Community for Kel-Tec Shooters banner

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
More restrictions on guns won't fix the problems. Yes, I'm all for keeping violent crazies from having access to things that they can use to hurt others or themselves, but the way most of these laws are written is obvious that they only focus on the firearm in an unconstitutional manner. There are numerous cases where a "red flag" law was used to take a firearm, but either left other firearms in the home of the "crazy person" and/or threw this person back out into society with zero support of their supposed condition.

If a red flag law was supposed to protect people, then these laws are all fatally flawed (and I mean that in multiple ways). They don't protect people, but expose the intent of the writers of these laws. A proper law would be able to properly determine if a person was truly a danger to themselves or others and then provide a means of helping that person if they actually are dangerous. Such laws should also be able to have appropriate repercussions for frivolous or unfounded cases. It should also have the ability for the accused to defend themselves BEFORE their rights are taken away. All of these red flag laws focus on the gun. They don't speak to other weapons, chemicals, or really much to the accused individual.

What is interesting is that there have been laws on the books in almost all places that allow a person to be adjudicated as a danger to themselves and others and removed from society for appropriate treatment. These laws have existed for a very long time and long before any introduction of "red flag" laws. Red flag laws weren't really needed as they already had the tools to accomplish the task of protection of society. What the current batch of lawmakers is more focused on is removing the gun from society rather than protecting society. If a person is adjudicated to be such a danger to themselves or others, you shouldn't, in good conscience, throw that person back to where they were after only having taken a gun away from them.

It is extremely clear that the authors of these red flag laws do not have the intent or purpose of their stated goals of reducing mass shootings by crazy people. Their intent can be discerned from looking at the prescribed actions within the laws. They are to remove firearms from anyone that the authorities doesn't like enough. They are NOT laws that provide protection to society.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
You are clearly correct.
Obviously.

Nothing can be done to stop the parade of idiots and criminals from killing indiscriminately.
Well, not with laws that target the law abiding instead of the criminal anyway.

Shooting joggers in suburban neighborhoods. Shooting up music performances. Shooting up schools, night clubs, WalMarts.
Show me how your idea of mandatory "training" prevents this and I'll consider it. Until such time, you're offing a <cough> "solution" which doesn't solve the supposed problem.

It can't be helped.
Well, not with laws that target the law abiding instead of the criminal anyway.

We should give up.
Well, we should give up on laws that target the law abiding instead of the criminal such as the proposed licensing, registration, and training that you are championing for some reason.

No regulations of any type. No permits either.
Actually, yes. Those things don't do anything to stop the ills you've been going on about. So, yeah, I agree. No regulations and definitely no permits.

(Let's get away from those socialist drivers licenses too!)
Sure. My experience is that it doesn't stop accidents, or prevent unlicensed and/or uninsured driving. You know what happens if you're an unlicensed driver? Nothing. If you happen to, by some miracle, get caught, you get a fine. Maybe you get your car impounded but probably not. If it's really really bad, maybe you get arrested. But it certainly doesn't prevent the unlicensed driving. And then they go do it again. Drivers licenses do nothing to prevent the bad things they're supposed to. All they do is act as an ID and allow people to be taxed and tracked.

Our society will only be safe when we have a completely armed citizenry. Then we can be safe. Like Mogadishu. Every man his own John Wayne.
That's what, the 6th or 7th Straw Man Argument you've thrown out? If you chuck out any more Straw Men, Dorothy and the Tin Man will come join you and you'll have to try to go melt a witch with water.

What could go wrong?
I'm still waiting for you to show what will go right. Because to date you've not shown any evidence that the gun control you're promoting actually achieves your stated goals.

Canada and New Zealand have gun homicide rates about 1/50th of ours.
Your statistics are wrong. And silly. Who cares what the "gun homicide" rate it? What's the overall violent crime and murder rate? Would you really feel better if you were murdered with a knife or a crow bar? Would you sit out in whatever Afterlife you believe in and go, "well, at least I wasn't murdered with a GUN!"????

They also are nations based on a culture of self-reliance. What is the difference? Is there something genetically predisposing Americans to this slaughter?
Who knows? Maybe their "culture" isn't the actually same as ours the way you're claiming. Maybe they don't have pent up aggravation at people promoting solutions that don't actually work, creating straw man arguments like they are getting paid for it, and generally arguing in bad faith?

Or could the easy availability of firepower play a role?
So let's test the theory of "easy availability of firepower." Not too long ago I was at the range. Dozens of people, all armed, which certainly counts as "easy availability of firepower" and no murders. Or what about the various pro-2A rallies which we've seen with people open-carrying and armed to the teeth. Certainly counts as "easy availability of firepower" and no murders. Hmm... I'd say your thesis is, again, flawed.

We have more of that here than anyone else.
Well, more than some, less than others. Let's compare to another Industrialized Nation, Venezuela. They were recently called one of the most wealthy nations in the world. They are now HEAVILY restricted with massive gun control. Wanna guess what their murder rates are? Wanna talk about the murders my buddy who lives there has personally seen? Wanna talk about the number of times he's, literally, been kidnapped and held for ransom because his standard of living is what we here would consider lower-middle-class? Nope, your "easy availability of guns" and "we need more regulation" argument just does not stand up to scrutiny.

It could make a reasonable person wonder if rational regulation might help.
This whole conversation with you makes me wonder many things.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
I wouldn't use Canada and New Zealand for comparison. Both have draconian gun laws as are being proposed here and have for a few years. But at the same time, no potential enemy countries would dare send an invasion force here because so many homes are armed.
Both of them saw their violent crime rate increase after gun restrictions. I'm not saying that gun restrictions caused the increase, but I'm definitely saying that the gun restrictions didn't stop them.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
Shoddy law enforcement is cured by working harder on the enforcement problem, not by throwing out laws.
Maybe, maybe not.

The cure is having better trained, better paid cops. Motivated prosecutors. Engaged judges. Not throwing up your hands and saying we just have to live with it.
That's a remarkably simplistic take. It fails to even begin to understand what the causes of the problem actually are. Is the problem of "shoddy law enforcement" actually cured by working harder and having better trained and better paid cops? The training now required of cops is orders of magnitude more than in the past. We keep piling more and more "training" on to cops, hoping it will achieve the goal. Heck, is there actually a problem of "shoddy law enforcement?"

You're making assumptions and then applying simplistic solutions to things which don't seem to affect the supposed problem, never mind if it actually is the real problem or not.

A significant majority of US citizens on the left and right favor better gun laws.
By "better" you mean "more restrictive" it seems. I hear that claim a lot. But it's a lie. You know how I know it's a lie? Because those additional restrictions aren't laws. If it was true that "a significant majority" of voters actually favored what you've been told they do, then the restrictions would have already been law. But even the most popular of these goofy laws, the supposed, "Red Flag" laws, typically fail when put to a general vote in a ballot initiative. Currently only about 1/3 of states have them and those which do weren't passed by ballot initiative. So NO, the claim that additional restrictions are favored by "a significant majority" is demonstrated wrong. There may be a "significant minority" which wants them. But that number is under 50% by enough that they can't get the restrictions passed by ballot initiative.

Not confiscating guns or criminalizing ownership, but forcing responsibility.
Do you hear yourself? You can't actually force people to act responsibly. It's like trying to force people to "be grown up."

A kid gets your gun and shoots somebody, YOU go to jail.
So wait, if a criminal steals your gun and misuses it, then you should go to jail just because the criminal is under a certain age? What do you think should happen to you if a "kid" steals your car and runs through a crowd of people? Should you go to jail. What do you think should happen if a "kid" jimmies open your shed and steals some poison which he uses to kill someone? Should you go to jail for that? What other items do you possess that you think you should be punished for if someone else steals it and hurts someone?

I am fervently opposed to anyone being held responsible for someone else' criminal activity. If you participate or deliberately enable the criminal activity, sure. Get charged. But why should you be charged with a crime if someone steals your stuff.

Drop your gun from your pocket and put a round through somebody’s wall, YOU get nailed for a fine and cost of repair.
And how's that different then if you fall asleep at the wheel and drive through your neighbor's white picket fence? You still have to pay repairs. And if you fall asleep at the wheel and cross the line, killing someone, you are still going to get charged for some form of negligent homicide. Negligence is already punishable. You don't need any special "gun negligence" laws.

We have to recognize the problem and work on it, not just cuss the lefties and hope things will get better.
And the first problem is apparently "failures to understand logic."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electroshot

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
I never said throw out a law, but I would expect them to be enforced.
I would. I'm heartily in favor of throwing out laws which don't actually manage to accomplish the goals they claimed to accomplish, or cause more harm then supposed good.

Like Prohibition. It was supposed to prevent alcohol consumption and make the U.S. safer and nicer. It didn't to any of that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electroshot

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
I would. I'm heartily in favor of throwing out laws which don't actually manage to accomplish the goals they claimed to accomplish, or cause more harm then supposed good.

Like Prohibition. It was supposed to prevent alcohol consumption and make the U.S. safer and nicer. It didn't to any of that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
There are plenty of illegal laws on the books that should be thrown out but that is a different discussion. I'd start with NFA. History says it was argued in 1939 (United States vs. Miller) but counsel or the defendant never appeared in the court so the court found for the government without argument.

I think Miller could be reopened with presentation of evidence and NFA could be found unConstitutional.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,847 Posts
YAY! I get to post it!

Senate passes HB 1927 18-13.
Just a few things to iron out and the thugs you are carrying to protect your family from are now legally carrying too!

Live free or die!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,847 Posts
Indiscriminately handing out weapons
Wrong

to unttrained, unskilled, and potentially mentally unbalanced people leads to the FedEx disaster and the like.
Wrong again. People crack. Don't blame some law you don't like.

BTW, I actually agree with your basic premise, that many shouldn't have guns because they are unfit or irresponsible. I agree with that. But you should substantiate your points with facts, not hyperbole.

Background checks? Not effective at all. A clean record doesn't establish character or intelligence. Even a guy with a storied past can make a turn around. I would be in favor of issuing lifetime conditional permits for a fee of $300 AND attending a 20 hour course on criminal AND constitutional law, passing a written exam AND complete 20 hours of street cop ride-alongs, AND passing a shoot-no shoot simulation course AND the cop signs off on your permit. I would feel comfortable with those people carrying anywhere they want to.

Basically, the dirt bags would have to un-dirt themselves before they're squared away enough to be responsible and trusted with a weapon. Strange, most normal people are born that way.
Unfortunately, as we can all see in the news everyday, there are very stoopid people out there and they have guns regardless of what laws are passed.
Only you can protect yourself.

One more thing and I'll shut my pie hole.
I carry, a lot. I have LE training. Ive done many of the things I stated above. But I'm not cavalier about it. Situations can go very south in a flash in a self defense situation. Having a gun may save your life, or make you wish you were dead.
If you carry, have legal and insurance and HAVE AN ALTERNATE TO THE GUN. Have a less-lethal device to use if you can. Many shoots go bad because the victim didn't have any other options so he used what he had, his gun, but could have effectively defended himself with pepper spray, stun gun, baton, etc. Its a much harder fight in court justifying your actions because a gun is all you had to use. It will be hard convincing a jury you didn't have other options or couldn't have made other decisions. In court, the crime against you wont matter. It will just be you, the shooter/killer/ and the victim of your shoot, dead or a wounded cripple for life. You have to make the right choices.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
BTW, I actually agree with your basic premise, that many shouldn't have guns because they are unfit or irresponsible.
Just like they shouldn't have a right to free speech or to vote because their dumb and irresponsible?

Background checks? Not effective at all. A clean record doesn't establish character or intelligence. Even a guy with a storied past can make a turn around. I would be in favor of issuing lifetime conditional permits for a fee of $300 AND attending a 20 hour course on criminal AND constitutional law, passing a written exam AND complete 20 hours of street cop ride-alongs, AND passing a shoot-no shoot simulation course AND the cop signs off on your permit. I would feel comfortable with those people carrying anywhere they want to.
I don't agree at all. Should a person be prohibited from free speech unless they spend $300 for permission from the state (to talk bad about the state, yeah, that'll happen), attend a 20 hour class on speech and constitutional law, pass a written exam, and spend 20 hours listening to speeches in congress, on street corners, and in <cough> "News rooms?"

Who gets to decide what the curriculum for these courses are? If you get to set them, maybe next week the Gun Prohibitionists get in power and they get to decide the curriculum. And they decide to increase the licensing fees ($300,000 should be fine, right?). And they get to decide what's on the test and what counts as "passing."

It's just like I told my friends who were so much in favor of The Patriot Act right after 9/11. Sure, give the government the ability to spy on Americans with no real oversight. It'll work out fine for you while the people you like are in charge, but that changes regularly. Sure enough, next thing we know we hear about Obama and the FISA court abuses.

The more we can keep government out of our rights, including the right to effective personal defense, the better off we are. The more power we give government the more they'll take that we didn't intend to give them.

Unfortunately, as we can all see in the news everyday, there are very stoopid people out there and they have guns regardless of what laws are passed.
Only you can protect yourself.
Agreed.

If you carry, have legal and insurance and HAVE AN ALTERNATE TO THE GUN. Have a less-lethal device to use if you can. Many shoots go bad because the victim didn't have any other options so he used what he had, his gun, but could have effectively defended himself with pepper spray, stun gun, baton, etc. Its a much harder fight in court justifying your actions because a gun is all you had to use. It will be hard convincing a jury you didn't have other options or couldn't have made other decisions. In court, the crime against you wont matter. It will just be you, the shooter/killer/ and the victim of your shoot, dead or a wounded cripple for life. You have to make the right choices.
I understand but I don't entirely agree. What I mean is that the firearm is a lethal defensive tool and should only be used for lethal threats. The above mentioned people didn't get themselves into trouble because they didn't have other options, they got into trouble because they used lethal force when they weren't in immediate and unavoidable danger of great harm or death. It's not just using the wrong tool for the job, it's using a tool to do a job that doesn't need to be done.

Yeah, I agree that less lethal ("less than lethal?") options are great. I use several, myself. But if I used one of them on a lethal threat to myself it would be because I didn't have access the most appropriate tool; usually because some stupid law prohibits me from having that tool. So I'd first avoid and, if forced, try to use something like pepper spray, flashlights, or my empty hands skills, for a non-lethal situation. But if I'm pepper spraying or going Judo/Boxing on an immediately lethal threat to myself, it's because someone else kept me from having the appropriate tool.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electroshot
21 - 29 of 29 Posts
Top