CAS & Gun Control Article

[John Ray Davis]

An Annapolis (MD) Capital columnist published a column following the Aurora, CO shooting. He questioned why anyone would need modern, large capacity weapons. Wanting to show him that the majority of gun onwers were law abiding, I invited him to go shooting, either at an indoor range or at a local Cowboy club(Non SASS affiliated).

 

He chose Cowboy. I mean, who wouldn't?

 

His article on the experience can be found at:

http://www.capitalgazette.com/opinion/columnists/ninth_ward/ninth-ward-responsible-gun-owners-are-not-the-problem/article_a4d67406-dee1-5b53-9634-776303dc7ec5.html

 

 

He had fun. He stayed safe. And it was good to see the above article on the editorial page under a headline referencing Responsible Gun Owners.

 

The author wants a dialogue on guns. He's serious. But I fear his slippery slope. In Maryland, we already cannot have dangerous magazines in excess of 20 rounds. Anytime I hear "reasonable restrictions", I fear for my guns.

 

Still , it was a good day and the discussion continues

JRD

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Bravo John Ray for taking the initiative and giving that reporter some perspective about gun owners.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Badlands Beady]

Still , it was a good day and the discussion continues

JRD

 

It should. But do you realize that you're displaying some of the exact traits that your friend outlines as part of the problem? You say, "Anytime I hear "reasonable restrictions", I fear for my guns." He says, "...this gun-rights debate will never advance until most of us can agree that something is terribly wrong when someone can so easily and heavily arm himself and then quickly kill so many innocent people." We seem to see this happening more and more, and it's not simply because of the media. Either schoolyard and theater massacres are the way the 2nd Amendment is supposed to work, or it's not. If that's not the way the 2nd A is supposed to work then it would seem, at last on the face of it, we need to do something to fix it so it works correctly. Exactly what, I don't really know. I've got a couple of ideas, and I'll bet most gun owners do, but they'll never see the light of day as long as the dialoge is left to Wayne LaPierre and his kind mindlessly yelling about their cold dead fingers and liberal/ government conspiracies. The irony is that the NRA is at least notionally the ideal core group to work on the problem, responsible gun owners organized and dedicated to responsible gun ownership and use.

 

But as long as the gun-owners themselves refuse to deal with the problem, the only input is going to be from the other extreme, which only reinforces the stalemeate.

[Long Branch Louie]

It should. But do you realize that you're displaying some of the exact traits that your friend outlines as part of the problem? You say, "Anytime I hear "reasonable restrictions", I fear for my guns." He says, "...this gun-rights debate will never advance until most of us can agree that something is terribly wrong when someone can so easily and heavily arm himself and then quickly kill so many innocent people." We seem to see this happening more and more, and it's not simply because of the media. Either schoolyard and theater massacres are the way the 2nd Amendment is supposed to work, or it's not. If that's not the way the 2nd A is supposed to work then it would seem, at last on the face of it, we need to do something to fix it so it works correctly. Exactly what, I don't really know. I've got a couple of ideas, and I'll bet most gun owners do, but they'll never see the light of day as long as the dialoge is left to Wayne LaPierre and his kind mindlessly yelling about their cold dead fingers and liberal/ government conspiracies. The irony is that the NRA is at least notionally the ideal core group to work on the problem, responsible gun owners organized and dedicated to responsible gun ownership and use.

 

But as long as the gun-owners themselves refuse to deal with the problem, the only input is going to be from the other extreme, which only reinforces the stalemeate.

 

I would cautiously agree that maybe some changes could be made, BUT, as LaPierre and many others have said, there is an agenda on the other side to outlaw many forms of guns, and if you don't believe it, just look at the legislation introduced and exactly what it would restrict or ban.

Gun control "advocates" have effectively crippled any discussion as much or more than any gun rights group. IMHO, it's not about crime anyway, it's about CONTROL. Do you ban AR's and AK's because somebody can massacre people with them? Do you outlaw ammo that can penetrate a car door? If someone is armed and shooting at an unarmed crowd, do you think it will slow him down much because he has to kick out his 10 round magazine and replace it with another?

A huge issue to me is how we better identify people like the Aurora shooter and keep him from doing it in the first place. One thing I know for sure: You cannot legislate behavior, never has worked (prohibition), never will.....

[Badlands Beady]

I would cautiously agree that maybe some changes could be made, BUT, as LaPierre and many others have said, there is an agenda on the other side to outlaw many forms of guns, and if you don't believe it, just look at the legislation introduced and exactly what it would restrict or ban.

 

An "agenda" implies a coherent plan, and a coherent plan among so many thousands/millions of people is going to have to be written down somewhere. Until you can show me a copy of that agenda, I will continue to believe the balance of the anti-gun crowd are honest and intelligent people driven by fear and concern, and committing the common human mistake of looking for a quick and easy solution.

 

Gun control "advocates" have effectively crippled any discussion as much or more than any gun rights group.

 

That's funny. Gun control advocates say exactly the same thing about us. I'm with the article's author: The conversation isn't going to advance until and unless we leave finger-pointing out of the debate. We need a non-emotional, objective evaluation of the problem before we can begin to develop a solution.

 

IMHO, it's not about crime anyway, it's about CONTROL. Do you ban AR's and AK's because somebody can massacre people with them? Do you outlaw ammo that can penetrate a car door? If someone is armed and shooting at an unarmed crowd, do you think it will slow him down much because he has to kick out his 10 round magazine and replace it with another?

A huge issue to me is how we better identify people like the Aurora shooter and keep him from doing it in the first place. One thing I know for sure: You cannot legislate behavior, never has worked (prohibition), never will.....

 

I agree completely that prevention should be the first priority. Identifying likely shooters, though, enters the area of privacy issues, and it won't be long before people are yelling (again) about Big Brother and government conspiracies. OTOH, why should we be required to bury people before we can get a shooter off the streets (taking their guns away wouldn't be enough; was it just yesterday where the authorities managed to catch a would-be church bomber just in time? - I'll be his privacy was invaded but we won't here any complaints).

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

Reasonable restrictions ...

 

So if a guy on the other side of town drives while he's drunk, the solution to the problem is to take away my car?

[Badlands Beady]

Reasonable restrictions ...

 

So if a guy on the other side of town drives while he's drunk, the solution to the problem is to take away my car?

 

What I've heard about your driving, yes.

[Long Branch Louie]

An "agenda" implies a coherent plan, and a coherent plan among so many thousands/millions of people is going to have to be written down somewhere. Until you can show me a copy of that agenda, I will continue to believe the balance of the anti-gun crowd are honest and intelligent people driven by fear and concern, and committing the common human mistake of looking for a quick and easy solution.

 

 

 

That's funny. Gun control advocates say exactly the same thing about us. I'm with the article's author: The conversation isn't going to advance until and unless we leave finger-pointing out of the debate. We need a non-emotional, objective evaluation of the problem before we can begin to develop a solution.

 

 

 

I agree completely that prevention should be the first priority. Identifying likely shooters, though, enters the area of privacy issues, and it won't be long before people are yelling (again) about Big Brother and government conspiracies. OTOH, why should we be required to bury people before we can get a shooter off the streets (taking their guns away wouldn't be enough; was it just yesterday where the authorities managed to catch a would-be church bomber just in time? - I'll be his privacy was invaded but we won't here any complaints).

 

Handgun Control aka Violence Policy Center has a clear "agenda", and like the NRA, I'm assuming their money comes from contributions from those "intelligent, fearful" folks you mentioned. So that and other groups are where my agenda comments come from.

What would you give up? 30 round magazines, rifle ammo, ALL semi-automatics? Where would it stop? Are you trying to tell me Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy don't have a clear cut agenda to ban guns? What about "Mr. and Mrs. America give 'em up" Diane Feinstein?

One question: What single thing do you see that could have been outlawed, banned or whatever that would have prevented the Aurora massacre? (Don't forget the bombs they found)...

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

It should. But do you realize that you're displaying some of the exact traits that your friend outlines as part of the problem? You say, "Anytime I hear "reasonable restrictions", I fear for my guns." He says, "...this gun-rights debate will never advance until most of us can agree that something is terribly wrong when someone can so easily and heavily arm himself and then quickly kill so many innocent people." We seem to see this happening more and more, and it's not simply because of the media. Either schoolyard and theater massacres are the way the 2nd Amendment is supposed to work, or it's not. If that's not the way the 2nd A is supposed to work then it would seem, at last on the face of it, we need to do something to fix it so it works correctly. Exactly what, I don't really know. I've got a couple of ideas, and I'll bet most gun owners do, but they'll never see the light of day as long as the dialoge is left to Wayne LaPierre and his kind mindlessly yelling about their cold dead fingers and liberal/ government conspiracies. The irony is that the NRA is at least notionally the ideal core group to work on the problem, responsible gun owners organized and dedicated to responsible gun ownership and use.

 

But as long as the gun-owners themselves refuse to deal with the problem, the only input is going to be from the other extreme, which only reinforces the stalemeate.

 

Not my job to police gun owners, nor should they police me, I completely disagree with you assumption we have to many laws as it sits, remember they may take all the guns away but the criminal will still have them, thats the problem not the law abiding citizen, cure that problem.

 

KK

[Grizzly Dave]

There are evil broken twisted people in this world. They will use whatever tools that are available to carry out their sick and twisted plots. Gun control does not work. Even if the antis could magically make every gun on earth disappear, those seeking to do evil would just turn to another tool, fuel oil and fertilizer, an automobile, poison, or whatever.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

There are evil broken twisted people in this world. They will use whatever tools that are available to carry out their sick and twisted plots. Gun control does not work. Even if the antis could magically make every gun on earth disappear, those seeking to do evil would just turn to another tool, fuel oil and fertilizer, an automobile, poison, or whatever.

 

+1

 

GG ~

[Long Branch Louie]

+2

[Utah Bob #35998]

The troule with stamping all gun control advocates as grabbers and extremists is the same problem as branding all gun owners as irresponsible yahoos.

It prevents any reasonable debate and education.

[Cemetery]

Reasonable restrictions?

 

As far as I'm concerned, we already have them. I can't order guns to my doorstep, I can't have NFA items, background checks on everything, AWB, no CCW, nor can I travel freely with my personal property......

 

And what is this so-called dialogue/compromise the gun haters are talking about? They just want to know what 'we' will give up next, all in the name of 'public safety'.....they won't give up anything.

 

If anybody actually thinks they can have any type of discussion with gun haters, you are totally and utterly wasting your time. You'd have a more proactive discussion with the man on the moon.

 

Think I'm kidding? The modern gun control movement had it's birth right here in NJ with the STILLS ACT of 1966....all the so-called sportsmen/gun owners/and local gun org's supported it in the name of 'public safety', and to prevent the criminal fringe from obtaining firearms, and just look where NJ is today......it's what will happen in your neighborhood next.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

There are evil broken twisted people in this world. They will use whatever tools that are available to carry out their sick and twisted plots. Gun control does not work. Even if the antis could magically make every gun on earth disappear, those seeking to do evil would just turn to another tool, fuel oil and fertilizer, an automobile, poison, or whatever.

 

+3 its what they did before they had guns.

[J-BAR #18287]

But as long as the gun-owners themselves refuse to deal with the problem, the only input is going to be from the other extreme, which only reinforces the stalemeate.

 

 

Responsible gun owners are dealing with "the problem". They join together (NRA) to prevent unreasonable laws being passed.

 

At this point, I am content with a stalemate.

 

If the gun laws presently on the books were enforced completely, perhaps there would not be a call for more laws. But, as long as politicians can get contributions by bad mouthing guns and gun owners, guns and gun owners will be bad-mouthed.

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

Give me a break, if an individual is willing to murder or rob someone, it would follow they would be willing to steal or otherwise illegally obtain the tools necessary to get the job done. There are tons and tons of drugs that cross our borders each day to supply the drug trade, should the US ban all firearm sales tomorrow, by tomorrow evening the cartels in Mexico would start shipping firearms in addition to drugs. Given the number of murders in Mexico and the large scale firefights, involving automatic weapons that happen across the borders the Cartel suppy chain for weapons is already in place.

[dannyd]

I don't travel to the North East anymore because of their gun control laws. So you want see me at any match north of Virginia.

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

The troule with stamping all gun control advocates as grabbers and extremists is the same problem as branding all gun owners as irresponsible yahoos.

It prevents any reasonable debate and education.

 

 

Don't talk reason when folks have a good tirade going. Silly Wabbit!

[Long Branch Louie]

The troule with stamping all gun control advocates as grabbers and extremists is the same problem as branding all gun owners as irresponsible yahoos.

It prevents any reasonable debate and education.

 

I'm not branding them as extremists, but what would "reasonable debate" consist of? It would require gun owners giving up something. What proposals have been brought to the table by the other side that are reasonable and don't ban or take something away?

[Badlands Beady]

At this point, I am content with a stalemate.

 

That's OK, too. A lot of folks are missing the point, though. I'm not talking about gun control, per se, I'm talking about the wrong people getting hold of weapons capable of mass killings. How do we identify them? Is there a way to keep the guns out of their hands that is acceptable for gun owners and non-owners, alike? If such a way doesn't exist, is there a dependable way to at least prevent them from carrying out mass shootings?

 

And here's another thing. Gun owners know more about guns than non-owners do. If guns are part of the equation, shouldn't gun owners be involved in finding an answer? Or at least in figuring out if there is an answer?

 

LBL: I'm not branding them as extremists, but what would "reasonable debate" consist of? It would require gun owners giving up something. What proposals have been brought to the table by the other side that are reasonable and don't ban or take something away?

 

"Reasonable debate" would consist of both sides bringing their ideas to the table and talking them over in a civil manner, with no timetable. It may be possible to combine some of the ideas in some way, or that new ideas will come out of the conversation. But you're not going to find out if anything is possible until you talk it over in such a way that each side hears what the other is saying.

 

(I'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be an actual event along these lines, say a televised conversation between the NRA (represented by *anybody* that isn't Wayne LaPierre), and one of the anti-gun groups. Throw in a few neutral parties, too.)

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

Gun control advocates prefer to totally ignore the facts. Like the fact violent crime went down in states that passed right to carry laws.

 

Then they worry about our privacy being invaded while trying to take away or reduce our right to gun ownership?!

 

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Lead Ringer]

Good job John,

Now let's support the NRA. So we can keep people like him from changing what we know is right.

Ringer

[J-BAR #18287]

I'm not talking about gun control, per se, I'm talking about the wrong people getting hold of weapons capable of mass killings. How do we identify them? Is there a way to keep the guns out of their hands that is acceptable for gun owners and non-owners, alike? If such a way doesn't exist, is there a dependable way to at least prevent them from carrying out mass shootings?

 

The "wrong" people identify themselves by committing a crime with a gun. Fortunately we have a legal system that punishes criminal acts, not criminal thoughts. Keeping guns out of the hands of people you don't like is prior restraint. It could come back to bite you, if someone else thinks you are the "wrong" kind of person to own a gun. I suspect King George thought George Washington should not have a gun.

 

Limiting magazine size is fruitless. Have you watched videos of our best CAS shooters using a '97...they don't use the magazine at all, but they can sure put a lot of lead in the air in a hurry.

 

Mass shootings are horrible. Crazy is the problem, not high capacity guns. I don't know of a way to prevent crazy.

[Bad Hombre #23212]

The troule with stamping all gun control advocates as grabbers and extremists is the same problem as branding all gun owners as irresponsible yahoos.

It prevents any reasonable debate and education.

True Bob, but the real problem is, the Grabber and Extremists aren’t interested in debate and education!!!

Their interested in Headlines, Top of the News, Votes and a Bigger Payday!!

Votes and Money Bob Votes and Money.

La Pierre works under the rule, “give-um an inch and they’ll want a mile”.

And history says he right!!

It isn’t about safety…with 80 million firearms in our country, how come Mandatory firearms safety isn’t taught in our schools?!!!!!!!!!

It isn’t about lost lives…a man in New York, is mad at his girlfriend, she dumped him…he goes to the restaurant where she works, throws 5 gals of gas in the back door, 5 gals in the front door…puff, 84 people dead!!!!!!!

You ever hear of it…made the news one day!!

Want to be a millionaire; start an anti group or better yet, get elected…beats working for a living!!!!

 

BH

[Griff]

In order to prevent "crazies" from committing such atrocities, we'd have to have a much larger force in place to recognize behaviorial traits before they bloom into gunfire. Reasonable gun laws? They're in place; and let us recognize that some places have some pretty unreasonable ones in place also.

 

Let's keep our facts straight, the first firearms legislation was not 1966 in NJ. It was "the National Firearms Act" of 1934! Weapons regulated under the Act were defined as

A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machinegun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition.

 

Some would argue that this was unreasonable, as it wasn't a behavior wasn't being outlawed, but rather an inanimate object was villified (sp?). Why? In an attempt to modify the behavior of a specific class of persons. i.e., criminals. Modifying criminal behavior is a VERY complex proposition. Incarceration works best. At least as far as the law-abiding public is concerned. But, in reality, all you've done is reduce their victim pool to other criminals.

 

This is very similar to the arguments for and against legalization of certain "recreational" drugs. Which comes first, the crime or the criminal? A story and dilemna as old as man. Not one likely to be resolved in a few short discussions... as that's all the attention span most humans have.

 

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

Gun Control is ,,,,,,,, Hittig where Ya was Aiming ,,, And have a gun ready ta do SO !!!

 

Doing the same thing over and over again,(like more and more restrictions on legal gunowners)and Expecting different results is the deffinition of Insanity !!!!

 

You can't control the Criminal by punishing the Law-Abiding !!!

 

 

Jabez Cowboy

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

Taking Rights away from the inocent does nothing to restrain the Criminal !!!

 

 

 

 

Jabez Cowboy

[EE Taft]

Here my .02.......And I don't get on the wire much, but this discussion acually strikes me as civil conversation about an issue we all care about.

 

 

Brutal murder is a fact of life that was around since the dawn of man. It predates guns....and if the anti gun groups get their way it will post date guns. The fact that we all MUST live with is this.......One day, my Wife and kids could be in public and get gunned down by a killer.......or slashed by a killer......or blown up, or run down, or beat to death, or..........

 

.....We must as a society accept it as a given that people will die a senseless death everyday. Prevention is nill, notta....ain't gonna happen.......take guns and scrap 'em.....people will still die.....this world will not eliminate every deadly item unless we start cutting our food with cotton balls and loosen a bolt with a twizzler..........

 

......The world has to get over the fact that folks will die.......my wife could die tomorrow in gun violence.....knife violence....or she might die tomorrow from a heart attack. People die......it's part of life. this society has gotten so bent on prevention that they have forgotten someday everyone dies. Kinda goes hand in hand with the American public's ability to sue the hell outta someone for getting hurt in some way. People acually think there's merit in getting something for the death of a loved one.....and in most cases there is merit........you might get money......you might get to see the SOB fry........but you'll NEVER get PREVENTION OF DEATH!

 

It's a fact of life that is unable to be regulated.......so.......we should punish those that kill by any means, and live with the fact that they got what they had coming to them. That, I think is the real meaning of and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

 

Prevention of such things is impossible..........now if everyone would get together and agree on that.......I know, it sucks.....but, my wife and kids could be gone tomorrow due to a violent crime........may the perp get what's coming to them and may I never forget the life I had with them..........I love them everyday like they might not be here tomorrow....just in case.

 

~EE Taft~

[EE Taft]

I might add......I don't see me carrying, concealed or otherwise, as an end all, prevention tool or ability.....

 

......I see it as a means of self and family preservation in the event of a crime.......but that doesn't mean I'll win that fight. death is death.......we live with it.......we move on.

 

I will protect my family.......as I can. When left without the ability to protect them, we are less safe and possibly closer to death....if not likely closer.

 

~EE Taft~