Gun bans, loopholes, and other such things

thegunguy

Administrator
Staff member
Background: when the first assault weapon ban was passed I assumed it was due to fear and ignorance, and that the proper counter was activism and education. I no longer believe that to be the case.

We have the most recent data from the FBI, and five times more people were murdered with knives than with all rifles, much less "assault" rifles.

I have me own feelings on why confiscation and disarmament is desired, and we can certainly have a discussion about why those on the left believe that abortion is an unassailable right even though there's no mention of it in the Constitution, but that carrying arms is something to be done away with even though RKBA is a specific protection in the Bill of Rights.

For now, I'd like to place useful links here in this thread. For starters:

California's Background Check law had no impact on Gun Deaths - Johns Hopkins study, summary by FEE

Knives used in more deaths than rifles - FBI and CDC data, summary by FEE

(If you find more, link 'em!)
 
Last edited:

grampster

Member
Nearly every time someone gets on the media to provide actual facts about criminal use of firearms by comparing rifle deaths to other modes of mayhem, the commentator usually mentions that handguns are used more than rifles. What confounds me is why do they do this? Do they want some thickheaded anti firearm person to suddenly have a light go off in his/her head and begin a campaign against handguns? The could use our own words against us and that makes me shake my head.
 

CapnMac

New member
The argument for control are all based on intentions, not facts. This is to deflect from the fact that the issue is control of the law abiding, not law-breaking (who are beyond the control of Party Central).

That is why facts will not assuage them. Thei arguments are all based on how the commonweal is Not Controlled Enough. Appeals to reason are invalid.
 

benEzra

New member
It seems to me that at some point, the gun control lobby shifted its focus away from guns that are most represented in homicides, to the guns that make the population at large difficult to oppress. Since the early ‘90s, they have focused almost exclusively on banning tactical-style carbines and long-range precision rifles, and almost every other proposal has been connected in some way to those two goals.

That makes no rational sense from a violence prevention standpoint. Either they are acting strictly on feelings and the modern-looking guns trigger more bad feng shui in their amygdalas, or their desired end state is something like Venezuela or Leninist Russia. I used to lean more toward the former explanation, based on Hanlon’s Razor; now I am less sure.
 

Sistema1927

New member
Incrementalism.

They are going to continue chipping away, at any perceived weak spot, until they obtain their goal of total civilian disarmament.

Saturday Night Specials, Assault Weapons, Sniper Rifles, Weapons of War, etc. Give it a label, make people afraid, and proceed.
 

Armorer 101

New member
Many have long believed in this country that the anti firearm people are driven by a need to protect and an error has occurs in their thinking. The error is in the minds of the delusional that believe this BS. There is no anti gun error. They are very deliberate, very calculating and very cynical.

Example: there was a rifle and pistol range on Hurlburt Field, it was closed using EPA rules as cited in the closure data. The minor farce was the rule cited was specifically written regarding sanitary land fills, introduction of lead, not operational and active firing ranges. An active firing range is specifically excluded from closure due to lead contamination. But no good miss application of actual environmental rules need go to waste. A range was put back in, enclosed with a backstop. I had the opportunity to watch the def and dumb actions of a political anti Base Commander in action. Since I literally paid for and help build the range, I swore to never set foot on the base again and have not done so. I severed all relations with the military establishment. I help GIs and orginizations that benefit GIs but I will never involve myself in helping a military base again.

Do not get me wrong, I have bought, built and donated firearms to organizations like the That Others May Live Foundation. The last 1911 I did for them raised $12,000 so I am far from anti GI.
 

thegunguy

Administrator
Staff member
Many have long believed in this country that the anti firearm people are driven by a need to protect and an error has occurs in their thinking. The error is in the minds of the delusional that believe this BS. There is no anti gun error. They are very deliberate, very calculating and very cynical.
I think that's the big favor Trump has done the country. Love him or hate him, but his election has shown us exactly how biased and willing to outright lie the media has been. I'd never been cynical enough, apparently - I believed as you do, that education was the answer. But it's not about education, it's about agenda. And it probably always has been since before Cronkite, but folks like me were too naive to see the truth.
 

Armorer 101

New member
Compared to Slick Willy, Trump is a comparatively good guy. Of course we’re I married to either of them, I would just flatten the top of their pointy head with thick cast iron frying pan. But one thing we must give Trump, if he says we are going to bust your butt, y’all better hang on, get a good grip, because here comes a real adz whipping.
 

WrongHanded

Well-known member
My two cents is that we are faced with only a small minority who want to strip us our our guns, and of everyone's rights to them.

Unfortunately, a large portion of society seem to be following them, draw in by their lies and propaganda. These people truly do not know any better, and rarely can comprehend the position of gun rights advocates. They seem to believe they are safe, and forever will be, 'if we could just get rid of the guns'. It's possible to teach them, but lessons are often undone by the hardcore 2A "Shall not be infringed" crowd, who don't seem to understand that changing the perspective of 100 million people doesn't happen overnight.
 

Armorer 101

New member
Are you from Austin or are you from DC just saying you are from Austin? Are you AKA Lousy Shot and several more ani gun posters on different forums? Makes no difference because you will be ignored.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
My two cents is that we are faced with only a small minority who want to strip us our our guns, and of everyone's rights to them.
I think that's right, but unfortunately, they're also the ones with the money, the power, the politicians, and the media under their control to get their way.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
It seems to me that at some point, the gun control lobby shifted its focus away from guns that are most represented in homicides, to the guns that make the population at large difficult to oppress. Since the early ‘90s, they have focused almost exclusively on banning tactical-style carbines and long-range precision rifles, and almost every other proposal has been connected in some way to those two goals.

I think that it is because gun control is largely emotional, and the school shootings provoked emotional responses. For gun control advocates, any gun control is good, so they will take what they can get.

However, in Mexico, rifles of any kind are essentially banned, whereas handguns are allowed. And the reasons are very much what you insinuated. In places like Sweden where there is virtually no impetus for revolution, it is handguns that are limited.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Then again, in Mexico there is only one legal source of firearms - one store that is functionally an agency of the police.
An immense amount of paperwork is involved and the waiting period is usually very long.
Also, the only firearms that can be purchased are those that are in non-military calibers.
Once you have your legal firearm you can only legally carry it in your home or place of business.

The primary results of these restrictions is that most people ignore the laws and accept that they are functionally criminals and thus lose most of their respect for laws and law enforcement... .

That's the usual result of these type of restrictions, especially when they are not evenly enforced.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Selective enforcement happens here as well.
One of our senators was found to be carrying a concealed firearm as he got on a commercial airliner.
Oops.
He still got to fly to Washington.
If I did that, I'd be hauled off in handcuffs.
 
Top