For the umpteenth time. For the sheer amount of use of high capacity magazines in legal and benign capacity vs. the insanely minuscule amount used for illegal uses, same goes with assault rifles. They have been used in maybe 3 or 4 of these high profile shootings so now millions of law abiding people need to have their rights to own and use them legally should be stripped? Reactionary, emotional, claptrap. It's an individual liberty issue and as outlined in the article pages back very useful for personal protection. They aren't discussing a middle ground stance on them, ban them, period. Could there be common ground restrictions on obtaining them? Maybe, they sure as shit don't want to discuss them either.
Because the people who perpertrate these massacres are generally cowards, so they look for helpless victims. In almost every case, they have either killed themselves before the police arrive or as soon as they are confronted by someone else with a weapon, like at the Oregon mall shooting.
I agree with the personal liberties thing, and the fact that no one is willing to discuss middle grounds on things is what bothers me the most. I probably should not have phrased it as an outright ban, but the idea is the same. The majority of gun violence is not committed with "assault weapons." However, if I'm a nutjob, and I'm going for a high-profile shooting, I'm not going to be doing it with my hunting rifle. While it's a small overall percentage, I am strongly of the opinion that this kind of thing is extremely fucked up and needs to be addressed separately from the "crime" statistics. I think limiting gun access to those who can pass background checks, etc, is fairly straightforward. However, how do you go about limiting people's ability to make these kinds of statement killings, especially if that person is a fucked up teenager and not the person who purchased the gun in the first place? And, just as importantly, how do you do this without a complete overreaction that imposes too heavily on gun owners?
In training, we are taught that our first response should always be GTFO if you can. If you ever draw your weapon in public, even if you don't fire, you'd better have a lawyer on speed dial and be able to clearly and convincingly explain to a jury why you felt that your life was in danger and that the other party had the means, ability, and opportunity to cause grave bodily harm. That said, if these guys were simply walking down the street with their guns and not directly threatening anyone, you have every opportunity to GTFO and call the police. Engaging them would be completely unjustified.
I can speak only for myself. I certainly don't walk around hoping a psycho will pop out of the woodwork any second ready to gun down everyone around me. My guess is the guy you talked to doesn't really either, he's just trying to show how big his dick is. That being said--would I give anything to have been at Sandy Hook, or the Aurora movie theater, or Fort Hood with a concealed weapon?? You bet your ass, and while again I can only speak for myself I'd bet 99% of concealed carry permit holders feel the same way.
Semantics. Nothing you mentioned addresses or changes the core of the argument. Fuck with my country, I'll kill you. Enter my home with intent to do harm, I'll kill you. It's not nearly as complicated as many hope to make it. And who's being coy, again?
Congratulations on having read the definition of deterrence once. Obviously the difference between weapons of mass destruction and literally any weapon ever, defined all the way down to a closed fist, is merely semantics. You're a savant, and the reason everyone else struggles with the finer details of gun rights is because we literally don't understand the idea of deterrence.
So, how would you respond if those two in the piece I linked to were approaching you on your street? All you see are two guys, in their 20s, with assault rifles walking toward you and your house. You have no idea what their intentions are. Just two, young, white guys carrying guns openly in your neighborhood.
I would get those nearest to me in a safe place, call 911 and stay inside. If I could keep visual contact, I would. I'd also tell the 911 operator that I too was armed and had no intention of confronting the men with guns, however, responding officers should know that I have guns before they show up.
Every situation is unique, so I can't say how I would have responded. If flight is was not an option, my first instinct is to look for and take cover. Then, grab the phone and call 911 and describe everything in detail. If the situation escalated, I'd set my phone down while still on the line with 911 so they could hear and record everything and loudly instruct them to drop their weapons. If they failed to do so, *bang bang* If it's an active shooter situation, everything changes.
Piers Morgan is usually trying to push some agenda so he comes across as douchey. To his credit though he did invite other opposition on who could discuss the issues competently. What? There's just as many people killed by drunk drivers as there are those killed with fire arms, and that's just a drop in the bucket. The amount of crimes related to alcohol and other substance abuse is staggering. I'm against the assault weapons ban. The fact is the vast majority of murders are committed with a different weapon, and it would be a really ridiculous argument to claim those people wouldn't have used another gun, or something else. At best it's a band aid where major surgery is needed argument. Any other policies that tried to strip Americans of their fire arms seems more likely to leave honest, responsible law abiding owners without, while the criminals keep them.
Remember there is something important about situational awareness, it's understanding posture and disposition. Are the two guys walking down the street mags in the mag wells, with weapons held at the ready and determined or angry expressions? Are the two guys walking down the street with rifles slung over their backs without mags in the wells, holding a normal conversation? Two very different scenarios. In this instance, based on the photo from the article, I'm not the least bit put off by what they did assuming they are within the law. If the law allows for open carry then what's the big deal?
Beat me to it. The guys in the picture are carrying their rifles slung across their backs and appear to be walking casually. I don't see it as threatening in the least.
This is really not a solution I'm proposing so please don't think I'm deluded. But I would like to engage in a completely improbable hypothetical just to see where the line in the sand is. If there was some way to round up all illegal weapons, and put some sort of sensor on the weapons that were obtained legally what would you guys say? This sensor would make it so that your weapon would only work in your hands. And with a few exceptions it would report to the nearest police station when it was fired. Places like shooting ranges and your own property (if you are lets say 1000 yards or further from the limits of your property) would be exempt from this reporting feature. If you have display pieces they would be exempt from the need for this sensor but would have to be placed in a display case that once again only you can open and will report you if you open the case. All weapons would be registered with the government much the same as a car. Naturally this would eliminate some flexibilty from guns. You could no longer let others fire them. Private sales would go away. But in this completely impossible and magical scenario I have dreamed up gun crime is pretty much gone. And if you do use your weapon in a public setting Johnny Law would be there pretty fucking quick to either shoot you back or assess the reason you felt deadly force was needed. So let's say this hypothetical situation was possible, would you gun owners be ok with it? I'm really not trying to set anyone up as a gun nut or anything I'm really just curious about the opinions of people who's intelligence I respect.
Ok I think you knew what I was going for, but I'll put it this way. In this magical world, illegal guns can't happen. Some magical technology makes it work this way. All guns would have this sensor technology on it. Including those carried by the police. People could own and use guns with the caveat that only they can use their gun and the government will have a record of EVERY gun you own and the police will know the second you shoot it and where you are when you shoot it. This includes hunting grounds. But as I said virtually no more gun crime. In that case, would the gun owners of this thread be ok with the loss of some of the anonymity and flexibility of gun ownership, if it got rid of gun crime.
I mean it's kind of an interesting idea, but what is the point in discussing this? To throw you a bone it would end some gun crimes, except for domestic murders, or when someone doesn't care they get caught like in a mass shooting. The police don't know until the gun is fired, which is way too late. This would bring up a lot of privacy issues, and don't get me started on the 2nd amendment problems it would pose.