the risk. Too many stories about kids getting ahold of weapons etc. If I need protection, a high powered nail gun would do just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mach1

Like obamacare?

---

Sure. Or the system before that. The current system. Doesn't really matter. Whatever system it is, Congress always votes that their healthcare and benefits are different and separate from yours and mine. Many state legislatures do the same. Often times even portions of their taxes are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BnG_Hevn

M16-A1 has full auto, A2 has 3 round burst.

I think the issue is that the rounds "tumble"; they go in your leg and go out your chest. They are designed to wreak havoc to whatever it hits.

Personally I don't agree with having those types of weapons. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, that amendment has NOTHING to do with the weapons of today so IMO that argument is moot.

With that said, I also disagree with anyone telling me what I can or cannot own. I do agree however with being a certain age in order to buy those weapons "as a civilian". I don't care if you're former military, being former military does NOT mean you know your way around a weapon.

I was in the USMC and took the primary marksmanship instructor and coached many people to expert shooter who had never shot expert before. I could have made that my MOS but chose instead to get out to see what it's like being a civilian.

To me, owning a firearm is not worth the risk. Too many stories about kids getting ahold of weapons etc. If I need protection, a high powered nail gun would do just fine.

---

thats why there are gun safes and small bedside hand/fingerprint safes for handguns it allows you to get ahold of it quickly but keeps the kids out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

thats why there are gun safes and small bedside hand/fingerprint safes for handguns it allows you to get ahold of it quickly but keeps the kids out

---

That's true, but I can respect his position as well. I have a good friend that is the same way. He is one hundred percent pro-gun, but will not have a gun in his house until his son grows up because he doesn't want that one-in-a-million-mistake to be his mistake.

I, on the otherhand, have no children in my house. As such, all my guns, whether in the safe or not, are fully loaded and chambered because I consider them all self-defense weapons and will grab any one of them in a self-defense scenario, depending on the issue. Heck, I have one sitting at my elbow on the desk right now. Of course, every single one of my handguns are holstered to protect the trigger and my long guns have the safeties on (I don't buy handguns with safeties. My finger knows where it should and should not go when it comes to weapons).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craic

That's true, but I can respect his position as well. I have a good friend that is the same way. He is one hundred percent pro-gun, but will not have a gun in his house until his son grows up because he doesn't want that one-in-a-million-mistake to be his mistake.

I, on the otherhand, have no children in my house. As such, all my guns, whether in the safe or not, are fully loaded and chambered because I consider them all self-defense weapons and will grab any one of them in a self-defense scenario, depending on the issue. Heck, I have one sitting at my elbow on the desk right now. Of course, every single one of my handguns are holstered to protect the trigger and my long guns have the safeties on (I don't buy handguns with safeties. My finger knows where it should and should not go when it comes to weapons).

---

oh I respect it to , was just pointing it out in case he is out of the loop on such things as safes have chanced a lot in the last 10-15 years esp small handgun safes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

oh I respect it to , was just pointing it out in case he is out of the loop on such things as safes have chanced a lot in the last 10-15 years esp small handgun safes

---

Gotcha.

To be honest, I avoid most of those like a plague because so many of them are now electronic. When I bought my gun safe, I purposefully avoided any safe that had a keypad. It just takes one hiccup for that stupid thing to lock and stay that way. No thanks! Give me the old fashion dial and tumblers. Especially when you think about what could happen in a fire. Dial - still has a very good chance of working. Keypad? Not so good. The wiring can melt because of the heat, or the pad short circuit from the water used to put out the fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craic

Gotcha.

To be honest, I avoid most of those like a plague because so many of them are now electronic. When I bought my gun safe, I purposefully avoided any safe that had a keypad. It just takes one hiccup for that stupid thing to lock and stay that way. No thanks! Give me the old fashion dial and tumblers. Especially when you think about what could happen in a fire. Dial - still has a very good chance of working. Keypad? Not so good. The wiring can melt because of the heat, or the pad short circuit from the water used to put out the fire.

---

its not as bad as you may think ... mine has the digital keypad ( brands and model probably vary though ) ... BUT , if the keypad shits the bed or the batteries die you can easily remove the keypad ( 10 seconds ) and use the elongated key that is like 6 inches long to get back into the mechanism and open the safe .... I keep the key to my big safe in my small safe that is a dial only ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

its not as bad as you may think ... mine has the digital keypad ( brands and model probably vary though ) ... BUT , if the keypad shits the bed or the batteries die you can easily remove the keypad ( 10 seconds ) and use the elongated key that is like 6 inches long to get back into the mechanism and open the safe .... I keep the key to my big safe in my small safe that is a dial only ..

---

Ahh. The ones I was looking at didn't seem to have that feature. That's a great option. It makes buying my next safe a little easier if I know I can do that. Thanks.

I have an old smaller liberty centurion safe with electronic lock that crapped out a couple different times. No long key for it, had to wait for the locksmith to open it. Good thing they have lifetime warranty. I did get a liberty fatboy safe and I made sure it had a dial. The small one is now an ammo/overflow catch all safe.