Want to start a Dialogue on Gun Control? By Bruce Tarleton
It’s the same old tired argument every time some lunatic gets his hand on a gun. We need more gun Control. We need more restrictions. We need to stop the senseless killings by controlling this “right”
Stop it. Just stop. You can no more legislate public safety from guns than you can from drugs. Drug laws have done nothing to stop drug abuse, and gun laws do nothing to stop gun crime.
Every time there is a high profile incident of a gun death or shooting, the knee jerk reaction is to pass more legislation to prevent it from happening again. The sad problem is, most of the legislation proposed or passed is nothing more than “feel good legislation”. That is, we feel good now that we’ve done something about it.
But you really haven’t done anything except punish the law abiding citizen for exercising his or her Right to Bear Arms. Nothing passed in the last decade would stop any of the shootings in the past decade. High capacity Magazines? Limit them to 8 rounds? I could reload my 1911 with two 8 round clips and get off just as many shots as I could with my 15 round Walther 990.
Assault weapons Ban? Ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as an Assault Weapon, the previous ban did nothing to stop the Columbine killings. Not to mention the fact that most mass shootings are not committed with semi-automatic rifles. And, data obtained from criminals in prison reflects that the semi-auto rifle is NOT the preferred weapon of criminals. In fact, FBI data supports the notion that a ban on “Assault Weapons” would have little or no impact on gun crime.
I wrote an article several years ago, after the mass shooting by the Muslim Husband/wife team in California. I had watched an NBC news segment on it, and the commentator, some ditzy woman, had said “We must start a dialogue about gun control”. The problem is, every dialogue they want to start begins with adding more legislation to further hamper a free person’s right to keep and bear arms.
The buzz word now is “Sensible Gun Control”. What’s sensible? Banning a whole class of firearms because of one incident? Adding laws to prevent a killer from getting a gun, when that killer had already broken the law to get it in the first place?
On August 6th, 2017, Clinton Missouri Police Officer Michael Gary Michael, 37 years old, pulled over a vehicle driven by Ian McCarthy, for failure to yield. McCarthy had firearms warrants out of New Hampshire, and one in Missouri. He had been pulled over once before carrying a pistol, and was charged with being a felon in possession of a gun. He missed his court appearance in Kansas City, and a warrant was issued in Dec of 2015.
As Ian exited his car, he produced an AR-15 rifle and shot Officer Michael several times. The wounds would prove fatal. A man hunt ensued, and he was apprehended several days later, only miles from my house.
The fallout from this killing resulted in 3 additional people being arrested on felony charges. One man for giving him a ride, knowing he was wanted. Another man and his wife for harboring him that night. This man was also charged with the state felony charge of providing a firearm to a known felon. Because HE was the one who purchased the AR for McCarthy.
There are many issues with this story. First, the warrant. From Dec 2015 until August of 2017, this man had an active warrant for his arrest for a felony charge. Yet he remained free. That’s a problem. It’s even more of a problem considering the charge was Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In other words, a gun law didn’t stop this guy.
The second issue is the friend who bought him the rifle. This is against both state and federal law. Many in this community are hoping that ATF secures an indictment for federal charges on this guy for this crime. But again, a gun law did not stop McCarthy from killing a police officer.
You want to start a dialogue? Fine. Let’s start it by addressing the current laws and how they are being enforced. Don’t come to the table wanting more laws, when the ones on the books are NOT being enforced, and as a result, people are still dying.
Tags
Who is online
64 visitors
LInk to story about Officer Michael, and some of the arrests:
Want to start a Dialogue on Gun Control?
Sure, I'm a proponent of the Weaver grip, as I believe it is the best way to control a handgun.
Yes, the Weaver stance is good for single target shooting. But I've found that the modified Weaver/Isosceles stance allows for multiple target acquisition better.
And don't forget your push - pull
No need for any dialogue, the country is so inundated with firearms these days, and our politicians completely lack the will to do anything real, that we basically just have to accept mass murder as a normal part of life. We just have to accept that anytime you go out in public you could be blown away for no reason at all, just because someone had a bad day and a gun. It is just the reality of life in America. I do wish our politicians would just stop with the nonsense condolences though, they are just annoying at this point and completely hollow.
What would be considered "Real", that wouldn't go against the constitution of this country.
Are you looking for an amendment to the Constitution?
If the people want it I'm for it. Those congressmen & women you mentioned will do something if the people want it. I mean the people, not a handful of protesters. The people through their representatives is how it must be done.
True, but how does that work with guns. Most people who live out in rural areas need them, unless you think they're gonna wait for a police car to show up. Many who live near the inner city would also want some extra protection. just don't see the correlation.
The feeling is widespread, Peggy Noonan put it best this morning on "Morning Joe":
“There is a sense that society is collapsing — the culture is collapsing. We’re collapsing in crime. The world is collapsing. Crazy people with bad haircuts have nukes. Everything is going bad — terrorism, etc. They want to be fully armed on their hill, at home… They’re Americans, and they want to go down fighting.”
I think there is truth in that and that's why progressives have never been able to win this debate
They haven't won anything. You can't convince them that more and stricter "common sense" gun laws won't have any effect on the criminals and killers obtaining guns. There are too many sources and no way to even enforce existing laws.
Mandatory gun safety classes in every high school would be a ‘real’ step in the right direction! I took gun safety in elementary school and haven’t had an accident yet! 👍
Never happen. Gun control advocates love the uninformed and uneducated. The misinformation is intentional. Guns=Bad is all they are concerned about.
You’re probably right! But I really do think that as long as the 2nd Amendment isn’t damaged by the liberals, we need to move forward in protecting it and teaching kids gun safety is a good start!
Wholeheartedly agree!
It's a "feel good" issue amongst liberals. It makes them feel relevant and superior, when neither is true.
I guess the insane amount of gun violence in the US really isn't an issue eh?
IMO it is certainly an issue, but one that we will never do anything about as a country so there is little point in even talking about it.
Talk about it. What do you propose? Is there a new law that you feel would stop the gun violence without infringing on the Constitutional Right?
The only gun control that works is no gun control. At least not the way liberal envision it.
Yes, the Weaver stance is good for single target shooting.
The only time I have fired my handgun has been in single action mode at targets.Never even shot at a target double action mode with it.
I do have the Glaser silver safety slugs for home defense. I have heard they may not be as reliable as advertised, but I feel better knowing they won't go through a wall and hit an unintended target.I hope to never use them.
The use of gun and control in a sentence often smothers reasonable dialogue. First to be determined is why/if we want additional legislation regarding guns in our country. Do we wish to control the legal gun owner, curb illegal gun activity, increase public safety, help law enforcement? Being goal orientated, I focus on increased public safety and assisting law enforcement.
If I were queen, all handguns would have automatic safety mechanisms. We are unable to fix stupid, yet this may reduce accidental discharge. Minimally produce all guns with safeties.
Mandatory training before ownership, not just conceal carry, but all owners. Licensing that is reciprocal across the nation (like a driver's license).
No open carry - hinders law enforcement, same stance on armor piercing ammo. I've yet to see wildlife wearing armor
Just a couple of changes I'd embrace.
I can see you really thought this one out.
Will you require training for people to vote? Will someone with Alzheimer's or Down's Syndrome be allowed to vote under your monarchy? The second amendment says, without discrimination, that a citizen's right to keep and BEAR arms cannot be infringed.
Open Carry enables law-abiding citizens to protect themselves more easily than lifting a shirt or pulling from a closed sack. I open carry on my property... none of my neighbors fear I'm going to shoot them. Passersby do not freak out and crash into trees because they see a man wearing a loaded gun in a holster.
I would not allow open carry of rifles.
An RFID would do nothing. Fingerprint technology, NOTHING. These are sci-fi gimmicks that people think can be successfully adapted to current analog firearms. These can easily be rendered useless and the cost would be astronomical. Funny that people have no problem added thousands of dollars to the cost of purchasing and bearing arms, but freak out if you force people to obtain a FREE ID to vote.
If a perpetrator is wearing body armor and carrying a modified automatic rifle, can I use armor piercing bullets? See, the problem is, bad guys don't give a f*ck if you're Queen or a Tupperware salesperson. They do what they please. They don't fear a 2, 3 or 5 year term for modifying their weapon, because they intend on murdering a large volume of people which carries a much higher sentence.
And what if, after training, you're unsatisfied with their ability to handle a gun? What then? Do you deny them their right to keep and bear arms? Do you infringe upon their right? What if I don't like the way people vote? Can I deny them their right too? How about they way they speak? What if they say WORDS that I don't like?
What you've just learned is that your suggestions and proposed solutions will simply affect LEGAL, LAW-ABIDING gun owners that ONLY use their guns to defend themselves and their families. You will have NO EFFECT on criminals or madmen.
Pass whatever laws you want. Cry to confiscate 270M weapons. Mass shootings will simply increase.
51% of murders occur in 2% of counties. These counties have the MOST gun control, and highest black and Hispanic populations.
54% of counties have ZERO murders. These counties have the highest rate of gun ownership.
Switzerland has a 25% small arms ownership rate. I believe it is 3rd in the world. They urge citizens to protect themselves. It also has a high standard of living. They have a murder rate of 0.6.
Honduras banned concealed and open carry. Only the bad guys carry concealed or open. They have a low standard of living and a murder rate of 90.0.
The problem isn't guns. It's people. You can't stop people from getting in a car and running people over. You can't stop people from blowing themselves up in an airport or gas station. The more you try, the worse you'll make things.
LOL... murder rates are represented per 100,000 people. So 0.6 is .6 / 100,000 and 90 is 90 / 100,000.
90% would be awesome. Alas, no!
The murder rate in the US is 5.3 per 100,000. Within white citizens ONLY, the rate is 1.6 / 100,000.
I completely agree. I wouldn't RARELY open-carry even if allowed to. I prefer the element of surprise that bad guys don't know I'm carrying.
I like the N82 holsters because I like the TWIST and pull, which makes it more difficult for someone to take your weapon from you. Most people don't know you need to twist the gun to release it from the holster.
Most criminals are cowards. If they see a gun, they think twice about engaging in illegal activity. But there are some that simply don't care. They just look for the people carrying and target them first.
At the end of the day, the moral of the story is... you can't rely on government to protect you. They didn't in Las Vegas. Gun control will not make people safer.
Look at Australia. The liberals will tout that MASS shootings declined from 13 to ZERO. Yeah!!!
They failed to mention:
Ooops. Did we leave that part out? The people that don't get killed in MASS shootings, get murdered anyway.
Almost forgot... Australia bought back/confiscated 640,000 weapons. The USA would have to confiscate 270M weapons, at the cost of about $500B with a buy back program.
Liberals point to Portugal and their legalization of heroin and other narcotics as the solution to drug addition and death.
But then go the complete opposite direction with guns.
Unfortunately reading your comments doesn't allow for tonal inflection, yet I've the overwhelming feeling dialogue with me is not your intent. You are free to disagree...even a monarchy has dissenters
I disagree. It's the lack of education on the subject that smothers reasonable dialogue.
During the Obama era, gun control advocates tried rebranding "gun control" as "gun safety legislation" while trotting-out the same proposals and misinformation. It's about substance, not messaging.
We'll respectfully disagree as I'm watching the "hearing protection" regarding silencers and literally LMAO. Ear protection has served my family well, I like the ability to hear weapon fire near me as I'm traipsing around the woods or in a mall.
Suppressors do not make gunshots silent. That happens only in the movies. A suppressor can't lessen the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier on any rifle firing anything beyond .22 short.
You can hear the sound barrier crack on both demonstrations.
Perfect example of substance.
Good demo, I've seen/heard the demo with a 9mm as well...knowing a silencer is actually a suppressor. Guess I should have used the word "loud" in my sentence. Hence the LMAO, playing to the ignorance of many. Not to say I'll not suffer hearing damage if a would-be bad actor enters my home as I won't stop to put on our ear protectors, will ing to take the risk.
As am I.
Don't amend the Constitution.....just enforce the law!
Exactly!
Totally agree!
Because of effective NRA lobbying, ATF is deliberately underfunded, understaffed and went without a permanent director for 7 years. Starving an enforcing agency for funds is an effective way to nullify any existing laws that an agency is charged with enforcing.
So to even begin enforcement of existing laws, the political power of the NRA would need to be neutralized.
This can be done by identifying and amplifying differences within the NRA to encourage schism.
While it appears to be a homogeneous group - it is not. Rural hunters vs. City dwellers who want guns mainly for protection. A small but significant percentage of Republicans who feel the NRA has too much influence over gun control laws. Complaints by members over overly annoying fund raising approaches. Questions about how the NRA uses those funds. A board of directors that is 87% male and 93% white. 10% of the membership is female. And there is competition -National Association for Gun Rights for one.
Where there are differences, there are opportunities to create wedge issues. They do not have to be large.
I'm not an NRA member. I was a member of GOA for a few years.
Now more to your response, most gun laws are on the state and local level. The ATF will prosecute for many of the federal laws, but one where they are really lacking in enforcement is the fraud in filing the 4473, Background check form for purchasing a firearm.
In the case I mentioned in the article, one individual is being charged with state charges for buying an AR for a known felon. That is also a Federal violation, and he should face federal charges for it as well. I'm assuming that the feds are going to let the state handle it, and if it doesn't result in a conviction, or gets plead down, they could and may step in with federal charges. At least that's what I hope is happening.
On the other hand, McCarthy had a warrant for failure to appear on gun related charges (Felon in possession). That also was a state charge. Yet he walked free from Dec 2015 until Aug of this year. It's this kind of lack of enforcement that I speak of.
One of the biggest problems XD is we have become complacent in our privacy and government intrusion. I'll give you an example.
Pseudoephedrine. A common and effective drug for sinus colds and flu. But it's also the main ingredient in manufacturing Meth. So to stop meth labs, it's now regulated at the pharmacy. You have to go to the counter, get entered into the system, and only allowed to buy so much at a time. All in an effort to curb meth. Yet there are still daily arrests for meth use, possession, and manufacturing. It didn't stop the labs. And it never will. Because the criminal will find a way around the laws.
I have reviewed my original comment and find no need to change my conclusions.
Just as the NRA has used its lobbying power to neutralize the ATF, is has also encouraged and probably funded various changes in state laws and constitutions that would put guns in the hands of felons.
In the case of Missouri, the NRA was a primary supporter of “Amendment 5” voted on in the fall of 2014. While not its primary purpose, the Amendment appeared to make easier for felons to regain their right to own firearms.
After the Raymond Robinson trial where a St. Louis judge dismissed his felon-in-possession of a firearm charge and after the Pierre Clay case was also dismissed, prosecutors feared that they would no longer be able to prosecute felons for the possession of guns.
The Missouri Supreme court eventually overturned these dismissals (2016). But during 2015 there was no incentive for law enforcement or prosecutors to aggressively pursue cases against felons simply for possession of firearms.
I would imagine this attitude continued through at least 2016 with the proposed, NRA backed Missouri House Bill 1828, which would give even those convicted of violent felonies, their gun rights back - if at least 3 years had passed.
Should the police have tracked down McCarthy in 2015 or at least 2016?
Of course - but would that have lead to an actual prosecution taking him off the streets?
I guess that would depend on whether local prosecution thought they would be successful in the courts with the uncertainty caused by Amendment 5 and later House Bill 1828.
It can be said, however, that the during those two years at least, the NRA was doing its best to allow McCarthy, a convicted felon, to be in possession of a gun.
So if you want existing state gun laws rigorously enforced, I see no other option than to make the lobbying power of the NRA ineffectual.
I noticed a comment that suggest my purpose was to cause "division".
I have no interest in causing division among NT posters.
I was merely pointing out that a direct confrontation with the NRA at the present time would not be successful. A quiet, long term, indirect, and perfectly legal assault at their fissure lines would - I believe be the only successful means of removing their lobbying power.
Not sure about someone saying you're causing division. I certainly haven't been led to believe that from any comment I've read.
I will point out that you contradicted yourself somewhat with these two statements:
While not its primary purpose, the Amendment appeared to make easier for felons to regain their right to own firearms.
and
the NRA was doing its best to allow McCarthy, a convicted felon, to be in possession of a gun.
Again, I'm not a member of the NRA, but I will say that the NRA in no way worked to allow felons to posses guns with this amendment. You point out correctly that it was not the intent of the bill, and the authors of the bill said so on several occasions.
But to the cases you quoted, both were NON-Violent felons. And that is what the push to the judges argued.
In the case I quoted, McCarty was a violent felon, having a felony assault with a deadly weapon conviction. It's unlikely that his arrest and court appearance would have resulted in the type of defense Robinson used.
As for HB 1828, it died a slow horrible death in committee.
ATF abuse of US citizens brought on their problems.
I believe there is a 93% consensus across the board that mandatory background checks and registration should be put into legislation (even from sales at gun shows and the like) for all firearms. It think that alone would solve a lot of issues and apparently the majority of Americans agree.
Other than that, I don't see why a person needs a fully automatic weapon since that no longer falls under the categories of home defense or hunting.
However, I don't see a need for greater gun control that that presently since you still should be able to own firearms and anything further would probably impede your ability to do so.
I just saw Gabby Giffords Husband Mark Kelly on CNN a 25 year Navy vet Astronaut spew some of the same ignorance that we have been hearing from the Dems.
He showed his ignorance after being asked by the talking head about Steve Scalise and himself having a personal experience with a madman by Parroting Hillary Clinton's statement about how much worse it would have been if the Ballpark Shooter had used a "silencer".
If you are going to comment on the subject at the very least educate yourself before you open your mouth.
Control the Criminals!
This is an issue where opinions are strong on both sides and people's minds are made up. I live in an area where there are 2 major talk radio stations and neither one of them will take comments about gun control or abortion - because there's no discussion just ranting.
And I get ire from both sides because I'm moderate on the issue. I don't want to restrict anyone's right to a firearm. But I also want it where only people who actually understand firearm safety and have some actual training in firearm use should have them. I've seen way way too many idiots out there who should not have firearms.
I realize also that for things like the Las Vegas shooting, the first solution is to take away people's firearms but that won't really work. There's too many firearms out there and the harsh truth is that if someone is willing to commit a crime, they can get all the firearms they need no problem. The only realistic way I could think of to control the criminal element is to collect most of the volume of firearms out there and disable them - and for us and our culture that's a crime worse than the disease. That won't happen.
I do find the whole thing about needing firearms to prevent a government takeover rather specious. I'm 100% confident that if it came to that, our men and women in uniform would side with us and those trying the takeover would soon be facing our military instead of deploying it. If that wasn't the case, the fact is our well trained military would dispatch anyone with a firearm not in the military rather quickly it would be absurdly one sided. So this is one thing that does not keep me up at night.
I find that for personal safety, especially if you're military or police or served in that capacity the owner will have sufficient training to provide real protection. Anyone else should seriously consider getting training like that or you'll be a bigger danger to yourself and others and not at all helpful in a real fight.
In my little book that will NEVER by published
even an attempt by anyone to kill/murder someone ought to Warrant the death Penalty.
Guns are like any other Property, as such people have a right to have/own one if PAID for it, Inherited it or received as a Gift. That however doesn't give the owner other rights assumed by many, like for example carrying them around in full display as to make a statement that one is above others or to Intimidate others. For human beings and 'cause of human nature, attempts to intimidate or shows-off 'bout status are offensive . And that Offense is what has caused so many fatal incidents.
Those who make attempts to Intimidate know they're indeed causing offense, if they don't know it then they're either below grade or not worthy of owning a gun.