Gathering of the Clan

A Gathering of Fly Fishermen
It is currently Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:58 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Gun control
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:47 am
Posts: 644
Oh, Lord, it's “gun control” again.

The recent massacre in Florida has the debate at white hot heat and understandably so. The heat, however, is, as usual not generating a great deal of light.

First, the anti-firearms people are making much of the demands of the surviving students for “gun control.” With all due respect, the they are, after all, just youngsters teens' demands are understandable but, after all, like all youngsters, don't know anything about their topic except what older people have told them. Their despair should be noted but they can't be relied on for more than that. The same can be said for many “gun control” advocates. They don't even know the proper nomenclature for firearms.

“Guns” are artillery pieces. Then, there are pistols, rifles and shotguns. What the “gun control” people really want is control of semi automatic rifles in military configurations. (I wonder if they'd recognize an M-1 carbine as falling into that class? I doubt it.)

Anyhow, ignorance aside, I think we really do need to do something about the militarily configured weapons. I say that as an owner and user of firearms for at least 60 years.

I know some will be offended, but, in my mind, anybody without a military background who wants to trick out an AR-15 into military appearance and function is a bit off plumb. Wannabes usually are. I've never seen more scary looking people than I did at a big gun show I once went to. Most of the people there were OK looking, but a lot of the folks were just strange looking in their camos, berets and posturing. Their Adam Lanza eyes weren't reassuring either.

There are a number of things that might be done to reduce the chances of firarm massacres that don't impinge the right to bear arms.

First, the size of magazines can be limited. Nobody needs more than a few rounds. If you haven't repelled an aggressor within five shots, you are likely dead and shouldn't have been messing with a firearm in the first place. Smaller magazines wouldn't stop attacks on large numbers of folks such as students or theater goers but they sure would slow them down. Hunters, who strive to be good shots, haven't bucked magazine limits.

Secondly, background checks should be expanded to require really close looks including personal interviews at anybody who wants a semi-automatic rifle and doesn't claim to be a sportsman of some sort. That personal interview would reveal those Adam Lanza eyes.

Thirdly, nobody under 21 should be allowed to buy semi-automatic rifles above. 22 caliber. That wouldn't stop people like the Las Vegas shooter or Adam Lanza's mother, but it would stop some of the younger, more hormonally driven buyers.

Most importantly, medical privacy laws should be changed so that disturbing people can be reported and those deemed really dangerous should be barred from buying firearms. That might not have stopped the Virginia Tech killer, but it might have.
All those things could be done without impinging the Second Amendment. They should be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:47 pm
Posts: 333
Colston:
1) there are more scary looking people driving cars than there are scary people with bullet launchers , per capita. And cars kill kids at an exceedingly higher rate than bullet launchers. Can we agree and ban kids from riding in or driving cars until they are 21?

2) Why interviews for semi-autos when lever action and pump rifles can fire as fast?

3) the bullets used by the Florida shooter and by Adam whathisname WERE .22 caliber bullets. The 5.56mm NATO round that most AR-15s are chambered for, is a .22 caliber round. It's a .22 caliber (.223) centerfired bullet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:47 am
Posts: 644
Because these numbnuts don't know how to handle a lever action or pump. I'd go for banning drivers under 21, too, unless they were needed to help on the farm, the original reason for lower aged drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:46 pm
Posts: 268
As an enthusiastic gun owner and a Life Member of the NRA, I should be on the other side of this argument, but I'm not. I doubt AR availability is going to last more than a year, considerably less. I don't currently own an AR and won't, but I'm pretty sure Colston's ban was in the spirit of the .22 rimfire range.

Gun owners are fixing to take a bite of a crap sandwich. I know the arguments pro gun ownership, but I think they'll fall on deaf ears. I saw on Fox news that 67% of Americans are in favor of banning these weapons. I've owned them for years and never once felt like a mall ninja; they're very accurate rifles and fun. But a lot of mall ninjas own them and I suspect the Florida shooter was one who turned evil at some point.

The School Rescource Officer is apparently a WIMP who didn't enter the school for 4 minutes after the 6 minute shooting started. He resigned and will no doubt live with his lack of response forever.

I'm willing to extend the age requirement for a long gun to 21...so sue me. I willing to extend background checks, although I don't know how to do so. I do resent, just a little, the government telling me what I can own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:47 pm
Posts: 333
I agree, as long as we move the driving license age to 21 and make 21 the earliest age for military service. It's incredibly hypocritical to tell a young pers9n they can't drink or buy a rifle, but they can die for their country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:47 am
Posts: 644
Gene is correct. I was thinking of excluding .22 rimfires from the age limitation. It's the "high powered" aspect of he ARs that makes them more deadly.

I hope Gene is wrong about the ARs being banned. They are as he described altho I don't care for their Mattel appearance. I'd just like to see their distribution more tightly observed. It's tricking them out that worries me about their owners. Coley has a "Bull pup" M-4. It was a retirement gift from his comrades, so he has a reason to have it.

Doug: the reason for lower enlistment age and higher buy the semi age is the same. Younger folks are inexperienced enough to not be afraid of soldiering. That same lack of maturity makes some of them dangerous with weapons.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:46 pm
Posts: 268
I don't think the ARs will be banned from ownership, but will be banned for sale, like during the Clinton years.

The 21 to own one (or at least to buy one) is completely unrelated to service in the military, where guns are heavily regulated. Since the maximum age to join the military is 35, it doesn't follow that AR ownership should be restricted to 21-35.

I'm not moved by arming teachers unless they go through thorough training. Teachers in Israel are armed but there military service is mandatory and the threat is very real.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:19 am
Posts: 100
Connecticut has a minimum age requirement, and it actually kept Adam Lanza from buying a gun. So he killed his mother and used hers. People who call for minimum-age requirements have short memories.

By all means, let's pass a law if it makes some of us feel better. Legislation as therapy.

Arming teachers who can be trusted with guns makes sense. How many lives would have been saved if the teachers had been able to shoot back?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:18 pm
Posts: 314
I'm with John on this one. First things first - the US has always been an armed country, but these mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon. Firearm ownership of any kind cannot be the root cause. Any "gun regulation" has nothing to do with changing the situation, but everything to do with 1) making do-gooders and politicians "feel" like they've done something good and 2) helping whittle away at our 2nd amendment rights in order to yield more control of the populace to the federal government. All the other details revolve around those items, which seem pretty difficult to dispute.

Regarding the issue of large capacity magazines, assault rifles, etc..., I don't own any of them, but I think it's important to remember the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is really not about hunting or even personal protection, but about protecting our citizens from hostile takeover by our own government. Many see this as a silly argument...we can't compete with smart bombs, etc, they say. Well, the more well armed we are, the more difficult the takeover if it ever came down to it.

_________________
"Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but roast it over a fire..." Exodus 12:9


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:10 pm
Posts: 403
A few things...in sorta random order...

But, first, no I don't own an AR, have no use for them. Have owned them in the past, in fact made tidy profits on several I bought during the run-up to Obama's election and sold afterwards. Used the cash to buy a bunch of fishing stuff, and one really nice Arietta SxS Shotgun...

Mass killings are not new. Been around for a long time. There was one - in Germany - back in the 1800s.

Mass killings don't just happen in the US.

While there's an our side chance we'll do something stupid like banning the sale of scary looking guns, we can not ban them (confiscate them) without compensation. That's kind of a problem.

Re, the scary looking people: Really? I wasn't aware of a cultural requirement to fall within a certain standard conformance of appearance...

Drunks and texters kill thousands more people than scary guns every year. When we get serious about addressing that, maybe I'll worry about guns...

Drug ODs kill far more people than guns, by orders of magnitude. See above about when I'll worry about guns...

The whole "Bump stock" fiasco after Vegas was complete and utter BS, driven by people who have zero understanding of how guns, and recoil work. The shooter there could have killed and wounded dozens, if not hundreds more with disciplined, controlled shooting that did not climb out of the crowd.

IMO, we need to get our heads out of our collective posteriors and make fact and data based root cause analysis here, and go after the real problem instead of trying to slap a band-aid on the problem.

Let's think, not react.


Last edited by Further North on Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buxtehude and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group