Warning by NRA Past President Marion Hammer to NRA Members

Bigmike79, you are posting on a gun forum full of people quite ticked off with all the gun rights we have lost over the decades and now under attack again due to recent school shooting.

And we are not just talking about waiting period on this thread. We are talking about further erosion of our gun rights most of whom are law abiding citizens.

Now, what's your take on proposed anti-gun measures like raising the purchase age to 21? That's like saying people over 21 don't kill people.

Bigmike79 said:

Waiting periods save lives.

Click to expand...

Waiting periods cost lives. The woman being terrorized who has to wait for the ability to defend herself against a much stronger attacker would disagree with you.

Thanks for joining the enemies, domestic, list. I will ignore you in the future.

bds said:

Bigmike79, you are posting on a gun forum full of people quite ticked off with all the gun rights we have lost over the decades and now under attack again due to recent school shooting.

And we are not just talking about waiting period on this thread. We are talking about further erosion of our gun rights most of whom are law abiding citizens.

Now, what's your take on proposed anti-gun measures like raising the purchase age to 21? That's like saying people over 21 don't kill people.

Click to expand...

I think there is an age where one should legally be considered an adult, and at that age, one should be granted all the rights of an adult.

I don't believe that age is 18 for a lot of people. For that reason, I don't think 18 year old kids should be voting, receiving credit cards, or serving in combat either. Kids that age are easily manipulated and often not mature enough to make adult decision.

With that said, the legal age to be considered an adult in the United States is 18, and that's not going to change. For that reason, I feel that an 18 year old should be able to buy a gun, drink a beer or go to a strip club.

If they really wanted to put something on the books that saved a lot of lives, it would be requiring first time gun owners to take a class. Like I said, I come from a LE background, and I have been subjected to more kids or people that were shot in accidents than people that were shot intentionally. The fact that some man or woman that has no firearms experience can walk into a gun store and buy a firearm without knowing how to even load it, clean it, or operate it to any level is a bad deal. The notion that they can simply pay a fee and recieve a carry permit with absolutely no proven knowledge of law regarding carrying a firearm is even more ridiculous. This is how you get people waking around with a SA pistol rocked without the safety on. it's ridiculous. Even just a 2 hour class covering the most basic information would save a lot of lives and prevent a whole lot more serious injuries. They should be teaching this stuff in public schools.

My wife's cousins are PD Sergeant and Deputy Sheriff for larger metropolitan area. They definitely agree society as a whole has changed over the decades and they are drawing their sidearms much more often than before. The LEOs I shoot with paint a stark reality where calling 911 won't help the home owner when bad guys are kicking the door down for home invasion robbery.

I think many antis have lived where crime rate is not high. Because one by one over the decades, my coworkers armed themselves when crime rate increased. When federal judges released inmates out of California prisons, crime rate for my city went up 37% in one year. I was shocked when I was approached by liberal Democrat coworkers asking me to teach them to shoot and I asked what changed. They admitted they either knew friends/family who were robbed/burglarized or they themselves were victimized and now wanted to own guns to protect themselves. I taught them to shoot and now most are CCW permit holders because THEY KNOW police cannot protect them.

Reality for many of us is we LIVE in these higher crime areas and have been victimized or know of victims of crime. I myself have been burglarized multiple times to the point where I moved my family out of the city and now live in lower crime area. But even here, crime rate is increasing. So when threats of more anti-gun measures are discussed, it affects me because it may affect the safety of my family. So if the gun purchase age goes to 21, what are law abiding teenagers supposed to do until they reach the age of 21? Is it OK for them to be victimized without means for self protection?

Can our society ensure they won't be victimized until they are 21?

Of course not. That's why many people like me are frustrated at these proposed anti-gun laws. They make me feel less safe.

They are going to propose new laws to regulate guns and access to them. The Republican party is currently bending to this and will bend further. It's not capable of defending the 2nd amendment or any of the others unless they feel threatened. They feel threatened that they may lose some elctions and money, so they will bend as they always do.

The proposals will create new regulations and limits on access to firearms. The problem is not the lack of laws and regulations. It is a human issue.

In the bulk of cases of mass shootings there were multiple warnings of impending violence. Multiple people reported the threat. In some cases, all actually in one form or another, it was a failure of law enforcement to take the reports seriously and and act on them. In other cases the shooter had no legal right to a weapon but there was a failure to properly follow through on existing laws and report that (the Texas shooting and the Air Force is one example).

In other cases Like Orlando and the most recent shooting, more people died than needed to as a result of the inaction of law enforcement. That is't the due to the lack of laws but due to a failure to act to stop the killing.

None of this is about lack of laws. It's about a failure to lead the mass of the people in having the confidence to prevent mass shootings by being pro-active. People try, they report potential shooters to police and other authorities...but nothing is done. Their own laws and procedures stand in the way. So they want more of that. They are afraid to point out the obvious...30 times people reported this youth as a threat. He even called in on himself. It could have been stopped right there. But they did not take it seriously and did not act.

So organize to take it seriously.

I do try to stay out of these things. They are just to aggravating.

Take for instance the claim that FSSA' president supported banning carry on campus, this is absolute BS. I was a member of the BOD of FSSA and can tell you she did not and has tried to get campuses open on more than one occasion since.

The claim she killed open carry in Florida is also BS. Florida never really had open carry in that each county had its own gun laws before our conceal carry bill went through. Even in counties that had no specific ordenances prohibiting open carry LEOS could and did charge foks with Disturbing the Peace for open carry in built up areas.

I have never seen any decent study that has shown ANY correlation between a wait period and use of guns in crime. I have an AA with centralization in Law Enforcement and a BS in Criminology and was VERY interested in such data when a student, and when a 2AD activist (instead of just sitting around complaining and maybe sending some cash to one group or another I actually took time from work to speak before legislative committees, wrote and managed to get printed letters to the editor in several newspapers, spoke as a caller and as a guest on national radio programs, got interviewed by NPR, got both a state and federal representative to publicly go 180 on 2AD issues, and I could go on for page more.....that sort of activist) and I have yet to see any DATA that waiting periods do any good, plenty of opinions, but no DATA.

Most states that issue a Concealed Carry license DO require training, finger prints, photo and actual background check (rather than a cooling off period) and most are based on the CWL system in Florida (pretty much pushed through by FSSA's president, BTW) I would expect a LEO writing on the subject to know that.

The right to bear arms is a CIVIL RIGHT.

Which other CIVIL RIGHT are we going to require waiting periods, training or additional ageing for?

-kBob

Bigmike79 said:

Waiting periods save lives. To say otherwise would be to deny reality. I come from a law enforcement background, so my perspective is different than a lot of gun owners on some of these boards.

If your stance is that you don't care that they save lives because you feel that compromising a first time gun owners rights is the more important variable, I can respect your view. However, if your stance is that waiting periods don't actually stop crimes of passion, I will wholeheartedly disagree with you because I know better.

Look, I get it. My dad thought having to even show a valid ID to buy a gun was an infringement on his rights. I understand that mindset very well.

Click to expand...

No you don't. You are presenting yourself as having more knowledge than the rest of us solely because your father was a law enforcement officer and you "come from a law enforcement background" whatever that is. By your admission you rejected his beliefs about waiting periods and other infringements on his right to buy and own firearms.

Furthermore you are presenting yourself as more knowledgeable than other members here on the THR some of which are active and others retired leo's with the combined experiences of over a century or two or three.

Your comments about how waiting periods save lives because "There are normal clean cut guys that have never committed a crime in their life that snap." shows how ignorant you are about domestic violence. Domestic abuse is a long pattern of violent behavior, mental abuse and control over the weaker partner. Victims are not killed by "normal clean cut guys that have never committed a crime in their life that snap."

Your Dad shows like he was a experience street cop that knew a lot about real life. It's a shame you didn't learn about the causes, patterns and consequences of domestic violence.

kBob said:

Take for instance the claim that FSSA' president supported banning carry on campus, this is absolute BS. I was a member of the BOD of FSSA and can tell you she did not and has tried to get campuses open on more than one occasion since.

The claim she killed open carry in Florida is also BS. Florida never really had open carry in that each county had its own gun laws before our conceal carry bill went through. Even in counties that had no specific ordinances prohibiting open carry LEOS could and did charge folks with Disturbing the Peace for open carry in built up areas.

Click to expand...

The Florida posters on ar15.com say exactly the opposite. The consensus there is that they hate Marion Hammer. Maybe it's a personal thing; I don't know. But they do sound knowledgeable.

Clarification: they say she killed the proposal to add open carry to concealed carry, not that she killed any existing rules on open carry.

BSA1 said:

No you don't. You are presenting yourself as having more knowledge than the rest of us solely because your father was a law enforcement officer and you "come from a law enforcement background" whatever that is. By your admission you rejected his beliefs about waiting periods and other infringements on his right to buy and own firearms.

Furthermore you are presenting yourself as more knowledgeable than other members here on the THR some of which are active and others retired leo's with the combined experiences of over a century or two or three.

Your comments about how waiting periods save lives because "There are normal clean cut guys that have never committed a crime in their life that snap." shows how ignorant you are about domestic violence. Domestic abuse is a long pattern of violent behavior, mental abuse and control over the weaker partner. Victims are not killed by "normal clean cut guys that have never committed a crime in their life that snap."

Your Dad shows like he was a experience street cop that knew a lot about real life. It's a shame you didn't learn about the causes, patterns and consequences of domestic violence.

Click to expand...

My dad wasn't a cop. He was a a paranoid idiot that drank himself to death before his 50th birthday. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that he worked in LE from my posts. My dad hated cops, the military, and the government in general.

Look, good people do really bad things ALL THE TIME. I wouldn't lie to you. Yes, I do have more knowledge than the average guy on this forum in regards to this stuff because I've seen it first hand more times than I care to talk about. If I had a nickel for every time I had to talk to some woman that got smacked around or received death threats from a guy without a criminal record I would be retired by now.

The Internet is an interesting place. You're probably a decent fellow.

Bigmike79 said:

Neither have cops, prisons, or any other law.
Nothing will stop crime completely, but to say that no lives have been saved because of waiting periods is ignorant. It can be debated all day as to how many lives or if it's worth it, but obviously in a state with over 40 million people, there have been scenarios were a crime was prevented because someone had a little bit of time to cool off or ponder the consequences of the crime they were about to commit.

Click to expand...

I just finished teaching a state-mandated awareness program to high schoolers regarding domestic violence. I would like to point out one factoid from that curriculum: In most cases where a woman has obtained a restraining order or domestic violence injunction against a former partner and that partner goes on to kill her, he does so within 24 hours of her having obtained said restraining order. Most states have at least a 3 day waiting period for handguns. SOOOO....while the law abiding woman is waiting out her three day wait period, her former parter is murdering her.

To be clear, this is not to say that most men who receive a restraining kill their former partners, but those who do, usually do so within 24 hours of receiving their restraining order.

And for those who are going to ask me for a source, fair enough. I got it from the Safer, Smarter Teens curriculum given to me by my district. I'm not going to go back through the entire curriculum to try and find the original source.

D.B. Cooper said:

I just finished teaching a state-mandated awareness program to high schoolers regarding domestic violence. I would like to point out one factoid from that curriculum: In most cases where a woman has obtained a restraining order or domestic violence injunction against a former partner and that partner goes on to kill her, he does so within 24 hours of her having obtained said restraining order. Most states have at least a 3 day waiting period for handguns. SOOOO....while the law abiding woman is waiting out her three day wait period, her former parter is murdering her.

To be clear, this is not to say that most men who receive a restraining kill their former partners, but those who do, usually do so within 24 hours of receiving their restraining order.

And for those who are going to ask me for a source, fair enough. I got it from the Safer, Smarter Teens curriculum given to me by my district. I'm not going to go back through the entire curriculum to try and find the original source.

Click to expand...

How many women have defended themselves with a firearm against an ex in the last 50 years vs the amount that have been shot by and killed by an ex who was a first time gun owner with no criminal record?.............it's not even close.

I'm going to get blasted for asking such a question on a gun forum, but from a utilitarian perspective, there really is no debate.

Bigmike, what in your experience, is a 'common' example, if there is one, of the type of person stopped from murder in a moment of passion by wait lists? "Impulsive people" is far too broad, and full of assumptions; I want a specific description, since 'petite women' is the only group I can think of that would have trouble killing without a powerful force multiplier.

Bigmike79 said:

How many women have defended themselves with a firearm against an ex in the last 50 years vs the amount that have been shot by and killed by an ex who was a first time gun owner with no criminal record?.............it's not even close.

I'm going to get blasted for asking such a question on a gun forum, but from a utilitarian perspective, there really is no debate.

Click to expand...

You do know why that would be the case, right? And it has nothing to do with 'passion,' but the victim's unwillingness to defend themselves. Your solution is to remove even the ability for them to defend themselves because it might not work out. Because 'social utility.'

tipoc said:

They are going to propose new laws to regulate guns and access to them. The Republican party is currently bending to this and will bend further. It's not capable of defending the 2nd amendment or any of the others unless they feel threatened. They feel threatened that they may lose some elctions and money, so they will bend as they always do.

The proposals will create new regulations and limits on access to firearms. The problem is not the lack of laws and regulations. It is a human issue.

In the bulk of cases of mass shootings there were multiple warnings of impending violence. Multiple people reported the threat. In some cases, all actually in one form or another, it was a failure of law enforcement to take the reports seriously and and act on them. In other cases the shooter had no legal right to a weapon but there was a failure to properly follow through on existing laws and report that (the Texas shooting and the Air Force is one example).

In other cases Like Orlando and the most recent shooting, more people died than needed to as a result of the inaction of law enforcement. That is't the due to the lack of laws but due to a failure to act to stop the killing.

None of this is about lack of laws. It's about a failure to lead the mass of the people in having the confidence to prevent mass shootings by being pro-active. People try, they report potential shooters to police and other authorities...but nothing is done. Their own laws and procedures stand in the way. So they want more of that. They are afraid to point out the obvious...30 times people reported this youth as a threat. He even called in on himself. It could have been stopped right there. But they did not take it seriously and did not act.

So organize to take it seriously.

Click to expand...

More proof that you cannot depend on any form of government to protect you and your loved ones.

re; ''People who do not live in Florida should not waste their time responding to the politicians named in the e-mail. If you're not a Florida resident, you can't vote in Florida elections so Florida politicians don't care what you think. ...''

Yes I cannot vote, but I can voice my new plans to not move to FL as a retiree, think winter time warmer, and cite where my relatives live down there. Oh, I think politicians really really really, really understand LOST REVENUE
And I encourage any and all to reconsider their move to FL as all will retire some day er, soon. If this is your current line of thought you may elect to contact FL and state same...

AlexanderA,

I do not belong to AR15.com. I try not to sit around at my keyboard and complain about what other folks are actually doing about The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Before there was an AR15.com I was in Tallahassee pressing the flesh, looking folks in the eye, giving them the straight skiny, and actually changing the way they voted on the issue of "assault weapons". I saw and spoke to Marion Hammer back then but don't recall many others that even showed up for the debates in Committees for that first Assault Weapons bill proposed by David Flagg (D) Alachua County which the newspapers, TV, radio, and the Democratic Leadership in Florida said was a done deal.

Only three Floridians testified against that bill in committee. One was myself, one as Marion Hammer (who turned most of her time over to an NRA rep from DC) and one other guy that spoke about a minute most of which was his feeling that one of the Committee members had attacked me for my prepared statement and open discussion after it.

I have to wonder how many Florida Posters on AR15.com would even HAVE an AR15 but not for the change in vote in that one committee decades ago that killed, again, what the press and politicos claimed was a done deal. I must ask Marion when I next see her how many AR15.com posters she sees in the state legislature with this current brew-ha-ha going on.

I am from and in Florida.

I have spent many hours with Marion Hammer in her office, at the table during Board of Director Meetings of FSSA as a member of that Board, in the halls of the state legislature, and at open FSSA meetings.

Believe who you will.

I am done here.

-kBob

Bigmike79 said:

My dad wasn't a cop. He was a a paranoid idiot that drank himself to death before his 50th birthday. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that he worked in LE from my posts. My dad hated cops, the military, and the government in general.

Click to expand...

My Bad. Since you say you "come from a law enforcement background" I made the incorrect conclusion that your Dad was a LEO.

I am sorry that your Dad has caused you so much pain.

Bigmike79 said:

Yes, I do have more knowledge than the average guy on this forum in regards to this stuff because I've seen it first hand more times than I care to talk about.

Click to expand...

You have not posted any credentials to back up your claim that "I do have more knowledge than the average guy on this forum in regards to this stuff." There are enough active and retired leo's on THR with the collective experiences of over at least couple of centuries.

In addition you are not the only person on THR that grew up in a dysfunctional home. As adults we must realize how that affects us and how to avoid making the same mistakes ourselves.

As I pointed out you are ignorant about domestic violence. Domestic abuse is a long pattern of violent behavior, mental abuse and control over the weaker partner. Victims are not killed by "normal clean cut guys that have never committed a crime in their life that snap."

Bigmike79 said:

You're probably a decent fellow.

Click to expand...

Don't be too quick with that assumption. Some members of THR maybe including a moderator would disagree with you.

Hopefully you will take the counterpoints that are being made and reconsider your position on gun control.

I haven't read all of this thread but one problem with waiting periods is once they get enacted they wind up being for all purchases not for first time buyers. I use to be a california resident that had to deal with 10 day waiting periods. Say you want to purchase a firearm that's located 50 miles from you. You drive 100 miles round trip to start the paperwork. You then after go through your waiting period then make have to make another 100 mile round trip to pick up the gun. If you aren't a first time firearm buyer I can guarantee this isn't about gun safety, this is about making your gun purchase as inconvenient as possible. The antis will push through crap like this saying it's about safety. Next thing there will be more laws that are about "safety". Little by little they whittle away at your rights.

Giving in to the anti-gunners is like going to to a high school dropout and asking for medical advice to cure an illness. So many of those on the anti-gun side are absolutely ignorant about guns, and in my opinion, almost as ignorant about human nature. Despite all evidence to the contrary, in state after state the anti gunners scream that we will have "Wild West shootouts" and "blood in the streets" if ANY pro-gun law is passed. And we have the "experts" who think that "AK47 means the gun can shoot 47 bullets a second", and "stop the manufacture of gun magazines because once shooters use up their current magazines their guns will be useless" (I guess this expert didn't understand that magazines are reloadable), as well as the more common "No one needs a xxxx for self defense" (insert whatever type gun scares you, and always stated by someone who likely has never fired a firearm in their entire life).

The worst part of so-called compromises with the anti gunners is that whatever they are demanding will not stop mass shootings, or violent crime in general, or accomplish anything but restricting the rights of the law abiding. So when the problems which made them hysterical re-occur, they will just demand more "common sense" gun laws that further restrict the innocent and do nothing to stop the guilty. I would only compromise with the anti gunners IF they would actually compromise, i.e., give us something we want in return for something they want, assuming we could live with what they want. For example, in return for repealing the gun free zone school law, which we all know does nothing to stop killings in schools, as well as giving us national reciprocity for concealed carry I would consider agreeing to limiting magazine capacity to 20 rounds rather than the 30 round normally used. Maybe I would agree with requiring background checks for private gun sales if those checks could be done at no cost by the parties involved in the sale and with safeguards to keep the government from using this to build a de facto gun registration data base. But since it is not likely that those on the anti gun side will ever give in to anything that we want, then our response should be to be equally unwilling to give them anything that they want.

BSA1 said:

As I pointed out you are ignorant about domestic violence. Domestic abuse is a long pattern of violent behavior, mental abuse and control over the weaker partner. Victims are not killed by "normal clean cut guys that have never committed a crime in their life that snap."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're wrong. Yes, most domestic violence develops in the form of patterns as you have pointed out; however, as I have previously pointed out, people with no history of violent behavior "snap" more often than you seem to believe. This is even more true today with 1 out of 6 people being prescribed psychotropic drugs, an increase in unhealthy lifestyles, and more overall stress. There is a study that showed that over 1,200 people in the U.S. died in a murder-suicide scenario in 2014 alone, and in those cases, 9 out of 10 where committed with a gun. What is even more disturbing was the percentage of these crimes that were committed by women and teens. Even if 95% of these crimes were committed by individuals with a documented history of violent or criminal behavior, that still leaves 30 people that were murdered by a partner that "snapped."

Now you can argue that these individuals would have been killed some other way, or that a waiting period on a gun wouldn't have made any difference all day, and I will respect your opinion, but to say that otherwise normal people don't "snap" is just not true. I't not true at all.

This is a big country. The idea that to try to protect 30 people from killing themselves we should restrict the Constitutional rights of the other 319, 999, 970 people is ludicrous. And I have no doubt that some of these 30 people, even if faced with a waiting period for a gun, will end up killing themselves some other way. That's an even weaker argument than those that claim we might save the 10,000 lives a year that die by gun homicide if only we would ban and confiscate all guns. This ignores the estimated 2,500,000 times a year that law abiding citizens use a gun, often without firing it, to defend themselves against being the victim of crime, a sizable number of which would likely end up dead if not for having a firearm with which to protect themselves.

vito said:

This is a big country. The idea that to try to protect 30 people from killing themselves we should restrict the Constitutional rights of the other 319, 999, 970 people is ludicrous. .

Click to expand...

yeah, you didn't understand the post. A murder suicide involves murder. I could care less about the 30 hypothetical people in my low-ball estimate that take their own lives. I'm talking about the 30 hypothetical people that they take with them.

Let your guard down for a second, and read the conversation that led to that post. We're not debating if waiting periods work. We're merely debating if otherwise normal people "snap" and commit crimes of passion. I presented one tiny fraction of instances in which normal people do in fact "snap" and commit acts of violence.

And murder only involves a gun right?

The numbers still dictate that it is hard to justify a major restriction on a Right to save 30 people, possibly, in a nation of our size. And as pointed out just prior to this post, murders do not require a firearm. I would estimate that at least 30 women get murdered a year because an ex husband or boyfriend is out to kill them, and the woman is waiting for the time to pass until she gets her gun with which to defend herself. The waiting period may only be a minor inconvenience to some, but for someone in a remote area where the nearest FFL is a long drive away, the waiting period requires two such drives, which might be enough to make getting the gun unavailable. Working people would have a hard time taking two days off from work just to buy a gun.

barnbwt said:

And murder only involves a gun right?

Click to expand...

Well, in that study it was 9 out of 10...lol

I'm just kicking a hornets nest. This is almost borderline trolling at this point. It's fun, but you kids will be better off without being subjected to different viewpoints.

I think the funniest part about stuff like this is the fact that most the people I interact with on a daily basis would think I'm a frothing at the mouth crazy gun-nut if they new anything about me, yet I'm like a bleeding heart social justice warrior compared to the type of characters you will interact with on a thread like this on a gun forum. Sometimes when someone like my Sister in-law or my Aunt tell me how crazy conservative they think I am, I just want to show them stuff like this so they can see the eye of the storm for once. They have no idea LOL