testtest

Gun Control Orgs Use Atlanta Shootings to Argue for Firearm Purchase Waiting Periods

Lock n' Load said:
"Con"gress, not knowing or caring about the difference between a military or law enforcement full auto assault weapon and a popular modern semi auto sporting rifle that only looks like the full auto version with nowhere near the rate of fire, will continue to use the term "assault weapon" to frighten the unknowing citizen to support their anti 2A motives. It's time for the pro 2A organizations to offer "Con"gress a free in-session seminar on the difference between the two and publicize it widely for all to see on C-SPAN and any other available media in the event that they reject it.
Click to expand...
I would be willing to settle for an acknowledgement that modern sporting rifles have a definite sporting purpose. The media intentionally refers to them as "weapons of war" to downplay the fact that these guns meet the "sporting purpose" exception that was expressly written into the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I think part of this falls on us. Gun owners need to demand that 3-gun competitions be televised on at least one of the sports networks. We need to do everything we can to ensure that female shooting competitors start getting the recognition they deserve as athletes. Some of our female shooters are olympic gold medalists, but nobody knows their names. We could also point out that Jerry Miculek is a dominant force in the sport, despite being 66 years old. To a media that values "inclusion" above all else, shooting sports would be hard to deny.

I know it's an uphill battle, but we need to do more to highlight the "sporting" aspect of shooting. Anti's keep shouting that, "Nobody needs an assault rifle to hunt", because we have allowed the masses to believe that guns are only used to kill people or hunt animals. Gun owners need to find a way to promote our sport, or the anti's will succeed in their quest to disarm law-abiding citizens.
 
God dangit. Why does it seem like every time there is a push for gun control some psycho goes off like this? If they would sentence him to be tortured to death I think these A holes would think twice about doing crap like this.
 
HansGruber said:
By the bye:

you just made the exact same argument that anti-gunners make when they say the second should only apply to muskets.

Just sayin’.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you made that leap. The courts over the years have ruled that hanging is cruel. Apparently so are firing squads. One big difference is that in theory anyway, people sentenced to capital punishment are convicted murderers. So if you consider that convicted murderers automatically lose their 2A rights, why can't they lose their 8A rights ?
 
I retired from 42 years in law enforcement and have been a police firearms instructor for 50 years. In my consulting business I have researched mass killings dating back to the 1800's, and have trained a number of organizations in workplace violence prevention and active shooter response. There is not a single "profile" of mass killers, however in a large percentage of these cases the behavior was predictable, and/or profound mental illness was present. We often ask ourselves "why?", but with the exception of politically motivated killings (Pensacola NAS shooter, Ft Hood Shooter, Boston Marathon bombers, Chattanooga TN recruiting center, etc), the motive often defies rational explanation.

Modern mass shooters almost invariably research information on previous mass shooters, and contemplate and brood on their attack for a period of time beforehand. If you want your own Wiki page, you have to kill more people than previous killers. Longer waiting periods would have little effect on them, and extended background checks would have little effect because most of them bought the gun legally subsequent to a NICS check. However, some of them who bought guns legally would not have been able to do so had proper enforcement action been taken against them and the records been properly reported. (The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school shootings; the Washington Navy Yard shootings).

But guns are not necessary for mass murder. As mentioned above Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun. The worst mass murder of school children in American history occurred in Bath, Michigan in 1927 and it was a bombing, committed by a school board member. Most folks do not realize that the Columbine High School killings was not supposed to be primarily a shooting-the boys set up a catastrophic explosive device that could have killed several hundred kids, but their ignition device did not work properly. The guns were there to shoot bombing survivors as they evacuated the building.

A few common characteristics are seen in mass killers. They generally feel like victims, that they have no control, and they are narcissistic. They do not expect to survive their rampage. Profound mental illness is often a factor. Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower shooter, had a brain tumor on autopsy. The San Ysidro MacDonald's shooter had high levels of heavy metals in his brain (he was a technical welder by trade). The postal workers who gave us the phrase "going postal" were profoundly mentally ill, as was the Virginia Tech shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter, and the Aurora, CO theater shooter. Many of the shooters announced their intention to shoot a bunch of people, or persons close to them predicted the behavior, but the warnings went unheeded.

The problem with these homicidal individuals throughout history is not, and never has been, the weapons, but the behavior. Our mental health system simply is not functional in terms of identifying and dealing with homicidal mental illness, and often the foreboding is missed or ignored.

The dilemma we as gun owners and protectors of the 2nd Amendment are faced with is that even though the guns are not the problem, a high capacity firearm makes a person who is intent on killing a lot of people more lethal. It is in all our best interests to keep those individuals from obtaining any kind of firearm, or dynamite, or ammonium nitrate, and to have a mental health system in place that diminishes their ability to carry out a massacre.
 
HayesGreener said:
I retired from 42 years in law enforcement and have been a police firearms instructor for 50 years. In my consulting business I have researched mass killings dating back to the 1800's, and have trained a number of organizations in workplace violence prevention and active shooter response. There is not a single "profile" of mass killers, however in a large percentage of these cases the behavior was predictable, and/or profound mental illness was present. We often ask ourselves "why?", but with the exception of politically motivated killings (Pensacola NAS shooter, Ft Hood Shooter, Boston Marathon bombers, Chattanooga TN recruiting center, etc), the motive often defies rational explanation.

Modern mass shooters almost invariably research information on previous mass shooters, and contemplate and brood on their attack for a period of time beforehand. If you want your own Wiki page, you have to kill more people than previous killers. Longer waiting periods would have little effect on them, and extended background checks would have little effect because most of them bought the gun legally subsequent to a NICS check. However, some of them who bought guns legally would not have been able to do so had proper enforcement action been taken against them and the records been properly reported. (The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school shootings; the Washington Navy Yard shootings).

But guns are not necessary for mass murder. As mentioned above Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun. The worst mass murder of school children in American history occurred in Bath, Michigan in 1927 and it was a bombing, committed by a school board member. Most folks do not realize that the Columbine High School killings was not supposed to be primarily a shooting-the boys set up a catastrophic explosive device that could have killed several hundred kids, but their ignition device did not work properly. The guns were there to shoot bombing survivors as they evacuated the building.

A few common characteristics are seen in mass killers. They generally feel like victims, that they have no control, and they are narcissistic. They do not expect to survive their rampage. Profound mental illness is often a factor. Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower shooter, had a brain tumor on autopsy. The San Ysidro MacDonald's shooter had high levels of heavy metals in his brain (he was a technical welder by trade). The postal workers who gave us the phrase "going postal" were profoundly mentally ill, as was the Virginia Tech shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter, and the Aurora, CO theater shooter. Many of the shooters announced their intention to shoot a bunch of people, or persons close to them predicted the behavior, but the warnings went unheeded.

The problem with these homicidal individuals throughout history is not, and never has been, the weapons, but the behavior. Our mental health system simply is not functional in terms of identifying and dealing with homicidal mental illness, and often the foreboding is missed or ignored.

The dilemma we as gun owners and protectors of the 2nd Amendment are faced with is that even though the guns are not the problem, a high capacity firearm makes a person who is intent on killing a lot of people more lethal. It is in all our best interests to keep those individuals from obtaining any kind of firearm, or dynamite, or ammonium nitrate, and to have a mental health system in place that diminishes their ability to carry out a massacre.
Click to expand...
Great post. Thanks for the insight.
 
HayesGreener said:
The problem with these homicidal individuals throughout history is not, and never has been, the weapons, but the behavior. Our mental health system simply is not functional in terms of identifying and dealing with homicidal mental illness, and often the foreboding is missed or ignored.

The dilemma we as gun owners and protectors of the 2nd Amendment are faced with is that even though the guns are not the problem, a high capacity firearm makes a person who is intent on killing a lot of people more lethal. It is in all our best interests to keep those individuals from obtaining any kind of firearm, or dynamite, or ammonium nitrate, and to have a mental health system in place that diminishes their ability to carry out a massacre.
Click to expand...

Isn't the purpose of Red Flag Laws to get guns away from people who might be dangerous to themselves or others? Yet it seems to me that many of those who post on various gun forums are adamantly opposed to such laws as a violation of the 2A. I don't think anyone has a solution to the violence, hatred, and craziness in our country.
 
Oaktree45 said:
Isn't the purpose of Red Flag Laws to get guns away from people who might be dangerous to themselves or others? Yet it seems to me that many of those who post on various gun forums are adamantly opposed to such laws as a violation of the 2A. I don't think anyone has a solution to the violence, hatred, and craziness in our country.
Click to expand...
The so-called Red Flag Laws depend upon how the law was written and how it is enforced. Truth be told, we have been seizing firearms from crazy people under court order for as long as I can remember. The sticking point with these laws is the issue of due process. The way Florida did it was to codify due process into the statute, and the standard is "clear and convincing evidence" that must be presented to a judge to get the order, and only law enforcement can submit a petition for the order. Read Florida Statute 790.401. I have heard the objections, but typically these things arise from some criminal offense or disturbance that brought the police there in the first place. We can make the argument that you should not be able to seize the guns if he's not a convicted felon, but what is the officer supposed to do, drive off and leave the crazy person armed when he clearly presents a threat? It's a no-win for everybody involved and since the mental health system is inadequate law enforcement is stuck with the problem. Perhaps the best solution is to get the court commit the individual to a mental institution, which would render them ineligible to possess a firearm.
 
HayesGreener said:
The dilemma we as gun owners and protectors of the 2nd Amendment are faced with is that even though the guns are not the problem, a high capacity firearm makes a person who is intent on killing a lot of people more lethal. It is in all our best interests to keep those individuals from obtaining any kind of firearm, or dynamite, or ammonium nitrate, and to have a mental health system in place that diminishes their ability to carry out a massacre.
Click to expand...
....or renting a Ryder truck...or buying 100 gallons of unleaded fuel....

We canNOT focus on the chosen object. Period. It is not the gun, nor the bomb, nor the sword, nor the truck.

It.
Is.
The.
PERSON.

When a person decides to take life...they will find a way. Honestly, it's probably EASIER to kill 10 people in a grocery store, by simply driving a truck into the building at 50mph. If the rafters aren't slowing you down by dragging on the roof of the vehicle...you've got free reign to destroy everything in that building.

Quickly.

And its a whole helluva lot easier to rent a truck, than to buy a gun. Drop your deposit, photo of your license...and you can be there in ten minutes. Do we need UHaul and Ryder to institute a waiting period as well?

It ain't the gun's fault. And, it ain't the fault of the fact that guns exist.

There is no deterrence anymore. There is zero reason NOT to commit a crime, other than an internal drive to have a clear conscience. Criminals know they can get away with anything they want, and if they aren't killed on-scene...they get 3 hots and a cot for the rest of their life. Or, they simply get released due to new, "anti-overcrowding" laws. Too many people in prison? Just let 'em out! Don't do anything to try and stop them from committing crime in the first place...just give 'em a slap on the wrist, and turn 'em loose into society, to offend again.

One thing we MUST do in this country is stop coddling criminals. You do this, you get the firing squad. Period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Stand HERE, would you like a blindfold or not? You receive the same treatment as your victims.

Ron White summed it up years ago - "here in Texas, if you kill someone...we kill you back! And, we're putting in an express lane! If more than two people saw you do it, you go to the head of the line."

But a good start is, more people being able to fight back when things like this happen. People ask me "why do you carry, all you're doing is going to work...or going to the store...or...."

Well...THIS is why I carry. THIS is why you should carry.

Deterrent effect doesn't have to come from the Police.

Prayers up to all the involved people in Colorado.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top