Best Article Yet On The Gun Debate

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. It will start out like liberal hogwash, but he takes the debate through it’s paces. Very well-written. I may not agree with everything he says, but it’s worth hearing him out.

In September 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. Some in the gun industry were distraught. “We’re finished,” Ron Whitaker, then the chief executive of Colt, told several other members of a firearm trade association. Colt made substantial profits from the AR-15, the quintessential assault rifle. Whitaker, it turned out, was wrong. The AR-15 was not finished. It was just getting going.

In the face of a ban that turned out to be laughably easy to evade, the industry kept making civilian versions of military rifles. The prohibition actually helped transform what had been a marginal product for most manufacturers into a gun-rights poster child, celebrated by the National Rifle Association and sought-after by a much bigger share of the gun-buying public. The law was written to last just 10 years, and in 2004 this porous excuse for gun regulation expired.

Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Best Article Yet On The Gun Debate

  1. R.D. Walker says:

    I agree. It is the best, thoughtful and objective article I have read.

    I have a couple of comments…

    1) He is right about the magazines. It is the only functional difference between the bugabear of the left that is an “assault weapon” and grampa’s deer rifle. All of the rest of the BS that libs get wrapped around the axle about is just stupid.

    The thing is, magazines don’t have serial numbers. There has never been one that is registered. You could prohibit the sale and use of them, but they aren’t going away. There are tens of millions of them tucked away all over America.

    If I have to use ten round magazines, it won’t be the end of the world. I don’t think that sort of a ban will save any lives, but if it makes the left feel potent and walk away, so be it. If they think they are going to search every house, car, barn, shed and hiding place in America to find the larger capacity magazines, I scoff derisively at them.

    2) I also wouldn’t find it to be the end of the world if, to sell a rifle to my neighbor, I was forced to do it through a licensed broker in order to do the background check you go through when you buy a rifle at Bass Pro Shops. Obviously this would do absolutely nothing to stop criminals from selling to criminals. It would, however, stop some inadvertent sales from the law abiding to criminals.

    The problem is, neither of these acts will do much to prevent mass killings. Frankly, short of burning the Constitution and going full totalitarian tyranny, I don’t think anything will.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      The magazine restriction is futile. The broker for transfers isn’t so bad and maybe even makes sense.

      • Notamobster says:

        The broker for transfers falls to the same logical nemesis as the magazine registrations. There are millions of unknown, unregistered firearms, which could transfer between acquaintances under the radar. The next logical step from the left would be mandatory registration of all firearms.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          It won’t do any good, but at least it isn’t illogical. It is hard to say, “I support background checks when a gun is purchased at Cabela’s but I oppose them when I buy a gun from some guy the next town over. “

          • Greg B says:

            Again, already like that here in Kommiefornia.
            Firearms purchases at gun shows have to go though an FFL. Background check, 10 day waiting period, blah blah blah.

          • notamobster says:

            Oh, I agree completely, RD. I was just pointing to the next logical step in the debate.

    • Tony says:

      I am not trained in the operation of the AR-15. I own one and shoot it.

      Last night I used the par timer at http://www.predatortactical.com/uploads/media/Flashfiles/drawbeepSlider082504.swf
      to get a feel for the time difference in using 10 and 30 round magazines. I timed my limited ability to transition between targets and reload. My transition time between targets set 8 feet apart @ about 5 yards, acquiring a clean sight picture and pressing the trigger was at best .8 seconds. Reloads required 3.4 seconds. The difference in me expending 30 rounds from a 30 round magazine and 30 rounds from three ten round magazines (2 mag changes) was an addition of 6.4 seconds to the 24 seconds required to complete the exercise with the 30 rounder.

      I am obviously no AR-18 expert but I think the logic holds up.

      I will argue that is at the local an elementary school once the shooter cuts loose with 10 rounds of .223, none will attempt to disarm him during his magazine change. Considering the response time of the police the difference in a 30 round mag and three ten rounders will make no difference.

      Sort of like Mike Bloomberg’s soda restriction. I can’t get a large??? Oh no!!! I will have to mediums.

      Large capacity magazines at their best in laying down suppressive fire from automatic weapons and provide little advantage in a semi-auto if the shooter is willing to practice a little.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        A good old Remington 870 pump shotgun with a tube extender holds 7 shells plus one in the chamber. .12 gauge 00 buck shot has up to 9 buckshot pellets per round. That means that the most venerable and basic of non-semi automatic hunting guns, the Rem 870, can fire 63 projectiles the size of an AR-15 bullet without reloading and at a rate of fire faster than an AR-15. It doesn’t have the range of an AR-15 of course, but the impotent, sopping wet pussies who shoot up schools don’t need range.

        remmington

        I could fire those 63 projectiles in what? Five seconds? How long would it take to fire 63 rounds from an AR-15? A lot longer.

  2. Jim22 says:

    I read it. It is well done. It is the first time I have heard any details of Sen. Feinstein’s plans for her ‘Assault Weapons Ban Renewal’ proposal. It sounds pretty weak. I wonder if her comments accurately represent what she will bring to the floor.

  3. Greg B says:

    In CA we are already limited to 10 round magazines. Plus, on any post ban “evil” rifle, you must use a tool to remove it.
    That and the weakness of Feinsteins proposal doesn’t seem to change much. At least in this state.
    But, I do NOT like the author’s take that “executive orders” are just peachy. I really despise that method of presidential operation. Regardless of whatever party holds the White House.

  4. Greg B says:

    Yeah pain in the ass. But then someone came up with the bullet button.
    But my mini, which is a less scary rifle (don’t ask me why), it still has the regular old mechanism for dropping a magazine. No tools required.

    • notamobster says:

      Greg – that always made me laugh. I can’t have the mean looking one, but it’s a-okay to have the same rifle with a wooden stock? Laughable.

      It’s like dealing with a dog. If you smile & use a friendly tone, you can tell them you hate them and want them to die. Use a mean look and a firm tone to tell them “I love you” and they tuck their tail. Heh. Liberals.

  5. Tony says:

    Dr. Carl Bell, psychiatrist and “soft-spoken academic”, would have us believe that it is the depressed who commit mass murder. Concerning the media he describes a motivation to commit mass murder —-” that gives other people who are depressed and suicidal and want to take a whole bunch of people with them the knowledge on how to pull it off.”

    He is incorrect. Depression can and often does lead to suicide but it is a long stretch to make the argument that because mass murders give little thought to capture or death (are suicidal) that a bout of depression leads an individual to mass murder.

    Depression related anger exist. It is turned inward and can lead to suicide if untreated. Depression alone, accompanied by no other antisocial traits, does not lead to mass murder. It should be noted that anger is also a characteristic of the grieving process for even the most emotionally balanced.

    Bell fails to mentions any mental characteristic of the mass murderer other than depression and suicide. His statement should therefore be considered misleading at best and incompetent at worst. By his logic all males should be denied 2nd amendment rights. After all 95% of all mass murders are male.

    If we take BelI at his word I can envision a new disqualifying question on the ATF 4473. “Are you now or have you ever been depressed” in addition to the current legitimate question that ask if the buyer has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. If an episode of depression is used as a disqualifier a large portion of functional, rational citizens will be disqualified.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I don’t know anything about depression but most of these mass shootings look like Super-Sized Suicides to me.

      • notamobster says:

        I know depression. It can screw your head up and make you think of all kinds of dumb stuff.

        It doesn’t make you want to murder a school full of babies. Existing anti-social abnormalities combined with a sense of inadequacy (or inferiority) and depression could make you do some stupid stuff like that (if allowed to fester and encouraged by unlimited hours of alternate reality dry-runs).

  6. R.D. Walker says:

    Of course all of this is just incrementalism.

    Would banning private sales have prevented Newtown? Nope.

    Would waiting periods have prevented Newtown? Nope.

    Would banning high capacity magazines have prevented Newtown? Nope.

    Would waiting periods have prevented Newtown? Nope.

    Would banning the black stocks have prevented Newtown? Nope.

    Would banning bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, pistol grips or flash suppressors have prevented Newtown? Nope.

    Most anti-gun people are too ignorant of the nature of guns to understand this, but some do. The ones who understand that none of the above would have saved a single life and still want these bans in place are engaging in incrementalism. Ultimately, they want to ban all guns.

    • RJ says:

      absolutley they have been moving that direction since the GCA of 1968

      Give em an inch and they take a mile, give them a semi auto and they want a revolver… gun owners have backed up far enough

  7. RJ says:

    RE Dr Bell :
    When a jihadi blows himself up while wearing a ball bearing laden vest of c-4 while in a crowd his first intent is homicide. Thus he is a homicide bomber, not a suicide bomber.

    When a murdering bastard shoots multiple people or children before untimately turning the gun on himself he is a murdering suicidal killer, his primary intent is killing innocent his secondary intent is suicide.

    Years ago you used to see cops trying to talk a guy with a gun to his head out of pulling the trigger on himself while not necessarily being concerned with their own safety out of not wanting to appear agressive to the subject, I always said, if the fucker is crazy enough to off himself, he is willing to do it to others.

  8. Ray Davies says:

    Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He states that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *