Gun Owners are their own worst enemy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by glocke12, Dec 20, 2012.

  1. glocke12, Dec 20, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2012

    macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #1
    I fully anticipate a ban of some type to pass within the next year. I bet it will be comprehensive, and will ban most everything except for bolt action, lever action, and single shot weapons. In large part it will be the fault of my fellow gun owners themselves.

    Here is why:

    1) Gun owners are divided. I am on many different gun forums. Some cater more towards EBR's (Evil Black Rifles), some are more political oriented, and some cater to what are known as Curios and Relics. This last group consist of older firearms, including semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. Lastly, there are the Fudds..er I mean hunters. Those people that bring out their bolt action rifles once a year.

    What I am seeing is alot of division amongst the various groups I mentioned above. There is no support across these different groups. C&R collectors seem to not care what happens to EBR's as long as they get to keep their antique rifles. Hunters don't care what happens to either of the other two groups as long as the can keep hunting.

    What neither of these two groups (hunters and C&R folks) realize is that once the Dems get done with EBR's the next time someone uses a hunting rifle in a mass shooting, they will be coming for them.

    2) Apathy. Anti-gun advocates are highly organized and more driven than your typical gun owner. They hold rallies, gatherings in DC, etc...Gun owners are fairly apathetic. Many make no effort to contact their elected officials about gun issues, and they rely too much on the NRA to do their work for them. If every person in America who owned a gun at risk of being banned wrote to their elected officials we would not be facing more gun legislation.

    3) Gun owners are unwilling to compromise. I and a few other recognize the need for background checks, no sales to people with a history of violence or diagnosed mental illness, and maybe even mandatory training and safety courses for first time gun buyers. However many more feel that the Second Amendment should have no limitations, this includes no background checks, guns for mentally ill people, etc...some compromise is needed.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    I think that's waaay too pessimistic (if you're a gun advocate).

    I truly doubt any ban nearly that strict could get passed.

    But I suppose we'll see.
     
  3. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    If even these mild and commonsense measures are really only supported by "a few others", you're in worse trouble than I thought.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #4
    Hey, we're in agreement. Must be a holiday season miracle!
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    Huzzah!

    I'll hoist a scotch tonight to celebrate.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #6
    Cheers!
     
  7. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #7
    This one is the scary one. Gun owners won't get any support and sympathy from the public after Sandy Hook if they think there should be no limitations on the second amendment including no background checks, felons can have guns, mentally ill people, etc.
     
  8. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Sounds like the end of Braveheart...
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #9
    Yeah but right before the very end, the hero got his guts cut out of him.
     
  10. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Ah, they knew how to deter people properly in those days!
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #11
    I like your points. Many people think of gun owners as a single, united group. That's anything but the case. And C&R guys are in their own little world of Civil War reenactments and shooting rifles that take half the afternoon to load.

    And the refusal to compromise is problematic. The reality is a lot of people die from firearms unnecessarily. So complete apathy and a refusal to do anything isn't okay. You have to give some to take some and we aren't seeing that. We can do better.
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #12
    I guarantee you this will not happen.

    Here's why. Nearly all modern guns on the market today, handguns, rifles, anything, are semi-automatics. In fact, I'm shopping for a bolt-action single shot rifle right now, and I'm having a damn hard time even finding one. Most are either bottom-dollar cheapo junk, or they are boutique artisan rifles costing $4k. Plain and simple, semi-auto's are the standard. Banning them would be akin to banning cars with automatic transmissions - you'd instantly make a criminal out of 90% of the population, because that's what the vast majority owns.

    Playing devil's advocate here, lets say they do enact such legislation. What is their plan for the hundreds of millions of semi-autos that are already out there? That boat has already sailed. It's not like they can go door to door and confiscate citizens private property like some kind of fascist gestapo.

    So yeah, what you propose will not happen. I do however expect them to enact an "assault weapon" ban. That's a whole different discussion though, since "assault weapon" is a meaningless term created by clueless legislators who've never touched a firearm, much less understand the differences between them.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #13
    I could see an assault weapon ban happening. I mean Clinton made it happen, but it expired in 04.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #14
    I'm somewhere between 2 and 3. But what irks me, is your points in number 3.

    background checks: awesome, they are already implemented. Even in 'gun friendly' Georgia, firearm purchases do state and federal criminal background and mental health. Yay!
    mandatory training and safety courses: this would not have prevented Newtown massacre. There are very few accidents, and a massacre is NOT an accident. This is a good policy to bring new people into the firearms community who are apprehensive and scared to own a gun. But most firearms stores already run their own training programs. Why create needless bureaucracy and tax payer expendature!?

    Assault Weapon per 1994 AWB rules
    [​IMG]

    NOT an assault weapon:
    [​IMG]

    Both Ruger 14's that operate in the same manor.... The AWB is SILLY!

    And that does nothing for the other 171 MILLION firearms in circulation.

    I'm not about no compromise. I'm just about NOT creating useless, senseless legislation for the sense of creating legislation... to give some politician to lie and provide fake sense of security to people.

    ----------

    Some other suggestions I've heard.

    Close the 'Gun show loophole': Non existent, its merely a private party purchase. Private property rights, exchange between two people.
    Weapons of Newtown massacre came legally purchased by a sane women with no criminal history from Dicks. All background checks, etc, done to the T.

    This is not a preventive measure.

    Ban high cap magazines.
    Besides the fact that a mag can be swapped in under a second. http://flip.it/Kz49H media and administration is ok with killing 10 kids instead of 26... OK...

    This is not a preventive measure.

    3. Govt notification when buying 4 or more semi autos.
    Newtown massacre only utilized 2 firearms. What good is this? Especially if the weapons used in a murder/massacre are stolen.

    Not a preventive measure.

    ----------

    Actual solutions to preventing massacres in schools
    1. Ban all firearms. Stage a nationwide door to door confiscation. You'll need a 2/3 vote of states for constitutional amendment to remove our Bill of Rights. But it's a valid path, the UK and Nazi Germany have gone down similar roads.

    2. OK has an intriguing idea. CLEET certification for school faculty and permission to carry.
    http://www.news9.com/story/20363320...-teachers-principals-to-carry-guns-at-schools
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    [tongueincheek]
    Am I the only one finding this being posted by the username 'glocke12' rather funny (read: Alanis Morisette ironic)?
    [/tongueincheek]

    Anyway, I see where you're coming from, and I agree; I think some sort of ban is coming up as well, if not an amendment to the Constitution expanding the 2nd Amendment, allowing for more details of it.

    The rhetoric is going to get a bit worse before it gets better, but eventually it will get better.

    BL.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #16
    The ignorance on what is an "automatic" weapon vs. a semi-automatic one etc in all of this debate is kinda of silly. You can definitely tell a lot of people's only exposure to weapons is on TV.

    click pow, click, pow, click, pow ....to a limited capacity is semi-auto

    click pow,pow,pow,pow,pow ....to a relatively large capacity is automatic.

    i see people spouting off all over about banning this and banning that, without knowing much about them.

    Sales to people with no history? how do you determine that - where is the database? Who holds the records? What constitutes mental illness etc. it will not work and would have meant nothing in this situation.

    Media is a funny thing. We live in one of the safest times in human history.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #17
    On this one I respectfully disagree. Although I am an ardent firearm owner/shooter, and certainly believe in private property rights, in this instance I think it would be appropriate to view the firearms as "controlled items", requiring vetting of the purchaser. I can respect someone disagreeing based upon the property rights concept, but I think in this case it just makes sense.

    And yes, I understand the "slippery slope" argument, but I vote for practicality as an overriding factor.
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #18
    Amending the constitution in this divided country will never again happen in my estimate. The bar is too high for it to pass.

    and without amending it you have the supreme court which can easily pound down any legislation.
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #19
    Many countries, mine included, as well as the US, have already given up many civil liberties in the name of safety. It only takes one deplorable incident like this to change the course of history. America amongst others has many deep rooted problems within its culture, and the criminalisation of firearms is not going to affect that. Maybe you'll just start stabbing each other like us, you can't commit mass murder with a knife unless you're fast. Better to ask why is this happening rather than what laws can be enacted to prevent the weapon itself. No guns will obviously prevent gun deaths, but the source of the problem still needs fixing.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    Those countries u speak of and i really like yours :) are a lot different than the USA in so many ways. Way more homogenous, way different view of the government. Democracies yes, but as different as night and day.

    Its like American's trying to transfer their values to China. Just because they like KFC, it does not make us culturally the same.
     
  21. macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #21
    OK tell me how that would have prevented Newtown. Weapons were purchased completely lawfully by a good person from a big box retailer. All I's dotted and T's crossed.

    How is that a solution that would prevent a future Newtown?
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #22
    Exactly - Its cosmetic solutions to a problem that is unnaturally magnified.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #23
    It might or might not... and there are no perfect solutions. I wasn't commenting strictly as it pertains to the Newtown event. I just strongly believe that there are too many folks out there who should not be in possession of a firearm, and the gun show loophole lets them slip by with no scrutiny.

    BTW, just as a point of disclosure... when I lived in Texas I purchased a pistol from a "private dealer" at a gun show. It was not due to my desire to skirt the background check (I had a Texas CHL at the time, so I was already thoroughly vetted), but simply because he had a specific firearm that I wanted to purchase.
     
  24. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #24
    We wil never get the gun back in the box, so to speak. So the next best thing is finding the root of the issue on why people snap. Most all of the school shootings should have been prevented if people paid attention to the warning signs. We have to stop brushing the loaners and mentally ill people under the rug like they don't exist.
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    I disagree with you on that. I believe people who are mentally ill who have been receiving the proper medical treatment for a long period of time can be responsible gun owners just as well as normal people can.
     

Share This Page