Senate gun control meeting today with Gifford's husband and the NRA attending.
- Thread starter ol' scratch
- Start date
- Status
Nah, even the complete unavailability of guns (in a purely hypothetical world) wouldn't stop mass killings--mass murderers would switch to making ANFO bombs (ammonium nitrate fertilizer + fuel oil--easy to obtain, inexpensive, and simple to make) or using knives like in China.
Yep, and they make up loaded terms like "assault rifle" and "gun violence," the latter of which is particularly clever because reducing the availability of guns would indeed reduce "gun violence," and the facts that "knife violence" would go up to replace it and violent crime in general would not be reduced are ignored. The key point for them is to single out guns as being different from other murder weapons--that being murdered with a gun is somehow far worse than being murdered with a knife or hammer or strangulation.
They just change it to "gun violence" whenever they can, and let the media's demonization of guns take care of the rest. Most people won't notice--their logical reasoning and critical thinking skills are just not up to the task, and our explanations require more thought and put us firmly on the defensive.
There is no singular answer, but more guns--in the hands of the good guys--is part of the solution. Why doesn't anybody ever tell the antis, in public, to ask cops why they need their guns? I think we need to propose more thought experiments to help the public and any lawmakers who aren't part of the gun-grabbing agenda to come to the right conclusions on their own, using their way of thinking. That's how difficult concepts in physics are often explained, and let's face it, many things that are so obvious and simple to us are difficult for most people to comprehend at first.
Last edited:
Re: universal background checks...
Not the end of the world, but still unacceptable.
The problem with gun control is that it is usually an incremental one-way process.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take another inch, then another, then another until they have a mile.
I do believe that universal background checks are more difficult to argue against, since nobody wants criminals or the mentally ill buying guns, but the problem is that universal background checks are also a neat way or .gov to know who has guns.
I am against prohibited people owning guns, but I am also dead against de facto registration.
Registration is the beginning step in the confiscation process, and there's nothing to stop them changing the rules about who is considered to be a 'phohibited person'.
Not the end of the world, but still unacceptable.
The problem with gun control is that it is usually an incremental one-way process.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take another inch, then another, then another until they have a mile.
I do believe that universal background checks are more difficult to argue against, since nobody wants criminals or the mentally ill buying guns, but the problem is that universal background checks are also a neat way or .gov to know who has guns.
I am against prohibited people owning guns, but I am also dead against de facto registration.
Registration is the beginning step in the confiscation process, and there's nothing to stop them changing the rules about who is considered to be a 'phohibited person'.
Common sense is easily short-circuited in most people. Just say something like: "Assault weapons or our precious children--which side are you on?" That's all it takes to get most people to stop thinking and listening to our tiresome (to them) arguments about rights and freedom. :banghead:
Just use the shoulder thing that goes up.
george shaffer
Member
enjoyed the drama
the remington model 760 did you see the presentation of it in the hearing? i love that gun--- aka the amish automatic
the remington model 760 did you see the presentation of it in the hearing? i love that gun--- aka the amish automatic
JBrady555
Member
Durbin was way out of line and disrespectful. I'm not sure when or if he'll ever be up for election again, but we should definitely ban together to get him out of office.
pittspilot
Member
I think overall that went very well for us. I thought that would a be disastrous anti-gun piece of agitprop, but it ended up being a discussion in which our side was ably represented by some of our best speakers. I get that Kelly and that Baltimore Police Chief are annoying, but we had Kopel, LaPierre and Gayle Trotter and overall they did a great job.
Let's put this in context.
3-2 of the panel members were in favor of more liberty.
If you heard Charman Leahy's remarks you would have noticed the conspicuous absence of any support for an AWB or magazine capacity ban. He went as far as the universal background check and that guy is as partisan as it gets. The rest of the antigun folks were the usual suspects. Durbin, Feinstein, Schumer et al. I don't listen to those guys because they have been saying the same stuff for years if not decades. The folks to keep an eye out for are the ones that are not part of that group, and they are not moving.
None of this meant to suggest that we should take out eye off the ball, that we should not continue to make our opinions known to our representatives or that we should not continue to support our local and federal lobbying groups. I am just suggesting that the idea that the sky is falling is not substantiated by what I saw today.
Let's put this in context.
3-2 of the panel members were in favor of more liberty.
If you heard Charman Leahy's remarks you would have noticed the conspicuous absence of any support for an AWB or magazine capacity ban. He went as far as the universal background check and that guy is as partisan as it gets. The rest of the antigun folks were the usual suspects. Durbin, Feinstein, Schumer et al. I don't listen to those guys because they have been saying the same stuff for years if not decades. The folks to keep an eye out for are the ones that are not part of that group, and they are not moving.
None of this meant to suggest that we should take out eye off the ball, that we should not continue to make our opinions known to our representatives or that we should not continue to support our local and federal lobbying groups. I am just suggesting that the idea that the sky is falling is not substantiated by what I saw today.
Much of the Senate hearings today revolved around what is reasonable for a citizen to have. Everyone was discussing what is "reasonable". I am a strict Constitutionalist so I think all restrictions being suggested are garbage. I don't believe many on the Anti side have a clue what happens out in the real world, and they scoff at the suggestion that a citizen requires the same type of firepower as the police. I think framing the argument in the following manner might sway some to our side.
Citizens should at least have equal arms as the police. I believe this is a standard that the pro-gun side should be pushing harder for the following reasons:
The police use firearms to defend and protect lives, the same way average Joe Citizen does. Their overwhelming choice for effectiveness is semi-auto handguns and AR-15 rifles. The SA handguns have standard magazine round counts in the teens and the AR-15 has a standard 30 round magazine. Police officers also carry spare ammunition magazines on their belts.
The police choose these firearms, as do the majority of citizens, DESPITE the great advantages that officers have.
Officers, unlike citizens, typically get to determine the Where, How, and When a confrontation with a criminal occurs. Police have the element of surprise on their side over Criminals.
Where: In many instances police determine where they will confront bad guys. They track them down and ensure the confrontation is done in a way that maximizes officer safety.
How: Officers typically work in pairs and they also have the advantages of radios to call up their equally well-armed buddies to assist them in any confrontation. They have group tactics that they employ to help ensure their success and safety. They have superior numbers, tactics, and firepower.
When: Officers will hold back and wait until their back-up arrives to sway the numbers on their side for a confrontation. They will confront the bad guys when they believe they have the tactical advantage over them. Offiders have the element of surprise on their side.
Joe Citizen does not have any of the aforementioned luxuries when their home is being invaded, when they are being robbed at gunpoint, or when they are being raped. Criminals have all of the advantages over Joe Citizen...they determine the where, How, and When a violent confrontation will occur. Criminals have the element of surprise on their side over Joe Citizen. Criminals typically have the numbers on their side, weather they are attacking a smaller person/woman, or they are operating in a group. It is more imperative that the average citizen actually be BETTER armed than the police officers.
Police hit ratios are horrible...I've heard many statistics that say less than 20% of their shots find the intended target. This despite all of the claims we hear about how well trained they are. We've also heard many many stories about bad guys taking multiple hits before going down. If there is more than one bad guy the amounts of rounds potentially needed increases dramatically.
( #BG X #Hits / %Hits) = LOTS-O-BULLETS-NEEDED
Just today in the Senate hearing they were discussing a lady who emptied her 6 shot revolver into a guy invading her home, hitting him 5 times, and he was able to drive himself to the hospital. This lady's hit ratio is MUCH higher than the police officers and much higher than any of us would realistically dream of achieving should we be put in such a situation. If this guy decided to keep coming at her she and her children would be dead. If he had brought one or more of his criminal friends this lady and her children would be dead.
Anyways, I just thought the opportunity was missed today to present an argument along these lines.
Citizens should at least have equal arms as the police. I believe this is a standard that the pro-gun side should be pushing harder for the following reasons:
The police use firearms to defend and protect lives, the same way average Joe Citizen does. Their overwhelming choice for effectiveness is semi-auto handguns and AR-15 rifles. The SA handguns have standard magazine round counts in the teens and the AR-15 has a standard 30 round magazine. Police officers also carry spare ammunition magazines on their belts.
The police choose these firearms, as do the majority of citizens, DESPITE the great advantages that officers have.
Officers, unlike citizens, typically get to determine the Where, How, and When a confrontation with a criminal occurs. Police have the element of surprise on their side over Criminals.
Where: In many instances police determine where they will confront bad guys. They track them down and ensure the confrontation is done in a way that maximizes officer safety.
How: Officers typically work in pairs and they also have the advantages of radios to call up their equally well-armed buddies to assist them in any confrontation. They have group tactics that they employ to help ensure their success and safety. They have superior numbers, tactics, and firepower.
When: Officers will hold back and wait until their back-up arrives to sway the numbers on their side for a confrontation. They will confront the bad guys when they believe they have the tactical advantage over them. Offiders have the element of surprise on their side.
Joe Citizen does not have any of the aforementioned luxuries when their home is being invaded, when they are being robbed at gunpoint, or when they are being raped. Criminals have all of the advantages over Joe Citizen...they determine the where, How, and When a violent confrontation will occur. Criminals have the element of surprise on their side over Joe Citizen. Criminals typically have the numbers on their side, weather they are attacking a smaller person/woman, or they are operating in a group. It is more imperative that the average citizen actually be BETTER armed than the police officers.
Police hit ratios are horrible...I've heard many statistics that say less than 20% of their shots find the intended target. This despite all of the claims we hear about how well trained they are. We've also heard many many stories about bad guys taking multiple hits before going down. If there is more than one bad guy the amounts of rounds potentially needed increases dramatically.
( #BG X #Hits / %Hits) = LOTS-O-BULLETS-NEEDED
Just today in the Senate hearing they were discussing a lady who emptied her 6 shot revolver into a guy invading her home, hitting him 5 times, and he was able to drive himself to the hospital. This lady's hit ratio is MUCH higher than the police officers and much higher than any of us would realistically dream of achieving should we be put in such a situation. If this guy decided to keep coming at her she and her children would be dead. If he had brought one or more of his criminal friends this lady and her children would be dead.
Anyways, I just thought the opportunity was missed today to present an argument along these lines.
I realize this is a little out of context but he already said the gun used to shoot his wife was a legal purchase
"My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks," Kelly told the committee later in the hearing.
"My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks," Kelly told the committee later in the hearing.
Youngda, cops will also prioritize cops over citizens. "Officer down" is more important than "someone down".
There's also the fact that cops are generally in better physical condition than your average prey. Who is a criminal more likely to pick as a target for a mugging, Dwayne Johnson or David Spayde? But cops should be in at least decent enough shape.
There's also the fact that cops are generally in better physical condition than your average prey. Who is a criminal more likely to pick as a target for a mugging, Dwayne Johnson or David Spayde? But cops should be in at least decent enough shape.
And we all know how effective actually bringing people to the range for some shooting fun can be in helping others understand what we're saying--using their more base functions to reach their higher functions, if you will. I don't mean this in a sinister way--it's just a way of opening their minds. It is the antis who use people's base functions to get a knee-jerk reaction that bypasses thinking altogether.
That is true, but the context I had in mind was the suggestion that armed guards, which in many cases would be actual police officers, should be posted at more (or all) schools. All the antis could do was call Wayne LaPierre crazy, and I think that in certain arguments it may be useful to put people in the shoes of others so that they can start to understand why guns are needed. It might help thwart the attempt by antis to bypass their brains with emotion. Pure logic alone is not going to get the job done--the mind must be opened first.
Speaking of Wayne's tactic of suggesting more guns, whether it was premature or not it was the right thing to say. In general we need to more actively fight back rather than merely defend--they say that guns are the problem, we say that more guns is the solution, and here's why. To take another recent example, shortly after Hillary Clinton got blasted for her bumbling in the State Department, the leftist media, instead of merely trying to defend her by explaining why she is not incompetent and hiding something, went straight to asking her whether she was considering running for president a full four years from now. Not that I mind Obama's second term getting cast aside like so much garbage, but that is merely a shrewd tactic by the media to get people to forget about what happened.
Let's face it, the people we are going up against (the real ones, not their "useful idiots") are not merely obtuse--far from it, they are highly intelligent and fully understand everything we say. Like the Founders of our country, they are also extremely pragmatic and have a deep understanding of human nature (they're real pros--we're just amateurs who can challenge them only because the truth happens to be on our side). One major difference is that the Founders, for all their individual faults, were basically moral on the whole, while our opponents are not. Everybody does things for selfish reasons, in order to get certain things--for the Founders, it was their own freedom from tyranny, and for our opponents it is our freedom so that they can apply tyranny. Why else? It has happened many times in human history, and is what people generally try to do when they're given power--it's human nature. That's why the Founders tried to place limits on government power. The main way to tell the difference between our friends and enemies (and their "useful idiots"--there are tons of those, the vast majority of whom are well-meaning, moral people, to be fair) is whether they support limiting or increasing government power. I'm not arguing that they're hyper-competent masters who can successfully manipulate everybody, but they know what they're doing and are dangerous, especially when prime opportunities for exploitation fall into their laps, like the recent string of mass shootings (up till now they'd been losing for a long time, and we can still beat them yet!).
Quick Draw McGraw
Member
So from what I'm reading here, the antis are still using the "allows shooting from the hip" arguments? I feel like we need to have the pro-gun people jump all over these. I mean, obviously I'd rather not have anyone shooting at me, but if someone is, I'd much rather it be from the hip. Maybe we should require pistol grips so that crazy people have the option to shoot from the hip. (that was facetious, but I just don't understand that argument.)
This kind of video may be one of the reasons the anti gun folks get hyper with "assault weapons" with pistol grips.
270 rounds in nine 30 round magazines hung off the gun, optical sights, vertical fore end grip, and shot from the the lowered position as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.
Throw in the exploding targets. You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpfQd1397E
I will add, the shooters magazine set up is cumbersome and changes are slow.
270 rounds in nine 30 round magazines hung off the gun, optical sights, vertical fore end grip, and shot from the the lowered position as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.
Throw in the exploding targets. You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpfQd1397E
I will add, the shooters magazine set up is cumbersome and changes are slow.
The very notion that the government can tell us what we need to defend ourselves--including from the government itself, potentially--is repugnant. Only the individual can determine what he/she wants and needs--giving such power to the government is a slippery slope that eventually leads to tyranny. Heed the warning of the Founders of our country and the Framers of the Constitution: government (a necessary evil) cannot be trusted (because power corrupts).
I agree with everything you said, and you explained it very well indeed.
That's exactly the kind of proactive promotion of our ideas that I've been suggesting--they say that we don't need this or that, and we say that we need more, and almost as a bonus, it's actually true. The Teacher
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 89
In case you didn't get a chance to watch all 3hrs 47min and 55sec, here's a link to the whole thing.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310644-1
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310644-1
JRH6856
Member
I'm not sure how useful it was to have that lawyer babbling about how "you can't ban scary guns because women use scary guns for self defense because scary guns give them confidence."
Cosmoline
Member
It's instructive to note what Giffords has actually done. She's done what all of the anti gun crusaders do--form a little group and get a bunch of grants from rich people and the trusts of dead rich people. The anti gun movement is really a cabal of extremely rich liberals dressed up with astroturf.
CountryUgly
Member
After watching the whole thing I have come to the conclusion that any new firearms laws stand zero chance of getting passed. It even appears the Anti's are on their heels. Looks like a good time to push for a repeal of the NFA '34 and GCA '68
Carl N. Brown
Member
And guns would still be available.
James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous", (Aldine 1986, 2nd ed 2008, ISBN-13: 978-0202362427), US NIJ Felon Survey of 1,874 felons in 18 prisons in 10 different states convicted of armed crimes.
40% of the felons surveyed reported stealing firearms. 12% of the felons stole guns for personal use. So a lot of gun thefts are sold to other criminals. Sources stolen from included:
37% from stores,
15% from police,
16% from truck shipments,
8% from manufacturers,
21% from individuals.
So in a hypotherical world with no civilian guns, the military and police would have firearms, there would still be "cop shop" gun stores, manufacturers, requiring shipments, all the current sources of stolen guns, except private individuals.
FBI reports 430,000 gun crimes per year. Ignore ATF NIBIN crime scene ballistics stats that one gun may show up in multiple crimes in the the course of a year. Assume for the sake of argument each crime represents one gun, one criminal. How many of those 430,000 guns would need replacement in a year? How many would be ditched, broken, seized by police, etc? How many guns stolen solely from police and military would it take to maintain the current gun crime rate?
Look at Australia, in the face of the 1996 "buy back" of 640,0o0 semi-auto and pump-action long guns. Current news reports in reputable Aussie newspapers easily findable on the Internet detail busts of pistol smuggling rings allied with drug smuggling rings, and basement and garage machinegun factories run by "bikies" (what we call Outlaw M.C.s). That is the future of a gun free utopia. Sports guns, hunting guns, collectibles, self-defense guns taken from the law abiding and destroyed, and the bad guys better armed than before.
Maybe the Loughners of the world may or may not be able to tap into the black market sources used by the NIJ armed and dangerous felon sample, or the drug or "bikie" gangs of OZ, but there are a lot more reports from Australia of street shootings over what we would call "dissing" by people who are not drug gangsters or motorcylcle clubs, meaning the black market spills over throughout society, especially ampong the lawless and desperate.
Last edited:
zxcvbob
Member
Depends where your head is at the time...
I watched the whole thing too. Our side was very good. An attaboy for my senator Cruz. I think he is going to go far. Nothing but emotion from the antis. The only witness that Boxter spoke to was the general from MD. He was a compete coolaid drinker. I thought the Denver professor and the woman's group person were great. Wayne was good too. He almost lost his temper with that idiot senator from Ilinoise.
Being a former cop and chief of a small department in MI, I can safely report that most cops are lousy shots. Even my officers, which were excellent hunters, couldn't hit squat with a pistol. I made them shoot a box of ammo each month.
And, if the anti gun crowd wants so much to save even one life of a child by gun control, why do all of them favor abortion so much? chris3
Being a former cop and chief of a small department in MI, I can safely report that most cops are lousy shots. Even my officers, which were excellent hunters, couldn't hit squat with a pistol. I made them shoot a box of ammo each month.
And, if the anti gun crowd wants so much to save even one life of a child by gun control, why do all of them favor abortion so much? chris3
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked