Guest Post by Scott Adams
One of the positive side-effects of the Trump administration is that citizens are far more informed on the issues than at any time in my memory. The public seems to be getting into the details on a lot of topics lately. Gun control is a great example. I consider myself under-informed on that topic, but improving daily, as are most of you who follow the news. And I thought it would be useful for some of you to compare your views on the topic to where I’ve evolved so far.
What follows is my public confession of ignorance on the topic. I will list the things I believe to be true, while asking readers to fact-check me. I’ll modify my list as corrections come in.
In no particular order, here’s what I think I know.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Gun control works. If it didn’t work, the Vegas shooter and the Florida school shooter would have used fully-automatic weapons and killed far more people. The one-time mass shooters are clearly using the most lethal weapons they can get without too much friction. Fully-automatic weapons are expensive, less available, and can create a paper trail with purchase. That’s evidently enough friction to make them not the weapon of choice. Therefore, the existing gun controls on fully-automatic weapons seem to work.
Professional criminals can always get weapons. But they are not the topic of most gun control conversations for that very reason.
States with tight gun control have lower gun violence. But those states are also blue states. The obvious correlation here is that liberals vote for gun control no matter how many or how few problems the state experiences. The state-to-state comparisons do not tell you if gun control works.
Comparing gun ownership in the United States to other countries is more misleading than illuminating because no two situations are alike. The United States isn’t Switzerland and it isn’t Japan.
Chicago has strict gun control and yet it has high gun violence. But that doesn’t tell you gun control doesn’t work. It might tell you Chicago is a blue (liberal) city with a gun violence problem. But that’s all it tells you. We can’t know if Chicago would have even greater problems without the existing gun laws.
Gun ownership is a safeguard against the government turning on citizens. While the professional military will always have overwhelming firepower compared to citizens, private guns would instantly be turned on the unprotected assets and family members of anyone involved in a coup attempt. That’s a safeguard.
The NRA opposes universal background checks for gun purchases because it creates a list of gun owners that would be useful for a government that might want to later confiscate guns. Yet the NRA itself is a list of gun owners, in effect. And any gun owner who buys a weapon, ammo, gun accessories, or uses a gun range is discoverable by their credit card or check purchases. If you subscribe to Guns & Ammo magazine, or visit gun websites, or say pro-gun things on social media, that’s discoverable too. So 98% (just a guess) of gun owners are already discoverable by the government.
There’s probably no practical way to effectively regulate or ban private person-to-person gun sales. But you could pass a law putting some liability (say a $10,000 fine for example) on the private seller in case the gun is used by the buyer for a crime within, let’s say, one year. Under this scenario, you also want to have legal ways to privately sell guns without the liability risk. That could include buying a one-year surety bond, or selling the gun to a licensed dealer. Just brainstorming here.
Gun owners worry about a slippery slope from background checks to gun confiscation. But with hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation, and a gun culture in our DNA, we already have Mutually Assured Destruction if the government were to attempt confiscation. The government itself would fall within a week, in my opinion. I judge the slippery-slope-to-confiscation argument to be a real risk, but a smaller risk than just about any other risk the country routinely discusses.
Politicians and citizens often refer to AR-15 rifles as assault weapons, or assault rifles. But a more accurate description, by far, would be “defensive weapon.” I would imagine that for every 10,000 AR-15 sales, perhaps one nut is buying for actual assault purposes. The rest are for sport shooting and defense. Words matter in political conversations.
According to at least one ER doctor who has seen many gunshot wounds, the high-velocity rounds of an AR-15 will explode organs and make wounds unsurvivable, whereas the typical lower-velocity handgun wounds often leave cleaner holes that can be less lethal. This generality assumes most handguns don’t have special rounds that could also explode organs. And distance from target makes a difference, I hear.
Gun owners say handguns are just as effective as AR-15s for mass shootings. This is clearly untrue for special cases such as the Vegas event where shooting distance was a variable. And I would expect human psychology to favor AR-15s for any “make me famous” killings such as the recent school tragedy. I hate to say it, but a military-looking weapon is going to be more appealing, and feel more dominant, for such killers. It would also be an advantage over police on the scene if the first responders had only handguns and shooting distance is a factor. So while it is true that handguns can produce mass casualties, and have, it is also probably true that access to AR-15s raises the risk of mass shootings and the death count too. No one can estimate how much of a real difference it would make. My best guess is “some,” but a small improvement might be enough to matter.
Gun owners say gun control doesn’t work because any law can be skirted. You can’t plug all of the holes in the system. But gun control doesn’t attempt to plug every hole. It attempts to add some useful friction in places that might improve things by 2%, for example. When it comes to life and death, small improvements count.
Some people tell me there are already universal background checks in the law (and therefore existing lists of gun buyers) but I assume that system is incomplete or we wouldn’t be discussing it. I could use some fact checking there.
If universal gun background checks are objectionable to the NRA, would a no-buy list also be objectionable? A no-buy list also carries the risk of identifying legal gun buyers simply because you have to do a search with the buyer’s name to know if he or she is on the no-buy list. But maybe we could mitigate that risk by designing a system that automatically sends a thousand random names of real people with every query so the government can’t tell who the search was for. The gun store owner would get back only the no-buy names from the thousand, in alphabetical order, so it would be easy to check if the customer in front of you is one of them. Or perhaps the gun story owner can see a list of no-buy people in the buyer’s zip code so no query with the buyer’s name is ever used. Just brainstorming here. Might be other solutions that are better.
I will correct and update this list as I learn more on the topic. How close is my understanding to yours?
Its how to aim.
You have got to be kidding.
“States with tight gun control have lower gun violence. But those states are also blue states.”
Checked Chicago stats lately?
Vermont. Probably the state with the easiest access to guns. Also the lowest murder rate (or close to it). The murder rate correlates almost perfectly with the black percentage of the population in a given city or state. Latinos to a far far lesser degree.
Scott, I think if you read the second amendment every night before you go to bed, you would after a week or a month know all you need to know. As of now you hold a can of worms.
I was going to respond to the article, but I can’t say it any better than bigfoot.
Two years ago I was on vacation with much of my liberal family. The subject over one night’s dinner was gun control. My blue-tinted family was talking about all these ideas, many of them discussed above by Scott Adams. Some of my lovely family even strongly argued for eliminating the ability of citizens to have guns.
My response was simply, if you think those are good ideas, then change the Constitution, because the 2nd Amendment says you can’t implement any of those ideas. The process to change or void the 2nd Amendment exists, just go through the process if you think gun control is such a great idea.
Talk about taking a dump on the middle of the table. The arguing got so intense that my wife had to pull me away from the table and have me sit outside.
The Constitution says what it says for good reasons. It can be changed. But liberals don’t want to do the heavy lifting of changing the Constitution because they know the majority of citizens don’t agree with them and they will thus fail. But they sure like the sounds of their ideas when they talk among themselves.
The people are sovereign, that is the only quality of our Republic that matters. I love the AR format, it is an easy to maintain and understand weapon. Handguns have their place for personal protection, they are much easier to conceal. My hunting rifles are very accurate, scoped to shoot at great distances. BTW I have taken deer with AR’s, they are excellent for game hunting. Guns are tools that require skill and a demeanor of a responsible citizen. The NRA is a civil rights organization, and that’s all it is!
States with tight gun control have lower gun violence. Not true at all. Gun violence is a black man. “According to at least one ER doctor who has seen many gunshot wounds, the high-velocity rounds of an AR-15 will explode organs and make wounds unsurvivable, whereas the typical lower-velocity handgun wounds often leave cleaner holes that can be less lethal.” Actually Scott, .223 is considered more survivable. The idea was to make them pick up the wounded, and deal with them, takes a lot of manpower and resources on the battlefield. And there are many more lethal exotic handgun rounds then there are .223 rounds. Handgun rounds don’t need the travel the same distance the way rifle bullets do, so they can be less aerodynamic.
Gun control in the U.S. is unconstitutional. “Shall not be infringed” means just what it says when it was written.
What we need less of is “gun free zones”. THAT’S the common denominator in mass shootings.
These arguments bore me. Does a rational society need to restrict some weapons. Of course. But that must be predicated on the belief that there is less risk trusting the governing body you are called upon to cede personal protection to more than the need to protect oneself. Do I trust the government to protect me enough to give up my weapons? Don’t make me laugh. What’s the congress approval rating-16%?
But, I did really like this part: “if the government were to attempt confiscation. The government itself would fall within a week,”
It all sounds good on paper (or the internet) CC, but it has begun. S-L-O-W-L-Y. The death of 1000 cuts starts slowly too.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-06/seattle-police-begin-gun-confiscations-no-laws-broken-no-warrant-no-charges
Did this guy break any laws or simply compound a few left coast hoplophobes hoplophobia? Just an(other) isolated incident? The bastards have been incrementally taking our guns since the 20s.
Scott has some very odd, mostly skewed by too many years of MSM propaganda, views along with a few that are right on the money. At least he is asking for clarification if they be right or wrong. If someone truly knowledgeable could do a statement by statement rational & patient response that would be great. Last year I would have already started writing, but I’m tired, burnt at both ends, & have 100 other more pressing things happening the next few months.
adams is mostly full of …. on this topic but he does sound like he’s willing to listen–
i’m putting a link here if you want to click–
the fl house voted yes today on gun control,and the senate had already passed the same package–
it now goes to gov scott,and if he signs it, which he probably will,fl will have more gun control-
scott is running for the us senate vs incumbent bill nelson and would have probably won–you can mark the day he signs the bill into law as the day he lost the election and as the day the republicowards lost the chance to pick up a senate seat–
https://patch.com/florida/carrollwood/s/gdelt/florida-house-votes-to-place-new-restrictions-on-rifle-sales?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=weather&utm_campaign=alert
“if the government were to attempt confiscation. The government itself would fall within a week,”
I firmly believe this to be the truth. Whether National Guard, military deployment or State Police, illegal orders are just that – ILLEGAL. Men of good conscience will quickly not follow illegal orders (unconstitutional), especially when it threatens their lives. They will desist or desert. Those that remain will constitute the body of the thugs and gangs that, for a short while, will run roughshod over the populace. They too will soon be overcome by the righteous wrath of the citizens, at least in flyover America. While in the cities , they may maintain a self aggrandizing, mob rule type of control over the unarmed, unprepared proletariat.
I wish I was as sure as you on this topic. I have asked many I work with IF they thought their soldiers would refuse…I never got a straight answer that convinced me.
Veterans, you swore an Oath…
Oath of Enlistment
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Officers Oath
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Your Oath NEVER expires!
It”s time to keep it!
OATH KEEPERS:
ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY
Click here to read full length version.
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people .
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
https://www.oathkeepers.org/
i’m w/you,gmmita–
i believe that cops and the military will do as they’re told and disarm us if that’s their order–
“Past Behavior is the Best Predictor of Future Behavior”
So you have 4 Situations. Let’s assume that if there is consensus, you can ammend the constitution.
All the discussions are about options 1 vs option 2
The situation today is option 4 (please no BS about that everyone can be a criminal and other fallacies to derail the argument)
1 – Law abiding: do not have guns………….Criminals: do not have guns
2 – Law abiding: have guns…………………….Criminals: do not have guns
3 – Law abiding: do not have guns…………Criminals: have guns
4 – Law abiding: have guns…………………….Criminals: have guns
The problem is: no matter what you do to move to option 2 or option 1, you end up in option 3, unless you go for draconian measures (like home by home search of the whole country + stop and frisk of everyone). Ask Mexicans or Australians.
So, the stable situation is number 4. No one can make the situation better by changing the strategy.
Well. In fact the problem is worst. If you try anything you get to option 5:
Law Abiding: do not have guns……………….Criminals: have guns………….Government: has guns
In the last century, governments around the world have killed far more people (5x) than civilians homicides (Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Khan, Tito).
The number is usually stated at somewhere between 160 and 200 millions
At a murder rate of 6 per 100 thousand (World Average) it would mean about 30 million homicides during the same last 100 years. So, the biggest danger is, and has been, goverment out of control. Not criminals. Would you believe the goverment when they tell you to disarm because you should make it difficult to criminals to get guns?
Remember. Americans are like anyone else. What make America special is the 2nd ammendment.
(I would not have expected that reminder from MTV)
in the old west,when a man was leaving jail or prison his weapons were returned to him–
we do not have a problem w/guns or mental illness,we have a problem with a lack of punishment for criminals and not being able to distinguish between the harmless mentally ill & the dangerous mentally ill(very few of these mass shooters did not give plenty of signs) and then having the will to lock up the dangerously mentally ill–
“we have a problem with…not being able to distinguish between the harmless mentally ill & the dangerous mentally ill”. A-Who should we empower to make this call? B-What standards will be applied in making this call? C-Will there be a right to appeal?
MR,
In many jurisdictions, the police can hold a person for 72 hours for observation and evaluation. In our local area, such a person is taken to a local hospital phsychiatric ward. If it is done in error or maliciously then the recourse is to the court for false imprisonment. And no, you can’t take his guns until after they are found deficient and it is confirmed by a court.
P. S. I believe the standard for holding someone is that, through words or action, the present a potential threat to themselves or others. Certainly an online threat to commit mass murder should qualify
I’m familiar with the current system; I believed TampaRed was suggesting a change to better identity the dangerous mentally ill. The problem being overlooked is after the police bring someone in for evaluation, it only takes two doctors’ signitures for an involuntary admission. The next step is a hearing in the hospital before a judical officer. If he confirms the admission (which they almost always do) then the patient has been committed within the meaning of the ATF Form 4473. Any changes could make is easier to label virtually anyone inelligable to possess a firearm. The second signiture requirement is no protection. My wife is a psychiatrist, and in 22 years she’s only seen the second signiture declined once. And sue for false mprisonment is laughable. The case will be dismissed pretrial.
MR,
Even if all that you say is true, perhaps it is an indication that the system actually works. That incidents such as Parkland would not have happened if some one had simply followed the existing rules.
As for your assertion that a false imprisonment suit would be dismissed pretrial is preposterous if in fact it was done maliciously.
The lawsuit would fail because the legal standard is “imminent danger to himself or others”. There is no brightline dividing dangerous from not dangerous. It’s a fuzzy concept and physicians don’t need a lot of evidence to support their decision. Family members claiming “fear” and patients displaying “irritability” have been used and upheld by the courts. Also, most states have a threshold statute where the plaintiff must first show the physicians’ decision was “unreasonable” before the case will even get before a jury. It’s easy to say we will keep guns away from the mentally ill, but tred
cautiously. Terms like “mentally ill” and “dangerous” are so ambiguous we could all find ourselves the subject of these legal actions. All it would take is an arguement with a spouse/family member/or cashier, followed by a call to police. Once that ball is rolling, it can be difficult to stop. And since the Tarasoff case, mental health professionals and judicial officers have been erring on the side of caution. Post-Tarasoff, it’s safer for them to involuntarily admit you, even if they’re wrong, then to risk cutting you lose.
(TARASOFF v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 1974)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1829929.html
rabbit,
the courts along w/appointed professionals,w/automatic reviews(re exams) every x amount of time–the person who is being committed should also have the right to his own medical team,along w/legal counsel–
you posted the standards a couple of weeks ago,”…when they’re jfn”,along w/a strong potential for violence–
a right to appeal,sure–however,if the court finds that they are mentally ill w/a propensity for violence they should remain hospitalized until the appeals process is over–appeals should of course be expedited–
Patients do have a right to counsel in these hearings. Public Defender offices have a mental health division that provides attorneys for these hearings. But realistically, there is not a lot they can do. Typically, the public defender will meet the client minutes before the hearing, and the hearing officers harbor a de facto presumption that the doctors are correct. Bringing in their own medical team would be difficult since these hearings are held just days after initial confinement (in my state it’s 10 days). The patient would have to persuade his own medical team to quickly come to the psych unit where he is confined and perform an evaluation, then prepare a presentation for the hearing just days away. When I represented clients in these hearings, I usually advised them to postpone the hearing because in all likelyhood they would be discharged before the next hearing. This way, the admission is resolved without invoking any of the conditions covered by the ATF Form 4473. It’s not a pretty scene, and there are no easy answers.
Bigfoot, above, has the proper approach…no further discussion about the Right is necessary.
Regarding availability:
A semi auto rifle or pistol can be converted to a full auto rather easily. Probably 30 minutes or so for a machinist the second time. (First time always takes a little more time. ) I have owned full auto toys properly registered, tax paid, etc.
Accuracy with a lightweight rifle in full auto is OK if you are looking for a “room broom” but otherwise most of those with combat experience will probably prefer the use of semi auto for real rifle work, unless you are talking something bigger such as a squad automatic weapon or a crew served heavy machine gun.
If you need a firearm for self protection or some other purpose, again, a machinist can easily build you one. Having been a white engineering student at a college on the south side of Chicago many, many years ago, our guys (all white) made lots of first class zip guns as part of an ongoing, necessary, defensive racism project.
Today, the 3-D printer (Maker Bot) offers a very simple approach to whatever you would like in the way of a rifle or pistol. You can buy most of the parts and then just make those you don’t want to buy such as the receiver with a serial number…though the current 80% ghost gun receiver even makes that a more simple solution…just need a mill/drill unit and a little time and care.
Regarding those areas with high crime rates, in general they have a high percentage of non-whites and are represented by the non-white party (sometimes called the democratic party).
Liberal progressives are the primary supporters of gun control because it is their voter demographic killing each other, are morally bankrupt, have little respect for life unless it furthers an agenda, bear little personal responsibility, destroyed the cohesive family unit and have removed all religious deterrents from our schools.
The people who support gun control are the same people who have no compunction, violently taking from you, the fruits of your labor, by force.
The gun is merely an instrument by which free men choose to defend and maintain liberties bestowed upon them by their creator.
Those men have precious little left to give.
It’s not about guns, it’s about control….
here’s an article from think progress–
a bank called berkshire bank will no longer do business w/sig sauer–
https://thinkprogress.org/berkshire-bank-cuts-ties-with-gun-maker-sig-sauer-c7d38aedc4f5/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tp-letters
Only one-and-a-half things need to be known:
Self defense is a God given, natural right.
And should you need to know more know that when we the people constituted a government, we informed the government it can not infringe this specific God given, natural right.
There is nothing more that needs to be known. Trying to know more is like trying to get the knowledge of God from the serpent in the garden.
Come and take them (MOLON LABE)!
Adams speculates that between background checks, credit card receipts, NRA membership records, etc. the government already knows – or could know – who 98% of the gun owners are. That’s probably about right. But the 2% is potentially a real impediment to any confiscation scheme. That’s exactly why they want “universal background checks” – as is proven by the fact that no mass shooter yet has killed people with a gun bought for cash from a private party. Also, his idea of mixing the name of a would-be gun buyer with 999 randomized names in the public record could only work if the government could be trusted to create the software properly- which it can’t be.
What Adams doesn’t consider is that firearms are very durable things and Federal background checks only cover the sale of weapons to new buyers. How many people have guns their fathers or grandfathers owned. A Purdey shotgun might be a family heirloom but it can still kill people as can all those WW2 M-1s acquired as war surplus and souvenirs. We are talking about many millions of firearms that there are no records for and are virtually untraceable.
Mass shootings: In most cases involving young people, there was some sort of history of psychotropic drug use. At Columbine, one of the gang began hostile attitudes after cessation of use. This sequence has been reported for others.
Most day-to-day shootings involve turf wars in the world of drugs; primarily an urban problem regardless of red-state/blue-state and gun-control laws. Other shootings commonly involve attempts for money for drug purchase.
Intra-family shootings commonly have histories of complaints to the police.
3D printing allows manufacture of the receivers for handguns and for AR-type rifles. Anybody with a small Unimat combination lathe/milling machine can make barrels for handguns; a larger lathe can make barrels. And suppressors are trivially easy. Registration is thus useless.
I note that suppressors are over-the-counter items in some European countries–even where there are strict controls as to firearms ownership.
For over forty years I have been asking that someone tell me of what laws have reduced the rate of violent crime where firearms were used. I have yet to receive an answer, even from anti-gunners who favor strict gun control laws.
I commend the 1985 book, “Under The Gun” by Wright/Rossi/Daly; U of Fla Press. Their primary conclusion was that no law on the books in Florida had had any effect on gun crime. They have since written further on the subject.
As for Parkland, there was failure at the federal level. School district policy on youthful criminal behavior, with the cooperation of the local police and sheriff entities provided protection for Cruz in the year(s) preceding the murders and enabled his efforts. “High capacity” magazines? No, he used 10-round magazines, since the 20-round magazines were too long for his carry-bag.
“The system” failed. Why would we want to give more power to a failed system?
“We must do something!” So far, as near as I can tell since around 1968, our over-20,000 gun-control laws that have been enacted have done nothing but create problems for the honest people who do not need such laws controlling their behavior.
Greetings,
My sister’s husband has seen more combat than any other person I’ve ever met. Here is my favorite quote from him: Things got really Democratic really fast once everyone was locked and loaded. Guys of all ranks began using words I hadn’t heard before like “please” & “thank you”. People that knew everything before now started asking for advice. It swept all the bullshit away.
And all the racial tension, grudges, and rivalries are gone faster then the Road Runner.
A good read,but once again it just sees the here and now. Every time there is a mass shooting . There are the calls of we must do something. Think of it as a weed on one’s lawn. You go out and you pull the weed,but if you don’t get the root. The weed will reappear. Most of us on the TBP have had the blessing of seeing a different America,and then watching what has happened over the last 50 or so years. From a time when your gun was left in the rack in the back window of ones truck.To children being suspended from school for making a drawing that resembles a gun. Have guns changed? Perhaps in looks or capacity,but overall no. Have people changed? Oh very much so. The root of the change in people is the Liberal/ Progressive policies that have been forced upon them. We as a people have been taught that any problem must be fixed quick,and easy. That is why it never changes. To change this…..First we must stop asking the people that caused the problem to fix the problem. Then Liberal/Progressive policies must be eradicated. But is it to late?
Baltimore where even the cops cannot be trusted with guns . The citizens need to be armed !
Read the second ammendment and remember punctuation matters in the kings English as it was written
As for the AR platform having no sport use , wrong on many levels I built one up for Sika deer since they live in difficult marshy terrain the 16 inch barrel 1/7 twist shooting a 62 to 70 grain bullet makes it a perfect set up . The collapsible stock makes it easy to handle during the drag out of the kill . If the law abiding gun owners in this country holding military style weapons were a problem needing regulation and government action you would know it in apocalyptic proportions , obviously such is not the case !
As a firearms expert Scott Adams makes a good cartoonist.
I can’t believe anyone of even average intelligence isn’t aware that governments kill human beings by the hundreds of millions whenever they get the upper hand and these same people want the government to control access to the only countermeasure there is?
[img
[/img]
Apparently, this time it’s different. Funny how libs wouldn’t countenance any talk of American exceptionalism, but now imply that we’re one giant exception – somehow permanently exempted from the rise of tyranny that so recently befell ALL of the European countries that they hold out as our model.
Not to mention that Trump is “Literally Hitler” and they are BEGGING him to take ways guns!!
[img
[/img]
Usually I like to offer a considered opinion. Craft a response. Maybe think about it for a minute. But this is just about all I can stand from the stoner in chief Dilbert man. Thanks a lot there moran, but since you can’t remember shit, and you can’t talk but shit, perhaps it would be best if you kept your thoughts to yourself.
hey stoner,good taste in music–
Love the video, but perhaps a thougtful, considered and crafted response might be a mightier argument.
I’m not sure restrictions on fully automatic weapons have anything to do with anything other than the legacy of 1920’s Chicago and the gangs there adopting “Tommie Guns’ as their go to drive by shooting weapon.
First of all, the Thompson submachine gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle were the ONLY fully automatic weapons available one man could operate during the hey day of the gangster and there use wasn’t that common. They were expensive too. I recall an ad for these guns from the 1920’s and I believe the Thompson sold for $250 which was a lot of money back then so only well heeled gangsters could afford them. Clyde Barrow had a BAR and maybe the Dillinger gang but I don’t know of any other notorious criminals using one.
The other ‘machine guns’ available during this time were the belt fed, crew operated .30 and .50 caliber machine guns. I don’t know if they were ever available to the general public but being heavy and tripod mounted their utility as a weapon for criminals was non existent.
While there have been a few instances of criminals using automatic rifles in the 80 years since the restrictions were put in place it wasn’t until the massacre in Las Vegas last year that they were ever used in a rampage murder and that involved the ‘bump stock’ that simulated fully automatic fire. I’m not sure it really had any effect on the number of people shot.
Stephen Paddock was firing from 300 feet up a block away on the massed crowd of over 20,000. Given his protected location, ammo and the time he had to fire he might have killed just as many with a dozen Winchester 73s or a few WW2 era M-1 rifles.
Restricting fully automatic weapons may seem like a useful public safety measure but I’m skeptical. Most deranged rampage killers couldn’t afford or deploy the belt fed variety and the impact of a fully auto versus semi-auto AR-15 isn’t going to make much difference in a rampage killing situation except to make the shooter have to change clips more often and carry more ammunition.
A bit of trivia. Clyde Barrow had numerous BARs. Not one was purchased. They were all stolen from, I believe, Natl. Guard Armories. I dont think police at the time had access to these for some reason… maybe budgets?
Paddock did not use an AR-15 and he did not use a bump stock. If you don’t know the rate of fire of a belt fed full auto compared to a bump stock AR then take a listen on youtube. The AR has a noticeably higher rate of fire. The AR is also hopelessly uncontrollable when fired on full auto. There is no way that anyone, and certainly not an old man, could hold a bump stock AR on target even if it was a huge crowd of people. The bullets would have very quickly been coming down on the far side of the airport.
Vegas was a belt fed full auto weapon. Of course, that does not fit the narrative so the weapon was changed to a bump stock AR for the weak minded who have never touched a gun. I can’t comment on whether that includes you Unit.
Oh, and I really don’t consider that stoner in CA to be able to say anything worth a considered opinion as I don’t see how he could possibly understand it given his chronic use of the ganja.
I’m curious, so, say a corporation now being defined as a person for the purposes of donating unlimited amounts of money to a political candidate, what’s to prevent a citizen from incorporating themselves and purchasing weapons (anonymously) to hand out to whomever? Billy’s Private Security Inc can buy 200 Glocks? Thoughts?
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein
Thank you, Scott. An excellent, balanced, well-reasoned discussion of the entire issue. I concur 100%
The issue has two main parts:
1) 2nd Amendment/political freedom/personal freedom/counterweight to government control
2) Prevention/protection from murderous rampages by mentally deranged killers
Of course we should not give up our guns and trust the government to protect us! Of course we should protect ourselves and our children from being gunned down by crazy people! So let us reconcile these two very worthwhile ideals, and make them work together!
I believe we can protect the right to bear arms and at the same time maximize the friction, as Scott puts it so well, of weapons falling into the hands of the mentally disturbed. Let’s stop flapping our gums and get down to the hard business of making it all happen in a constructive way that preserves our ability to fight as necessary for our lives and freedom!
And yes, we will have to deal with the difficult notion that #1 is much more important than #2.
“… the difficult notion that #1 is much more important than #2.”
Whether #1 is more important than #2, and to what degree, is a matter of opinion.
Here is my answer to Scott Adams:
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
This man started out being a gun control zealot and wound up changing his views as his research illustrated that more guns in the GP means less crime.
It wasn’t to long ago that Florida had very strict gun laws. Those strict gun laws resulted in tourist being robbed and killed in large numbers. As a result the tourist business was falling drastically. Florida then changed the gun laws to more lenient requirements and the targeting of tourist stopped. Now Florida even issues permits for people that spend a lot of time there but do not reside in Florida. That and no state income tax makes it one of the better venues to live in.
Gov. Scott should be impeached for caving to the marxist on gun control and sent to prison for treason against the people of Florida!
The book “More Guns, Less Crime” is a watered down opinion piece. To really see the Lott-Mustard Hypothesis and their raw data, read the research paper the book was based on (“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns” by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, 1996). It’s available for free download online. And don’t forget the peer review articles and the Scientific American 2017 article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
Marsha, that crew is neither scientific nor is it american. But you can go with it if you think it will keep you safe. Just don’t come running over to your neighbors house crying that your family was murdered in a home invasion robbery because of the hillary sign in the front yard.
Why do you erronously assume I am not a gun owner?
Seriously!! If gun control works, how does an alleged 19 year old waltz into one of the wealthiest counties in Florida school, and kill 17 people. I guess that sign that said “GUN FREE ZONE” didn’t work, that is gun control for you. Since those zones are 500′ in all directions, that means anyone living nearby with a firearm has to break the law to help . That is gun control at work. Forget the Cops hiding behind cars, forget overhead footage of students evacuating, four guys in tactical gear exiting with a duffel that it takes two to carry, that Cruz leaves with people with shots still being fired behind them. Just one crazy shooter that must have left his nasty black rifle behind to kill more as he is making his escape. How about that active shooting drill going on, and the firedrill.
It seems the Obamacare debacle is forgotten. Remember, PTSD, take his weapons! Nerve pill, take his weapons. Med. Cannabis card, take his too. Ever been in detox, him too.
Bear arms, shall not be infringed. Start with bear arms. The colonists had better arms than the British forces carrying smoothbore flintlocks. Having less firepower than potential enemies was part of the plan, not!! There were no airplanes tanks, or howitzers. Your ability to defend your life with equal firepower to them was your GOD given right.
I am seriously beginning to wonder if you are a paid troll, because facts are not following your logic. Will YOU make a good slave.
Nothing about gun control is working.
Fact: Words do not constrain reality. Force constrains reality.
Corollary: The only real check on government power is the threat of armed insurrection.
America long ago chose liberty over safety.
Very Early Gun Law: A hand gun & cross bow statute was enacted in England in 1533. Beretta had just started making their guns in Italy in 1526, and England was already regulating hand guns.
“An Act for shooting in Cross Bows and Hand Guns Whosoever shall shoot in any Hand Gun or Cros Bow or keep any in his House except he has Land Annuities or Offices to the yearly Value of an Hundred Pounds shall forfeit Ten Pounds for every Offence and a Justice of the Peace may commit the Offender to Gaol until he hath paid the same Forfeiture All former Placards made to shoot in either of them shall be void”
The law exempted anyone who was worth one hundred pounds. Using 2010 data, £100 from 1533 is worth £558,000.00, about $872,857. The £10 fine was pretty substanial too. The relative value of £10 from 1533 is £4,740.00 ($7,414.59) in today’s money. Clearly they wanted to keep hand guns out of reach for all but the upper class. I fully expect any current gun laws to do the same.
Just to be clear, in 1533 “hand gun” probably meant any portable firearm (i.e. not a cannon).
https://archive.org/stream/statutesatlarge24britgoog#page/n97/mode/2up/search/bow