Why do you want to own an Assault Rifle?

[ParadigmDawg]

A few years ago, the former MKE County Sheriff made a comment in an interview- "The average time between a 911 call and arrival of Police officers is more than 23 minutes, on average". When the average time for a shooting is 3-6 seconds, people will die. Last week, we had two shooting incidents on I-43, in a two mile stretch. The first one didn't result in any injuries, but they found 19 bullet casings on the pavement. The second, was due to the shooter being fired from his job that day and he fired at a car that was occupied by some of his former co-workers. At least two people were hit and his girlfriend, who was riding in the car with the shooter, called the police later.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I'm not in Milwaukee proper, but I'm close to the border and I'm very tired of hearing gunfire.

We are lucky that the avg police response in our little suburb is less than 3 minutes but when you have 10 seconds, 3 minutes doesn't cut it. I believe a home owner has to have protection within the home and it has to be readily accessible.

I still don't like the timing of this thread, heck, I don't like it at all as every topic like this ends up in a word-slinging political debate.

 

[slipperybidness]

We are lucky that the avg police response in our little suburb is less than 3 minutes but when you have 10 seconds, 3 minutes doesn't cut it. I believe a home owner has to have protection within the home and it has to be readily accessible.

I still don't like the timing of this thread, heck, I don't like it at all as every topic like this ends up in a word-slinging political debate.

Agreed, this forum really is not the place for these discussions!

The benefits of exotic cabling is what we are here for

 

[highfigh]

We are lucky that the avg police response in our little suburb is less than 3 minutes but when you have 10 seconds, 3 minutes doesn't cut it. I believe a home owner has to have protection within the home and it has to be readily accessible.

I still don't like the timing of this thread, heck, I don't like it at all as every topic like this ends up in a word-slinging political debate.

The 'burb where I live is really good about response, although the department is fairly small and if there's a lot going on in one place, a major event in another will quickly inundate them to the point where they need to call for mutual aid from other departments. It helps that the chief lives in the same subdivision.

I think that as long as people can remain calm about it, the timing of this thread is as good as any- it needs to be fixed, but I do think that people are the problem, not one device or another. Part of the problem is that others don't notice small behavioral changes or if they do, they don't believe it will be a problem. Paddock's brother said he helped the shooter move and only saw a couple of pistols, yet the link below indicates that he bought 33 guns last year alone. I'm going to assume more weapons and ammo are stored in another place, to be found later. I guess we won't know why he did this until they make the note public. I was talking with someone yesterday and he thinks Paddock may have been a hard-line gun control guy and this was his way of making something substantial happen but he was surprised when I told him I had heard Paddock was a licensed hunter, for a long time. Not sure it's true, but I heard it from several sources.

I had a neighbor who was a MKE cop and one day when he was off-duty, he went to a gas station/convenience store. Soon after he arrived, some turd came in and announced that he wanted everyone's money and Wayne told the guy to take it outside, where Wayne was shot six times- I'm pretty sure it was small caliber, because it didn't do major damage and he was out of the hospital in only a few days. The turd's family immediately went on the local news to say their guy was the victim and that it was a racially-motivated shooting and that lasted until they showed Wayne's photo.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/

 

[KEW]

My view is that America doesn't just have a problem with gun violence, but violence in general. There are a great many reasons for that, but any proposal that doesn't take a holistic view of the problem isn't much of a solution to my eyes.

I certainly cannot argue the first statement, and the second statement makes sense. However, unless there are ways at hand to reduce, contain, or otherwise control violence (and mental illness), it seems self-defeating to require that as a prerequisite to doing anything.
Maybe you had something in mind (that I'm not considering) when you refer to a holistic approach?

I'm not sure that violence is presently decreasing!
It seems like the level of anger is higher than I've ever noticed, especially considering how deeply it is reaching into our culture. For example, I believe there are currently more mothers (with children at home) who are "fired up" with fear over what the future holds for their children than ever in the past that I have know. Maybe if I were more aware of what was happening during the Vietnam war - I know there was a lot of dessension. I have no idea what the situation of Hitler's era was like for the common US family but think the unity of (the vast majority of) our nation was an important factor in maintaining sanity.

 

[KEW]

I think that as long as people can remain calm about it, the timing of this thread is as good as any- it needs to be fixed, but I do think that people are the problem, not one device or another. Part of the problem is that others don't notice small behavioral changes or if they do, they don't believe it will be a problem.

There is no doubt that it is people, not guns that are the problem!
However, unless we have way to actually control/normalize behavior (which comes with its own multitude of ethical concerns), you have to address the problem where you can practicably have control.

 

[TLS Guy]

There is no doubt that it is people, not guns that are the problem!
However, unless we have way to actually control/normalize behavior (which comes with its own multitude of ethical concerns), you have to address the problem where you can practicably have control.

That perfectly frames the issue.

 

[ATLAudio]

I'm not using absolutes but I think creating more laws is a bad way to to deal with crime. People break laws because they didn't learn that we need to solve problems peacefully, they weren't taught to do this or they have some fundamental disagreement about their requirement to follow the laws. I'm not an anarchist, I'm a believer that people are broken, flawed and over-reactive. I'm very disappointed in people because there's so much potential to do great things, but too many choose to do stupid, selfish things.

If you're saying that ONLY creating laws is a bad way to deal with crime, I agree. Education and healthcare improvement would also be huge.

 

[slipperybidness]

There is no doubt that it is people, not guns that are the problem!
However, unless we have way to actually control/normalize behavior (which comes with its own multitude of ethical concerns), you have to address the problem where you can practicably have control.

You may be able to control guns, but you most certainly cannot control weapons.

It isn't terribly difficult to rig up IEDs, chemical agents, or deadly projectile slinging devices. Automobiles have been a favored weapon of terrorists lately.

If a person is determined that they will cause mass casualties, it is extremely difficult to control that, especially if the person is a lone-wolf and does not reveal their plans to anyone else.

So, what you are basically saying is that it would be OK to infringe upon my rights to own firearms due to crazy A-holes. I'm not OK with any of my rights being infringed upon for any reason.

The ability to defend myself is a basic human right, well before any 2nd amendment came along.

 

[ATLAudio]

You may be able to control guns, but you most certainly cannot control weapons.

It isn't terribly difficult to rig up IEDs, chemical agents, or deadly projectile slinging devices. Automobiles have been a favored weapon of terrorists lately.

If a person is determined that they will cause mass casualties, it is extremely difficult to control that, especially if the person is a lone-wolf and does not reveal their plans to anyone else.

So, what you are basically saying is that it would be OK to infringe upon my rights to own firearms due to crazy A-holes. I'm not OK with any of my rights being infringed upon for any reason.

The ability to defend myself is a basic human right, well before any 2nd amendment came along.

“It isn't terribly difficult to rig up IEDs, chemical agents, or deadly projectile slinging devices.”

Far, far more difficult compared to the ease of obtaining assault firearms which offer far greater control, and precision in their carnage. With far far less danger to the perpetrator to execute.

“Automobiles have been a favored weapon of terrorists lately.”

I covered this already, so I’ll c/p; …when firearms have the same governmental oversight, transparency, licensure, training and insurance demands etc. not to mention open legal remedies against manufacturers, I’ll be glad to discuss this further. While automobiles can have tragic, let’s say, “off-label uses,” I believe that the primary benefit of automobiles for the private citizenry trumps that of assault weapons ownership any day.

“If a person is determined that they will cause mass casualties, it is extremely difficult to control that, especially if the person is a lone-wolf and does not reveal their plans to anyone else.”

CLICK

“So, what you are basically saying is that it would be OK to infringe upon my rights to own firearms due to crazy A-holes. I'm not OK with any of my rights being infringed upon for any reason.”

Your rights are from the second amendment which demands that it be “well regulated.” I’m not sure why an argument is made that any kind of laws involving firearms are infringements, and not said regulations.

“The ability to defend myself is a basic human right, well before any 2nd amendment came along.”

Do you need an assault rifle to make ensure this?

 

[GO-NAD!]

You are assuming that change has to come from the left. What if change comes from the right? I believe it will be Republicans in the end that lead the way to end this nonsense. I know I'm not the only republican that feels this way, far from it.

I take exception to your term "occasional mass murder". The correct description now is regular mass murder.

Change I doubt will come in my lifetime, but I feel it will in my grandchildren's lifetime. These awful incidents will not stop without drastic change. All the mental health care you could provide will not stop it. You know as well as I do that this has not peaked out yet. There will be more frequent and more horrific incidents. That will drive change. History tells us it will. Democracies are like a huge ship at sea. They are hard to turn but when they do they set a steady course.

You may be right. It had to be Nixon who went to China and recognized the communist regime. If a Democrat had done that, conservatives would've lost their collective minds.

 

[slipperybidness]

“It isn't terribly difficult to rig up IEDs, chemical agents, or deadly projectile slinging devices.”

Far, far more difficult compared to the ease of obtaining assault firearms which offer far greater control, and precision in their carnage. With far far less danger to the perpetrator to execute.

“Automobiles have been a favored weapon of terrorists lately.”

I covered this already, so I’ll c/p; …when firearms have the same governmental oversight, transparency, licensure, training and insurance demands etc. not to mention open legal remedies against manufacturers, I’ll be glad to discuss this further. While automobiles can have tragic, let’s say, “off-label uses,” I believe that the primary benefit of automobiles for the private citizenry trumps that of assault weapons ownership any day.

“If a person is determined that they will cause mass casualties, it is extremely difficult to control that, especially if the person is a lone-wolf and does not reveal their plans to anyone else.”

CLICK

“So, what you are basically saying is that it would be OK to infringe upon my rights to own firearms due to crazy A-holes. I'm not OK with any of my rights being infringed upon for any reason.”

Your rights are from the second amendment which demands that it be “well regulated.” I’m not sure why an argument is made that any kind of laws involving firearms are infringements, and not said regulations.

“The ability to defend myself is a basic human right, well before any 2nd amendment came along.”

Do you need an assault rifle to make ensure this?

Hey, "regulate" the heck out of guns, right?

That will keep guns off the streets?

We see exactly how well this approach worked with the War on Drugs

You know, gun control is just like DRM--It only hurts the honest people and helps nobody in the end.

 

[ATLAudio]

Hey, "regulate" the heck out of guns, right?

That will keep guns off the streets?

We see exactly how well this approach worked with the War on Drugs

Who said "regulate the heck out of?" Strawman much? It's not my wild-ass idea that the right to bare arms should be well regulated, it's right there in the same right in the constitution which gives you said right to bare-arms!

Moreover, we can have a logical thought out conversation, but not with this. If you want to cherry pick the time a law didn't work (and I agree there are plenty), and then grossly apply that to any and all firearm regulation being a failure then I'll ask why have any laws for anything?

 

[panteragstk]

I don't know why, but one important aspect of this question/argument is always missed.

Illegal guns are a HUGE problem here. Sure, mass shootings are terrible and we should find a way to stop them, but there are WAY too many people shooting just one or two people every day with illegally obtained weapons. That problem is bigger than controlling legal gun purchases. I'm all for more in depth background checks on legal purchases, but what do we do about the millions of illegal guns on the streets? That's the question that is hard to answer.

On a side note, I own 3 guns and am babysitting 6 or so more for my brother-in-law while he looks to buy a gun safe. Nobody knows I have them. My grandfather gave me my 3. They are VERY old and I wonder how many gun owners are just like me. Never bought one so no background check. How do we regulate that? I'm sure not going to go down to register mine. One of them doesn't even have a serial number. I have no intention of shooting it, but still.

 

[slipperybidness]

Who said "regulate the heck out of?" Strawman much? It's not my wild-ass idea that the right to bare arms should be well regulated, it's right there in the same right in the constitution which gives you said right to bare-arms!

Moreover, we can have a logical thought out conversation, but not with this. If you want to cherry pick the time a law didn't work (and I agree there are plenty), and then grossly apply that to any and all firearm regulation being a failure then I'll ask why have any laws for anything?

No laws = no criminals

 

[slipperybidness]

I don't know why, but one important aspect of this question/argument is always missed.

Illegal guns are a HUGE problem here. Sure, mass shootings are terrible and we should find a way to stop them, but there are WAY too many people shooting just one or two people every day with illegally obtained weapons. That problem is bigger than controlling legal gun purchases. I'm all for more in depth background checks on legal purchases, but what do we do about the millions of illegal guns on the streets? That's the question that is hard to answer.

On a side note, I own 3 guns and am babysitting 6 or so more for my brother-in-law while he looks to buy a gun safe. Nobody knows I have them. My grandfather gave me my 3. They are VERY old and I wonder how many gun owners are just like me. Never bought one so no background check. How do we regulate that? I'm sure not going to go down to register mine. One of them doesn't even have a serial number. I have no intention of shooting it, but still.

Yeah, for that matter, if you buy from an individual, they are not obligated to do a background check at all. Only if you buy from a dealer is that required!

When I'm at a gun show, if I see something that I like, if it isn't clear, then I ask the vendor "are you a private seller?". If they are private, that is more incentive to purchase b/c it is a quicker process. Filling out the paperwork and waiting for the background to come back takes ~20 minutes, but could be much longer if you are waiting in line. If I can hand over the $ and be on my way, my time is valuable to me.

 

[panteragstk]

Yeah, for that matter, if you buy from an individual, they are not obligated to do a background check at all. Only if you buy from a dealer is that required!

When I'm at a gun show, if I see something that I like, if it isn't clear, then I ask the vendor "are you a private seller?". If they are private, that is more incentive to purchase b/c it is a quicker process. Filling out the paperwork and waiting for the background to come back takes ~20 minutes, but could be much longer if you are waiting in line. If I can hand over the $ and be on my way, my time is valuable to me.

The only thing is that is the slippery slope. How do these people know if they're selling to a responsible citizen or to some crazy guy? If that gun the private person bought and had a background check performed is used by crazy guy it is going to come back on them. Simple as saying "I sold it to X" but do they keep records like that?

 

[lovinthehd]

The only thing is that is the slippery slope. How do these people know if they're selling to a responsible citizen or to some crazy guy? If that gun the private person bought and had a background check performed is used by crazy guy it is going to come back on them. Simple as saying "I sold it to X" but do they keep records like that?

And vice versa what does the buyer know about the seller? These gun shows seem like they need cleaning up from what I've read about them.

 

[slipperybidness]

The only thing is that is the slippery slope. How do these people know if they're selling to a responsible citizen or to some crazy guy? If that gun the private person bought and had a background check performed is used by crazy guy it is going to come back on them. Simple as saying "I sold it to X" but do they keep records like that?

Oh, if you sell a firearm to a felon or to someone that commits a crime, then it can come back to bite you big time!

It is the seller's responsibility to protect themselves on that.

 

[roadwarrior]

I live in the North and firearms are a way of life here. This is the USA!

Yeah, I'm from up North originally but it's not the same as the South and I'm aware of the contiguous borders within which we live but I've lived in 4 different parts of it and for many things certain parts might as well be a different country in their experiences. It's like saying Spain is Spain . It is and it isn't. None of what I'm saying is a justification for owning AR's by the way but you've seemed to move the discussion towards the removal of all firearms so which discussion are you having because I'm getting confused? Ban all tactical long guns or ban all guns? Sounds like you're having both which is fine I guess but you might want to start another thread with that header instead.

That latter argument falls right into the NRA's narrative/ scare tactics as well. You might as well say you want to ban the Sun. Even if I agreed with you on this which I don't it's never happening.

Guns should not be on the home. Pretty much all the family tragedies I encountered with guns, there was a locked gun safe. A child usually, or some other, knew how to open it. Then the dire consequences. Usually it was the death of a child. We are not done yet, as it usually ends in family break up and divorce.

Ok, this is the ban all guns discussion. Tragedies like this happen in all forms and fashions. Mike Tyson's child died from accidental asphyxiation on a treadmill in the home and Eric Claptons child pushed open a window and fell from a high rise in the home and kids lock themselves in foot lockers and hot cars and swallow those colorful little packets of laundry soap etc.. And no my argument isn't "Then you should ban all these things." It's that children need constant supervision and bad things can happen when that lapses.

Personally I'd also like to not see the guy behind me in line at the grocery store or Home Depot with a Glock on his hip or the crazier open carry long knife /machete law our state just passed but we were a family of 5 children who grew up in a house with guns and we knew to stay away from that certain closet but we were also taken to the range at an early age and heard what a Colt 45 sounded like with no ear protection on.

Many of these accidental shootings have morphed around poorly trained concealed carry card holders keeping their firearm loose in purses and in center consoles etc. That's not the home but your ban all guns proposal would take care of that as well I suppose.

I understand people want to hunt. Then they should keep their guns in a controlled staffed armory. It should be checked out and checked back in before nightfall.

I don't want to hunt. I have no interest in getting up at the crack of dawn and putting on camo gear to freeze my behind off for hours for something I can get at any drive through or super market. I've enjoyed in door target practice in my life and I also have a firearm for in home defense(we have no children.)

Last fourth of July a lady right down the block from us had her front door kicked in by a knife wielding attacker on drugs and while she was on the phone with 911 he stabbed her to death before the police could arrive. The police station is about 2 blocks from my subdivision by the way. They caught the guy walking out of the house covered in blood but that doesn't do that poor woman any good. I still get the chills every time I drive by that house.

Controlled staffed armory?

No guns in the home

Respectfully that's never gonna happen here.

no citizens going round with concealed weapons.

Don't forget about the "un" concealed .

Those may make the owners feel safe, but it makes me feel unsafe. Whose rights are paramount?

Feelings are feelings and laws are laws. I might not like a lot of it but I'm not going to stop living my life because some feel it necessary to carry a CW while shopping.

We just had a case in the Twin Cites were a guy got shot by a cop because he did have a gun and license to carry.

Was that the one where the license holder didn't immediately state that he was a CCL holder like the law and the training states and then didn't follow the officers verbal commands? I still don't think he should have gotten shot like that but if he had followed his own CCL training it might have been avoided. Another reason I'm not a big fan of CCL's.

The bottom line is that owning a gun, and especially carrying one, is more likely to get you or someone in your family killed that not having a gun. The downsides of gun ownership far out weigh the benefits. It is not even close.

In a perfect world where everyone would be disarmed I'd agree with you. I'll say this again. A Democratic president with a Democratic Congress couldn't get anything done after Newtown. The Republicans sure as heck aren't going to do anything in the foreseeable future so it's all academic until the country changes and the elected officials/ judiciary reflects those changes. There's actually some things I agree with you on but this gun free Utopia you're espousing ain't one of them. Mostly because it's a fantasy and not particularly helpful for future gun laws but I respect your right to your opinions.

 

[KEW]

You may be able to control guns, but you most certainly cannot control weapons.

It isn't terribly difficult to rig up IEDs, chemical agents, or deadly projectile slinging devices. Automobiles have been a favored weapon of terrorists lately.

I agree completely with you, if there is a will and it is strong enough, gun control is not going to prevent mass murders (or murders). You are right, autos have been a favored weapon of terrorists lately. That is why controls are being implemented to prevent autos from having ready access to high profile venues. It is still evolving, but sane discussions are being had! Just as controls were discussed and implemented after the Oklahoma bombing.

If a person is determined that they will cause mass casualties, it is extremely difficult to control that, especially if the person is a lone-wolf and does not reveal their plans to anyone else.

The beauty of using guns is they are so legal! As far as I am aware, Steven Paddock was above the law until the instant he pulled the trigger of a weapon pointed at the crowd. If my objective was to kill people and I was not worried about getting away, guns would be my choice! Buying the chemicals agents and materials for explosives would make me paranoid of being under surveillance. Stealing them is risky unless I have inside info on (hidden?) cameras, etc. I cannot think of another highly effective weapon which so readily allows me to get up to the very second of murder without concern of being busted (except vehicles).

So, what you are basically saying is that it would be OK to infringe upon my rights to own firearms due to crazy A-holes. I'm not OK with any of my rights being infringed upon for any reason.

Whoa there! That's crazy NRA talk! As far as I know, there has never been a proposal to eliminate the right to bear arms to get anywhere close to legislation. This is a pivot, idea of "gun control" is being converted to "gun elimination"!
All I want is sane discussion in legislature of what can be done.

Honestly, can you not think of a single gun control measure that would be beneficial without unduly impinging 2nd amendment rights?
1) Safety Training?
2) Record-keeping of purchases? (on my point of paranoia, knowing your purchases were being entered into a database might be a deterrent). Record-keeping has been undermined. The NRA has successfully influenced states not to share records with the feds and also rule it unlawful for the CDC to keep/analyze data/statistics on gun related death-rates. You can argue that gun violence is not a proper disease, but I would hope you would see value in having somebody do it!
For example, I do not believe we have the data to say what percent of shootings involved stolen weapons vs bought weapons. Many would expect that most were stolen, however, domestic violence and shootings by children are huge factors. If stolen and children, more emphasis could be placed on gun security.
3) Would it work to have ammo regulated similar to the way sudafed is: you can buy a limited quantity and have to wait between purchases. Buying sudafd is a bigger hassle than it used to be, but I live with it. I have no idea how long Steven Paddock was committed to doing this, but I do like the idea of the 500 plus (?) rounds of ammo he shot in 11 minutes (?) not being available as an impulse buy. And again, going on a federal registry is a little disarming)).

Surely there is something you can offer in the way of a "non-invasive" control to reduce gun related deaths!
All little things, but it is better than nothing. And it is an evolution. But please don't categorically say "no gun control" and we should stick with the status quo!