Member since May 14, 2009
This user has no shared collections.
View More Collections
commented on Lisa Benson
1 day ago
By the sounds of it, you’ve never gotten behind a weapon before, or you would know the ignorance of your statement.Have you ever been in a firefight? Or even a live training exercise? Because accuracy kind of goes out the window when you are amped up on adrenaline and you have shots coming at you. Supressive fire requires multiple rounds being fired at a high frequency to keep the enemy moving. All things that we learn in combat training with the Corps.And it’s not JUST for that. That is one function of the 2nd Amendment, and one justification for having more rounds than just 1 at a time. The second is in a self-defense situation, adrenaline will wreak havoc on your aim. Having a half-dollar sized grouping at 10 yards will end up being a dinner plate sized grouping at 10 yards under stress. And having someone attack you or those around you is an extremely stressful event, so having a few extra rounds doesn’t hurt. But as I said, it’s not the only function, and it’s like trying to treat a symptom to cure the disease, without paying attention to the actual disease itself. Capacity has nothing to do with this, the people do.
I know it would be an increased cost associated with this, but it’s a tax I would support. I think a lot of people would, knowing their kids would safe behind a trio of well-trained, well-armed loyal Americans who only wish to protect kids. And I am sure I’m not alone in supporting a budgetary increase to pay these men and women to guard our kids. After all, Israeli teachers are trained and provided firearms, and their kids don’t end up being adversely harmed by it. My boys have shot my weapons, and they aren’t lunatics (near as I can tell!) that would go on a shooting spree.And I agree. It would rankle libertarians something fierce. But it would satisfy the anti-gun crowd knowing that people are being watched with a measure to seize weapons that are being planned to be used in an unlawful manner. And it would satisfy conservatives because people would still get to keep their weapons until they misbehave. And frankly, they are already watching, so… y’know. Just sayin’. lolAs to getting the weapons back? State-paid psychology services could be used to have that evaluation AND treatment for those individuals that lost their privilege. And given the frequency of these issues (or low frequency), I don’t see this being sufficient for it to clog the courts. And I know that it appears to be covering up the problem, but if we cover up one or two problems, glory seekers won’t see the glory coming out and will help dissuade them from taking action. After all, if you want your time in the spotlight, and that spotlight never occurs, will it encourage you to take that action? Even if it saves us from one massacre, I think it’s worth it. As it stands right now, with our 24/7 news cycle, the instant something like this happens, these nutjobs are broadcasting their hate directly into our facebook/twitter/news app feeds. It’s in our face right away. And it’s what they want.I’m not saying my ideas are perfect. But they are, imho, much more pragmatic than the knee-jerking that’s going on by both the left and right. “Ban xyz feature!” “They’re taking our freedoms!” No to both. We all just need to take a breath and look at this from an unemotional perspective. And anything that feeds into either of those narratives will just feed into the fear that people have on one side or the other.
Thank you. And I enjoy discussing with you; your approach appears to be measured and unemotional. It’s a welcome exercise. One of the fundamental issues I see our country facing is two fears colliding with each other, and politicians and other organizations whipping up each side into a frenzy. On one side, you have the fear of firearms, where they cite statistics of how deadly weapons are, and trying to prove that xyz feature (pick one) is unreasonable and unnecessary and is the cause of the number of kids killed in a school! Fear!The other side is arguing that the government is trying to take your constitutionally-protected right to bear arms away, and see them referencing UK and Australia and they’re coming for your guns! Fear!The problem, however, is neither of these. The problem is not the firearms. It’s not the vendors. It’s not even the ammo. It’s not the magazines, it’s not the scopes, the buttstocks, the foregrips, or the under-barrel lights. It’s not any of that stuff. The problem is the people. People are the only reason other people are killed with any tool. Because firearms are just a tool, and extension of the will of someone. Tools can be used for good or bad. A knife is a tool. It cuts food. It also cuts flesh. It can kill, or feed. A firearm is also a tool, albeit with a much more narrow scope of application. It is designed to intimidate and kill, as you said. However, it can be used to intimidate an innocent person, to kill that person. It can also be used to intimidate a would-be attacker, and to kill an attacker. It can be used to hunt for food. It can also be used to fend off a wild animal that is attacking you, your family, friends, or pets. What matters is how any tool is employed. It’s not the tool’s fault because it’s designed to have various features. After all, you have knives, but inside knives you have cleavers, boning knives. fillet knives, etc. Cars have various features (ABS, 150 airbags, traction control, 426 horsepower, etc). Firearms are no different.What we need to do is have a better means of controlling the behavior of people, and protecting INNOCENT people, while strictly and swiftly punishing criminals. The biggest beef is the so-called gun-free zones. How does this protect innocent people? It’s a misguided attempt at protecting people by disarming the adults in that environment. The reasoning is because they don’t want kids having access to firearms and kill other kids. But how many students have been killed by their teachers? Or by principals? There are other ways to dissuade the behavior without disarming people. The first would be to place armed guards at all the schools. Those are jobs any veteran (including myself) would love to do, and have them paid under the school district. Easy to do, lots of potential employees, and it solves the problem of homeless vets! Boom, two in one.The next could be to have firearm purchasers sign a consent form to have the ATF monitor their facebook/twitter/etc feeds. These nutjobs more frequently than not telegraph their moves on facebook or twitter. You start acting like a wacko on facebook and you get your firearm locked up at the local police station until you can prove you’re not an idiot ready to kill a bunch of kids. Obviously, this should be more actively watched for the under-35crew, because most people 30+ aren’t gonna go and shoot up a school or church. I haven’t seen a single recent massacre where the person was over 30, though I could be missing one. This would also help inhibit cyberbullying. Again, two with one.If or when an event occurs, media needs to black out the event. Half these idiots want to have their hate spread across the airwaves. It encourages the behavior because it feeds their ego and gives them exactly what they want: Attention. Closed courtroom with no media allowed, and no media mentioning the event or their name. Period. Cut off their craziness at the roots. These are just a few items that I think would have a very big impact on the behavior that drives these events. But these items lay the blame where it belongs: The people who commit these heinous acts. And for that reason, none of these approaches will ever be aired.
commented on Lisa Benson
2 days ago
That flies in the face of the intent of the 2nd Amendment: To protect citizenry from the military in the form of a tyrannical government. And again, rifles represent a statistically insignificant amount of murders committed. People are killed by fist and feet more than they are with rifles. So the multiple rounds argument doesn’t hold water, since the real pandemic isn’t with rifles (the ones with 30-round mags). And my pistol holds 5 rounds, 7 in an extended magazine. And I can tell you that your first shot or two in a self-defense situation will likely miss unless you’re within inches of each other. So your single-shot argument for PDW’s is effectively disarming people. There has to be something else.
Reasonable by who’s definition? And what would be included in that definition of reasonable? Where does the 1st and 4th Amendment get taken into account? Someone is deemed mentally ill because they are a veteran who suffers from mild PTSD, or they have a TBI. Does this mean they should be prohibited from having access to firearms? And not only that, but doesn’t it violate the right to privacy and HIPPA by sharing that information with other agencies? After all, the only time doctors and clergy can pass along information to outside sources is if they have specifically indicated they are an immediate threat to themselves or others. But if there is no such indication, but the information is shared and thus restricts them from ownership, isn’t that a gross violation of those rights?Most of these nutjobs shooting out there are closet-wackos that don’t advertise their insanity. There would be no LEGAL measure to restrict their ownership. And if you made a law that restricted their ownership, then you are adversely affecting millions of perfectly “normal” people. What I’m reacting to is the knee-jerk decision to clamp down on firearms simply because of these murders in schools and churches. Let’s take a step back for a minute. Let’s put it into perspective.From the CDC for 2013: All injury deaths Number of deaths: 192,945 Deaths per 100,000 population: 60.2All poisoning deaths Number of deaths: 48,545 Deaths per 100,000 population: 15.4Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,804 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,636 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6Out of those firearm deaths, 11,000 were homicides (source: FBI). Of those 11,000, roughly 400 (yes, that’s four hundred) were committed by the “rifle” variety, and not even the “scary” kind of semi-automatic rifles (aka assault rifles). The math states you are 84 TIMES more likely to die in a car crash than to be murdered by a rifle. So does that mean we should outlaw driving or owning a car? And 1600 people a year are killed with knives, so does that mean we should outlaw knives? Or make them harder to purchase?These events are tragic, to be sure. But they represent a deranged mind that hurt innocent people. Punishing the other 300 million law-abiding citizens in this country because the actions of a few (and I’m talking single digits) is tantamount to tyranny. It belies the truth of the matter: That many liberals in our government simply want to push an ideology that removes firearms from the hands of its citizenry. And that has never ended well for the citizenry.
You’re right. The subject is the fallacy of the concept that a more stringent set of laws will impede lawbreakers’ ability to commit crime. It won’t. You don’t reduce the killing of a gazelle by a cheetah by cutting the horns off the gazelle. You don’t lower crime by disarming the victims. There’s a basic fundamental issue that people on the left are failing to accept: There are evil people in this world that will do evil things. They will get their hands on firearms on the black market, and it won’t be difficult because of our proximity to the near-lawless Mexico, who sends firearms north with drugs and people. So people who will say, “It’s not worth it,” citing examples like Austraila or the UK (Both of which are Islands, mind you) on how expensive a black-market pistol is, are missing that basic fact that in the US, black-market firearms are very prevalent in our society already. How will making it more difficult to legally purchase firearms prevent these other purchases? And how does disarming an entire body of people (aka gun-free zones) make it safer from these types of predators? A disarmed populace is only protected from predators if you have armed guards at the gate. The very concept of them being safer because THEY are disarmed is the very epitome of insanity. Does something need to be done about these killing sprees? Yes. But impeding the legal ownership of firearms is not the path we should take.
Narrow, abortions have killed more people in 2014 alone than firearms have caused murders since their inception in the 1600’s, combined. There’s a staggering statistic.
commented on Dana Summers
3 days ago
And what statistics do you have that show stricter regulations actually reduce violent crime? Do you have any statistics that support having gun-free zones, that support they are safer than areas that permit CCW? Instead of repeating the tripe spouted by liberal media, show me a scientific study that supports how taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens will stem the flow of gun violence by criminals.
commented on Glenn McCoy
11 days ago
When did they pass a constitutional amendment that gave the president power over the budget? Congress controls the purse strings, but the way you’d thinks things are going now, people think the President does.
commented on Michael Ramirez
22 days ago
You do bring up some valid points.1) Very small is still possible. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility. Though, from a pragmatic standpoint, I don’t know if this is possible. North Korea is a perfect example of this. 2) Without this agreement, it would have been the same as what we had in place: continued sanctions. The biggest issue I have is we don’t have an “any time, any where” condition in this program. The IAEA has to jump through flaming hoops to inspect these places. And in addition to the missing “any time, any where” component, they are getting $150 billion funds injected into the country’s treasury. I think there could have been a much better deal crafted. We held all the cards, and we gave it all up. The international community played softball while Iran played hardball. Iran is clearly the winner in this scenario. And we didn’t even get our political prisoners back (our Marine, for example). What leverage do we have now to lean on Iran to give them back? Because of the good will we gave them for rolling over and giving them everything they wanted? No, they have no incentive to do anything more.It’s just disheartening that our international leaders (especially Obama) were so focused on the “landmark deal” of brokering an agreement that they didn’t want to risk it by saying, “no” to Iran. And it makes the “what if” all that more plausible of an outcome. And that’s got a lot of us very nervous.
Copyright © 2015. Universal Uclick, All rights reserved.