Possible Response to Orlando & Calls to Ban Guns

[Flynt]

I don't know why I torture myself this way, but I was reading some of the comments about the Orlando atrocity on the NPR website. Of course there were calls to restrict or ban guns, especially AR's. One guy said that our gun laws should be like those in Europe, where they don't have terrorist shootings! (Several other commenters quickly corrected him.)

I'm pretty sure that the Paris and Copenhagen attackers used full auto AK's, while our homegrown Jihadists have just bought the type of weapons that were available legally, at gun stores.

What would happen if we scooped up most guns or at least AR's as part of a Big Brother, "we're going to protect you from terrorists" campaign? At least for the foreseeable future, we'd still be subjected to Jihadist attacks, and like in Europe, a black market arms trade would flourish. So, instead of going into a gun store and buying a semi-auto AR, the next generation of terrorists would go to a black market dealer and probably get full-auto weapons, RPG's, etc. By restricting access to semi-autos, they'd end up with more lethal weapons.

I just wanted to hear what you guys thought about this perspective. I don't think it's likely to change many opinions, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[Robert]

I suppose that the Mexican Cartels, via the US gov't, could supply more FA weapons but it would be far easier, safer and cheaper in the long run to just break into people's houses and steal what you want. The vast majority of guns used in crime where not legally bought in the first place, rather they are stolen.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I think you're right.

It doesn't take much thinking to realize that if guns were banned, the criminals would find them from elsewhere and the citizenry would not be able to resist.

 

[Walkalong]

Yep, don't think for a minute the antis don't understand that.

 

[Warp]

I think you're right.

It doesn't take much thinking to realize that if guns were banned, the criminals would find them from elsewhere and the citizenry would not be able to resist.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Even the most proactive and aggressive anti-Liberty anti-Rights politicians aren't yet trying to literally ban all of them and require mandatory buy-back or turn-in or confiscation. Bit by bit one category at at time perhaps, but not all at once, way too much backlash from regular people who would not comply.

So

Tens of millions of guns would still be out there, right here in the country, without even having to resort to bringing them across the boarder/ocean.

 

[Walkalong]

In time they would all be collected. True, not in our lifetime, but in the antis dream world it doesn't matter how long it takes.

Antis will always use horrific events like this to push their agenda. Our job is to try to vote in politicians who are pro gun, on both sides of the aisle.

 

[OldMac]

The answer is to go on offense and dont let up. Gun free zones must go. The federal gov works for us. Their ban in federal bldgs must go. Push, push , push.

 

[Sistema1927]

Why don't we just ban all of them? Just like we did heroin and crack cocaine.

 

[herrwalther]

Yep, don't think for a minute the antis don't understand that.

I think there are a few smart antis who know that criminals will still get firearms. The stupid ones just go with the flow and believe what they are told without looking at facts.

 

[Warp]

A lot of people fall for the lies and really do believe the drivel that is used to deceive them into believing banning/restricting guns really will help overall

 

[silicosys4]

Judging from conversations I've had,
I don't think antis even believe their solutions will work at eliminating or even seriously reducing these kinds of incidences.
They just hope they will as an incidental byproduct of the restructuring of American culture into their enlightened plan of an ideal society, which would presumably be miraculously free of predators.
What they really want is to control access, period.
It's what their utopian vision requires.

Their "solution" (no legally owned firearms, period) is the end goal, not finding an effective approach to solve or stop these attacks.

 

[22-rimfire]

The usual knee jerk reactions are; universal background checks, national gun registry, licensing, means testing, and of course voluntary "confiscation". None would make much difference relative to terrorist attacks. The flow of arms would accelerate in the US from outside our borders. There isn't much of a market now because there are legal guns to be had. Most terrorists have some sort of funding. It wouldn't matter if guns costs 5x as much.

This attack was significant. Worst ever in the US per the media. One man with two firearms killed 50 people and wounded 53 in a night club. That is a lot of people standing around waiting to be shot. Nobody had a firearm? Nobody there willing to fight back? Head for the exits or crawl under tables and wait to be shot.

 

[22-rimfire]

What would happen if we scooped up most guns or at least AR's as part of a Big Brother, "we're going to protect you from terrorists" campaign? At least for the foreseeable future, we'd still be subjected to Jihadist attacks, and like in Europe, a black market arms trade would flourish. So, instead of going into a gun store and buying a semi-auto AR, the next generation of terrorists would go to a black market dealer and probably get full-auto weapons, RPG's, etc. By restricting access to semi-autos, they'd end up with more lethal weapons.

What would happen is that Americans would lose their Second Amendment rights and once lost, they will never return for ANY reason.

 

[Robert]

I have deleted 7 posts. Conspiracy theories have no place here. Please leave the tin foil in the cabinet or this will end up being closed.

 

[TarDevil]

So you don't think our govt is corrupt enough to coordinate such actions?

You should check our history...

SMH!

 

[goldpelican]

That is a lot of people standing around waiting to be shot. Nobody had a firearm? Nobody there willing to fight back? Head for the exits or crawl under tables and wait to be shot.

Very soft target - nightclub at 2am in the morning with a lot of tired, high or drunk people. So a lack of apparent successful resistance is not surprising.

It is *so* frustrating to see that this guy has been apparently investigated twice by the FBI for possible links to extremism, but can still pass a background check. Look, I totally support due process and don't believe that someone should be deprived of their rights without conviction - but is there a solution in looking at the types of firearms that can be accessed if you've got a "blemished" background without a conviction? Thinking along the lines of "well you've been interviewed by the FBI twice, and fall into a high risk group - we have to be cautious - so you can't have a semi auto or a hand gun, only a bolt action rifle or revolver. If you're not happy with that outcome, here's the appeal process if you want to access other types of firearms". 2A rights still available, but... well restricted isn't the right word, restriction is infringement - but for some people, the right is narrowed until previous actions can be assessed and exonerated. Sort of like how the no-fly list prevents you from flying, but doesn't infringe upon freedom of movement - you can drive from CA to NY instead of flying - it's just less convenient and will take you longer. Well, you can cycle a bolt instead of letting gas do the work for you, and use a speedloader instead of a 17 round magazine.

This could address the "no fly" quandary - "we think you're suss enough that you cannot board an airplane without a conviction, but we can't stop you from buying an AR15".

It's a slippery slope though. I'm originally from Australia - I know all about gun restrictions

 

[Warp]

Very soft target - nightclub at 2am in the morning with a lot of tired, high or drunk people. So a lack of apparent successful resistance is not surprising.

It is *so* frustrating to see that this guy has been apparently investigated twice by the FBI for possible links to extremism, but can still pass a background check. Look, I totally support due process and don't believe that someone should be deprived of their rights without conviction - but is there a solution in looking at the types of firearms that can be accessed if you've got a "blemished" background without a conviction? Thinking along the lines of "well you've been interviewed by the FBI twice, and fall into a high risk group - we have to be cautious - so you can't have a semi auto or a hand gun, only a bolt action rifle or revolver. If you're not happy with that outcome, here's the appeal process if you want to access other types of firearms". 2A rights still available, but... well restricted isn't the right word, restriction is infringement - but for some people, the right is narrowed until previous actions can be assessed and exonerated. Sort of like how the no-fly list prevents you from flying, but doesn't infringe upon freedom of movement - you can drive from CA to NY instead of flying - it's just less convenient and will take you longer. Well, you can cycle a bolt instead of letting gas do the work for you, and use a speedloader instead of a 17 round magazine.

This could address the "no fly" quandary - "we think you're suss enough that you cannot board an airplane without a conviction, but we can't stop you from buying an AR15".

It's a slippery slope though. I'm originally from Australia - I know all about gun restrictions

Restricting Rights and Liberties without due process is extremely dangerous stuff.

And we currently (likely never) don't know enough to pass judgment. What was he interviewed by the FBI? What has he done? Has the judicial branch been involved?

 

[gbran]

There's a flurry of pretty bad legislation in CA that may get a boost now and maybe even sway Guv Brown to sign them. I would also expect to see new bills due to this event. A few other states will likely follow.

 

[SwaneeSR]

Gold pelican -

I know the point you are trying to make, but it is just not practical.

The temptation in times like these is to rush to new laws tailored to address the one incident. However, the assailant could have purchased a shotgun found another way to do as much damage.

Like said a few posts ago, this was a very soft target.

Swanee

 

[jmorris]

Judging from conversations I've had,
I don't think antis even believe their solutions will work at eliminate mating, or even seriously reducing these kinds of incidences.

"We have to make them illegal."

"The act was illegal and the Boston bombers used cookware, should we ban cookware?"

"Well, we have to do something..."

Action for actions sake, comes from people who would like to make a difference in a situation where they can't.

 

[Tommygunn]

The usual knee jerk reactions are; universal background checks, national gun registry, licensing, means testing, and of course voluntary "confiscation". None would make much difference relative to terrorist attacks. The flow of arms would accelerate in the US from outside our borders. There isn't much of a market now because there are legal guns to be had. Most terrorists have some sort of funding. It wouldn't matter if guns costs 5x as much.

This attack was significant. Worst ever in the US per the media. One man with two firearms killed 50 people and wounded 53 in a night club. That is a lot of people standing around waiting to be shot. Nobody had a firearm? Nobody there willing to fight back? Head for the exits or crawl under tables and wait to be shot.

A police officer engaged the shooter toward the beginning of the event with no real effect.
I support RKBA, but unfortunatly sometimes the nature of things is such that the badguy has the overall advantage.

 

[22-rimfire]

"Well, we have to do something..."

Action for actions sake, comes from people who would like to make a difference in a situation where they can't.

I agree, but that is how politicians think. Give the people what they want or think they want and all along pushing forward an anti-gun agenda. The liberal side of the political spectrum wants to make guns illegal to own in the US or something akin to England's law where firearms have to be stored at some gun range or in safes at home that are subject to law enforcement inspection. Oh and you can't buy much ammunition either..... Freedom....

 

[JohnKSa]

It doesn't take much thinking to realize that if guns were banned, the criminals would find them from elsewhere and the citizenry would not be able to resist.

What are you talking about? Don't you keep up with current events?

We declared war on illegal drugs and have eradicated them from the U.S.! It's totally impossible to get illegal drugs in the U.S. now. People can't make them illegally any more, people can't import them illegally any more--they're just GONE.

I'm sure a war on guns would be just as effective.

 

[rcmodel]

Have to consider what one determined crazy could do in a club full of people with a couple of wine bottles full of gasoline and rag fuses stuffed in them.

You gonna outlaw molotov cocktails too??
And glass bottles, and lawn mower gas cans??

It seems to me the 'lone wolf' Terrorests like this guy are nearly unstoppable with our existing laws.
You can't do racial profiling for instance.

If we could, the waiting line in airports wouldn't be held up making 80 year old American grandmas take thier shoes off for TSA agents to sniff them!!

rc

 

[IlikeSA]

I believe the guy had a clean slate. He was an armed security guard at a court house with all the licensing, despite having possible terrorist connections and FBI investigations. The problem is with intelligence: it is not fast enough or thorough enough.