73 thoughts on “Gun Control”

  1. 7. We know what happens after Marxists succeed in disarming their opponents. We have countless examples from the 20th Century as guidance.

  2. challenging my motives while coming from a place of ignorance

    The left’s starting [and ending] point on any issue.

    If insanity is expecting a different result… why debate the left at all? That’s a serious question suggesting the serious solution.

    1. The #1 reason there’s no agreement on ‘gun control’: the right have learned to say ‘we don’t care’ and mean it.

      As you say, there’s no point debating with people who only care about The Feelz.

        1. Yeah, when the whole game is incremental steps to ban guns altogether or just punish innocent people, it makes no sense to play along.

  3. Kind of a dumb article.

    However, when it comes to responding to the Las Vegas Massacre, here are my thoughts.

    1) The Second Amendment recognizes (i.e. does not “grant”) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A “right” is a freedom of action requiring no one’s permission, the one concept which sets the United States apart from every other country in the world, and in history. Anyone talking about “gun control” laws is discussing unconstitutional action. Any elected official or government employee doing so is breaching his or her oath of office. STFU about “gun control”, government types. If you want to do this the right way, simply come out for repeal of the Second Amendment. Until then, any discussion you have about gun control is not legitimate, and is grounds for your impeachment.

    2) The rest of us who are actually interested in reducing gun violence (and I am one of them), should demand a federal law requiring concealed carry reciprocity among all states. In other words, all states would be required to recognize the concealed carry laws of all other states. The default would be Missouri, which now doesn’t require any government “permission” for people to carry concealed firearms, which is the only Constitutionally acceptable position.

    It is a well-established fact that gun violence is lowest in states with least restrictive gun laws. With an overt emphasis on concealed-carry, I guarantee you that would-be criminals would be much more reluctant to take on a stranger.

    1. It is a well-established fact that gun violence is lowest in states with least restrictive gun laws. With an overt emphasis on concealed-carry, I guarantee you that would-be criminals would be much more reluctant to take on a stranger.

      That’s funny. I thought Nevada was one of those states.

      A message to the Left: Six reasons your “right-wing” friends aren’t coming around to your “arguments.”

      Fine. Don’t. But people will keep dying.

      1. Yeah, okay Godzilla. People keep dying. Yes, people always die. People might live longer if we could protect them.

        What if some faculty at Sandy Hook had been inconspicuously armed? What if some people in the Long Island Railroad cars had been armed? What if some people down the hall at Mandalay Bay had been armed?

        Bloodbath? Couldn’t have been much worse in any of those situations, yet we keep wanting only the police to protect us, instead of the people who already happen to be there. You know what? Most of the gun owners I have met could out-shoot *most* of the police officers out there, as realistic training is rarely part of the police curriculum.

        The article is correct on pretty much every point. However, I rarely try to make constitutional arguments. People don’t give a flock about their own rights; they certainly don’t care about yours.

        1. Godzilla, like most statists, doesn’t want to acknowledge that the biggest, bloodiest gunslinger in history is his beloved State.

          People will keep dying, indeed. And statists are responsible.

      2. Yeah, Switzerland, where people can own real full-auto weapons, is such a fucking bloodbath.

        Please keep your eurotrash thinking on that side of the pond.

        1. In Switzerland the only full-auto gun someone can have is their militia assault rifle, and it must be kept inside a locked case. You only get the gun after you go through rigorous military training.

          1. You are wrong! I know collectors in Switzerland who own automatic weapons.

            You can also get them in Norway and Sweden.

          2. I am not talking about the militia-issued STG-90. I knew you would be idiotic enough to try and make this claim, I should have pre-empted it.

          3. I believe there are more legal full-auto weapons in Canada than America: the owners just aren’t allowed to shoot them any more. I’m not aware of one ever being used in a crime.

            Australia seems to have something similar: I watched a video on Youtube a couple of weeks back where the guy was talking about having full-auto rifles on a collector’s license but not being allowed to shoot them.

            And, again, the whole thing is silly. This guy had ten minutes to shoot at the crowd with no-one shooting back… he could have killed more people with a decent hunting rifle.

          4. M Puckett, perhaps Godzilla should spend a couple of years living in a country where WWII tanks are regarded as reasonable home defense. Anyplace Russia calls the near abroad should do.

        2. You also need to have a gun ownership permit before you can buy a gun. Also all weapons transactions must be registered within 30 days of the transaction with the government.

          1. Because the servants of the Glorious People’s State would clearly have predicted this and refused to give him a permit to buy guns.

            This guy was a multimillionaire with no previous criminal record. The idea that he couldn’t have acquired a few rifles–legally or illegally–under any conceivable American gun laws is simply ludicrous.

            And this is why the left can’t have nice things.

        1. Yes. I consider it to be natural selection. Stupid people who claim they need to own guns in a regular democratic society keep dying in their cowboy hats.

          1. Actually, most gun homicides in America are Democrat on Democrat.

            The problem isn’t guns, it is Democrats and their culture of violence.

          2. Indeed. This guy was also a Democrat (if he wasn’t, his political beliefs would be plastered all over the media by now).

            Clearly the only new law required is to ban Democrats from owning guns. Just imagine how many lives would have been saved if that law had been enacted when that Democrat tried to murder some politicians a few months back.

      3. They’ll keep dying with or without a Second Amendment, and with or without all of the thousands of other laws infringing our rights (to arms and other things). That’s a pathetic attempt to dehumanize the opposition, and I reject the premise entirely.

        And no, Nevada has numerous permit restrictions on concealed carry. Nevada law is silent on open carry.

          1. They require background checks to purchase guns and a license to concealed carry. There isn’t anything more you can do to weed out bad people.

            Sure you can place additional hurdles to jump through that increase the cost and time required to own a gun but those measures are just punative and infringe on a person’s right to own a gun, like a pole tax.

            None of the other measures listed on that wiki would have stopped the guy in Vegas.

        1. The shooting in Vegas involved a shooter in a hotel. Hotels are almost by definition places with, aside from staff, 100% transient populations. In Vegas, the vast majority of said transient population is from other states and arrives largely via air. Given current air travel security practices, none of these people have guns. Of the people in Vegas who arrive by surface transport, the vast majority are from California and also don’t have guns. So hotels, especially in places like Vegas, are places where the “herd immunity” to gun violence conferred by “shall issue” concealed carry simply doesn’t apply.

      4. Nevada was one of those states

        Las Vegas’ homicide rate is 1/3 of Chicago’s. So thanks for proving 1 and 3.

        But people will keep dying.

        And 2. Seriously, have you seen what happened in Venezuela? It’s homicide rate is twice Chicago’s.

          1. Zilla,

            Wise up. France has every gun law that’s being talked about by the gun grabbers and more.

            Bataclan.

            The attackers used guns that were thoroughly outlawed by France and that no French citizen was allowed to own.

            That anyone thinks a law will stop killers determined to kill is clearly delusional.

            It doesn’t even stop most people from exceeding the speed limit.

          2. It certainly makes the possibility of it happening much smaller. To a large degree crimes happen not only because there’s motivation but also because there’s the opportunity to commit them.

          3. It certainly makes the possibility of it happening much smaller.

            Totally wrong.

            >To a large degree crimes happen not only because there’s motivation but also because there’s the opportunity to commit them.

            Criminals make their opportunities. You keep thinking like a law abiding citizen. That’s your mistake.

            If, in the criminals mind, the best most, most sure, and effective way to mow down people in a nightclub or movie house is with an AK-47 – they will get an AK-47.

            And they proved it to you.

            You just refuse to see it.

          4. The perps got their guns in Belgium, not France. Belgium had until like a decade ago extremely permissive gun ownership laws and the guns were never collected properly.
            Compare the rate of gun related deaths in a country like Australia ever since they enforced more restrictive gun ownership legislation. You’re only blind because you don’t want to see.

          5. So what?

            The homicide rate in Iraq is far less than Venezuela. It’s more on par with Chicago. Yet again, Godzilla trots out rule 3.

          6. “The homicide rate in Iraq was even higher than Venezuela and people could own AK-47s there. ”

            Not anymore.

          7. “The perps got their guns in Belgium, not France.”

            Precisely. Thank you for proving my point.

            If they WANT THEM they will GET THEM no matter what the law says in the place they want to commit the crime.

            Here’s a big clue for you ‘Zilla:

            It’s against the law to kill people.

      5. Weird how Londoners faces keep getting disfigured by acid attacks. It almost seems as if they had a way of defending themselves it would all stop.

  4. Meanwhile, Nancy Sinatra states that all members of the NRA should be stood against a wall and shot.

    These jackboots are made for stompin’ . . .

      1. The only thing that stops Democrat’s ANTIFA is people fighting back. Without people fighting back, cops never would have intervened. Its not hard to imagine the cops standing down as Democrats engage in widespread mob violence and burning people’s houses down as they have done in the past.

  5. An argument I like against harsh gun control: rule of law. By which I mean holding people to a common standard under the law, common citizen and government personnel alike. The left wants to disarm us, but are they willing to also disarm themselves, the police and their personal guards to an equal extent?

    1. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, dude.

      The whole thing is just silly, anyway. In ten years, criminals will 3D-print disposable guns any time they need one. The whole concept of ‘gun control’ is doomed.

      1. There’s already a 3D printer control movement lead by the copyright lobby. Not getting very far so far. As the tech available for the home market improves the anti-gun lobby might join that effort.

        1. a) 3D printers are too valuable to the economy for the crazies to ban them.

          b) someone will figure out how to print a 3D printer with a 3D printer. So you can’t control them any more than you can control guns.

          1. But then they’ll reproduce uncontrollably, until the entire planet has been converted into 3D printers! Then what will you do. Huh?!?!?!

          2. http://www.reprap.org/ A website and community dedicated to home build 3D printers, with a strong emphasis on designs using 3D printed parts. But they’re still largely dependent on motors and electronics that can’t be 3D printed by available technology.

          3. The motors and electronics side needs to be solved, anyway. My guess is motors won’t be too hard once metal printers are readily available, but electronics will be tougher. We may have to go back to 1980s-level chips that could be printed in the foreseeable future.

      2. Pointless really?, you can have all the metal gun bodies you want if you can’t get the high explosive propellant or even black powder you got your self a nice club. Maybe use a air canister and it can fire a pellet 100 yards.
        In the end the gun grabbers if they truly want to grab the guns should go after the propellants and high explosives. Could Vegas happened if the guy had to make his own black powder or improvise a different propellant?
        There be alternatives to using explosives but can’t achieve the power/compactness/speed to arms as explosives.

        1. In the end the gun grabbers if they truly want to grab the guns should go after the propellants and high explosives.

          Banning such chemistry has its own very negative consequences. Government is already all over the chemistry industry because of terrorism and meth production.

          1. Well more pointing out that the 3d printer doesn’t beat a gun grab if the chemistry is controlled.

            Yea aware the government is already trying to control some of the high explosive, and fact it tougher for someone to buy 3.7 grams of Sudafed than it be to buy lbs of gunpowder (depending on the state). Part of reason I put it forward there already trying to control chemistry, and more so with proposed the Ammonium nitrate fertilizer controls

            For most part I side with anti gun control. Though in this case it really sounds like the guy didn’t break any laws until he opened fire. There was no way of stopping him even if everyone was armed. He had enough of a stash that if he had other people to help him or was better tactically it be much worse.
            Having at that range being able to put that number of bullets that quickly downfield you have to do something. There is no legitimate need to have that capability, short of fighting a war and at that point if the government want to take you out that not going to help you. They just won’t take you alive but a hand gun can produce the same result.

          2. You can produce a workable gunpowder starting from graphite electrodes, table salt, electricity, and charcoal. Takes some time, but all unregulated components.

      1. “:Some of us are serfs to the state, others are serfs to the corporate machine.”

        Here’s a test for you: Opt out of the corporate machione/. Don’t buy any products manufactured by corporations, and notify that you have declared your independence from them. Then opt out of the State. Don’t pay for any of their services–even the “protection money” they demand–and write the IRS that you will no longer pay any taxes. And if armed thugs show up at your doorstep in consequence, defend your life and property as vigorously as possible. (Don’t know how you’ll do this if you’re anti-gun. Maybe attack the tugs with love beads and incense.)

        See which of these courses of action result in more dire consequences. If you suvive, let us know how it went, in about 10-20 years.

        Here’s a test, G

  6. Just a reminder:

    Death toll in Vegas, by gun: 59
    Death toll in Orlando, by gun: 49
    Death toll at Bataclan theater in Paris, France, by gun: 129
    Death toll in Nice, France, by truck: 84

    In the last, a gun wasn’t even used, yet has the highest total. Someone determined to kill will find a way.

    In the penultimate one, France has strict gun laws, and it didn’t help. In fact, in that one and the Orlando incident, had there been CC people in the crowd, the death tolls may have been far lower.

    1. Also, the death toll at the Bataclan was 89. The figure of 129 is total including other venues in Paris on 13 November, 2015. Still half again as many as in Vegas, in a nation with strict gun laws.

      1. There were multiple perpetrators and not all the deaths were due to shooting. They also had explosive vests and some people simply got trampled.

      2. Death toll by the State in the past 100 years or so: about 150,000,000 to 300,000,000, according to R. J. Rummel, the world’s leading expert on what he calls “democide” (governments whacking their own citizens).

        And I don’t think that even includes war casualties.

        And this is the kind, loving Big Brother “liberals” and other idiots want to hand over all the guns to.

  7. I’m still curious about how many people were actually shot in Las Vegas, as opposed to being trampled and crushed. How many shell casings were recovered? These facts should be readily available.

    Of course, the shooter was responsible for all of the deaths and injuries, since people would not have panicked if they weren’t being shot at.

    I guess it sounds more impressive to say “he shot 500 people” instead of “he shot 100 people, and 400 more were injured when the crowd stampeded for the exits”.

    1. “I’m still curious about how many people were actually shot in Las Vegas, as opposed to being trampled and crushed.”

      I’ve wondered that precise thing myself.

  8. “You may be thinking that the right-wing kneejerk response to assume that progressives just want to confiscate guns is also a denial of coming to the table in good faith. You would be right. ”

    I’ll stop assuming Progressives want to “ban all guns” when they stop telling me they want to do that, which, well, they keep doing.

    Not all of them, of course – some know better than to say it, and some honestly seem to want merely not quite banning them all; why, we might be left with revolvers and bolt action rifles, because reasons.

    In other words, yes, I deny they’re (broadly) coming to the table in good faith.

    Because they keep telling me they’re not acting in good faith there, sometimes even when they know I’m listening, rather than when they think I’m not.

    (Not that I’m actually on the Right, but … I’m certainly for the Second Amendment, along with all the rest of them.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *