And Now, the Nominees for the Worst Response to Las Vegas


Another day, another horrific gun incident in America. And inevitably, another round of inappropriate, irrational and tasteless responses in the hive of American culture. The competition, as always was stiff for the worst response. Let’s roll the drum and announce the contenders.

1. “Thoughts and prayers”

This is a perennial mindless mantra that gets trotted out and echoed over and over after every mass shooting.  It’s made more appearances on the post-massacre stage than Meryl Streep has made on the Oscar stage. Theoretically, there’s nothing wrong with offering “thoughts and prayers” to victims and their relatives. But such sentiments do nothing to ward off these incidents in the future. And after the 500th time or so, the phrase begins to sound awfully hollow — particularly when it comes from mouths that normally are occupied with fellating the NRA.

2. Verbal diarrhea from the Putative President

Inevitably, the character in the Oval Office would contribute to the mix. Fresh off his life-saving expedition to Puerto Rico two weeks after Hurricane Maria struck, in which he heroically sought to relieve the suffering of the locals by throwing rolls of paper towels at them, he proved once again that he was up to the challenge of making an utter ass of himself.

First, he extended “warmest condolences” to the families of the murdered, as if he were congratulating them on a baby shower; even when he apparently has good intentions, he seems utterly incapable of saying anything that doesn’t sound moronically gauche. Then he declared that the bloodbath was “in many ways a miracle” because the first responders did their jobs — apparently the concept of people doing their jobs is so foreign to him that he finds it a nothing short of miraculous. Then he went to visit the scene of the crime and declared that it was “so wonderful” to meet with the victims and their families. At least this time he didn’t attack the media or Hillary or boast about his election victory or the size of  his audience.

3. Conspiracy Cornucopia

The tinfoil hat brigade always comes out of the crevices after an incident like this, but this time they really outdid themselves with the rumors and allegations they spread.  Here is a list of some of them, courtesy of Media Matters : the shooter was an intelligence agent who botched a gunrunning sting; the shooting was a “false flag” attack from the “deep state”, Obama “shadow government” and/or “Bolshevik revolutionaries”; the shooting is linked to labor unions; the shooter was working with ISIS; the shooter was part of the antifa movement;  MGM Resorts is destroying evidence; the shooter did not act alone; the shooter’s suicide was staged by police;  the shooter was a left-wing radical who wanted to kill T—p supporters; the shooting was part of a plot to promote metal detectors; the shooting was connected to O.J. Simpson’s release from prison; the Democratic Party was behind it; it was part of a leftist plot to murder white people. Etc,, etc., etc., etc., etc.

4. Guns are beautiful

Needless to say, we can’t get through the aftermath of any gun slaughter without hearing the gun lobby and its cult followers rhapsodize about how wonderful the murder weapons are, and how all the carnage could have been prevented if only the citizens present had all been armed too.  Now stop and visualize for a moment. Can you imagine what the results would have been if all the concert attendees in Las Vegas had whipped out their own hardware and opened fire in the direction of the Mandalay Bay? (And no, Hitler did not ban guns. Nor did he say that the way to conquer a nation is to disarm its populace. And so what if he had?)

5. And oh yes, abortion

Gunsters always scramble for anything they can to point the finger of blame at, as long as it’s pointed away from their precious toys. Video games, the media, “gun control”, neglecting God and, inevitably, abortion. No, seriously. Every. Single. Time.

Right-wing pundit Jeffery Lord explains the “logic” thus:

“If we have a culture that disrespects human life and teaches people to have disrespect for human life, how else are we going to wind up than we did with this guy in Las Vegas who had no respect for human life?”

No word on whether “disrespect for human life” includes bombing the bejesus out of civilians or flooding the streets of America with implements of death.

6. And oh yes, more abortion

The GOP-controlled Congress took it a step farther, actually seizing on the massacre as an excuse to pass a cruel new anti-abortion law. The party faithful explain in a blog post:

“As we mourn the lives lost in Las Vegas this week, and welcome Whip Scalise back to Capitol Hill, we are reminded just how precious life is. This message weighed heavily on the hearts of House Republicans as we spoke of the potential of life — especially lives cut short through abortion.”

It isn’t just the dogmatic arrogance of claiming to know when life begins better than does the process of birth itself. It isn’t just the imperiousness of bulldozing their own personal convictions into law for everyone. It isn’t just the inexcusable naivete of thinking that banning abortion is an effective way to prevent it. It’s seizing upon a tragedy of epic proportions and exploiting it as an opportunity to shore up support among their hardcore base — and making no bones about it.

No word on whether they have any concern about “cutting lives short” by taking away their healthcare.

7. And oh yes, even more abortion

But the grand-prize winner surely has to be the social media meme reprinted at the top of the page. It appears with a photo of actor Sam Elliott (it’s not clear that he actually uttered the words, though it’s possible, as he has been known to make dopey statements inveighing against “gun control”).  Whoever is responsible for it, it manages to pack at least three straw men into a very compact space: “anti-gun”; “lectures”; “kill a baby”. All of them strung together by the absurd red herrings that these two issues are somehow related, that pro-choice advocates and gun regulation advocates are necessarily the same, and/or that one must choose between either concern about abortion or concern about gun violence. It’s a powerful achievement in human ignorance and irrationality that surely deserves an award of some kind.


(Follow the Propaganda Professor on Twitter @profofprop.)



    • With all due respect,

      The second amendment guarantees us the right to own guns, not 100 round magazines, body armor or armor piercing bullets. And since the piece you wrote is dripping with anger, resentment, and ill will towards the government, I doubt if you are really a truly rational person.

      Every right we have comes with limitations, and in the case of gun ownership, where guns can be used either for protection or for finalizing ill will, it would be absurd to think we should require no limits to be placed on the kinds of guns we might own. If not, the protector can easily become the threat–specially when backed by the NRA! We cannot, and rightly so, own machine guns, bazookas, tanks, or flame throwers. Why? because these can easily be used for causing massive death and injuries with enormous effectiveness.

      You say we must arm ourseves to the teeth to protect ourselves from the government–I say good luck! I however, will find some way for our citizens to protect themselves against resentful and angry people like of you.

  1. My father was an avid hunter but I have never heard even those who want guns to protect themselves from burglars and/or to ward off street gangs, claim that they need huge hundred round magazines, body armor, armor piercing shells (which the police must be overjoyed about) or bump stocks that essentially allow them to legally purchase machine guns, So my conclusion is that he NRA does not represent average gun owners, or a majority of gun owners—For them it must be a game about money and profits–not about anyone’s 2nd amendment rights. And if the left is seeking to politicize a tragedy, why not?–of course it is!–what better time ot motivate ordinary Americans to demand that their representatives help pass at least SOME common sense regulations.

    I cannot help but be cynical about anything that comes from the NRA, they start off by pretending they also want common sense measure to reduce gun violence, but then make sure that, if our Congressmen defy them they can say goodbye to Capitol Hill. There oughta be a law–pun completely intended!

    • I’d like to add that Sam Elliot self identifies as center/left politically. He is pro-choice and pro sensible gun regulation. It’s kind of sad that he’s being used in these memes that promote the opposite of his beliefs. And being that he doesn’t participate in social media, he probably has no idea what has been attributed to him.

    • No matter who wrote the letter, Let me quote Emily Dickinson describing a less ugly equivalency—“A rose is a rose, is a rose is a rose”… So, the author writes a letter full of anger and irrational self-righteousness and since many agree with him, the individual person who actually said or wrote the words your provided, speaks for many others who are likeminded–thus my initial comments still apply to he or she or them. Do you really agree or are you just trying to be sly?

      • I’m just wondering why you’re busting my chops instead of going after the author of these articles, especially since I’m not the author.

    • I’m all in favor of placing Ryan under the same scrutiny as Hillary, as well as Trump being subjected to years of investigations like Hillary if he should come out unscathed from the current investigation. But as far as the rest of the post at the link above, it is full of assumptions and suppositions about many things which are far from factual, like the mention of a supposed massive governmental plot to bring down the Twin Towers—which happens to be a topic and bogus conspiracy myth, which I have examined from the top down (no pun intended) for more than a year, while sparing for more than a year with a bunch of arrogant, pseudo scientific jerks, who wrongly dispute the science which has so clearly proven them wrong at virtually every turn. Not only has one meaningless anomaly after another been explained sufficiently by scientists, metallurgists, architects and engineers, but I have also witnessed some very clear taken out of context quotes used to falsely support many of the absurd claims made by 911 conspiracy believers. For one of the most brazen, simply open this link and play the 2nd video down from the top of the page, then tell me why supposedly virtuous knights of 911 truth find it necessary to concoct such brazen lies—lies which obviously have nothing to do with either the truth or with virtue?

      • The above is in response to the ideas contained in the article you used to illustrate how inadequate arguments made by others can be.

        I went to the link and read it again, however since a considerable amount of time has passed since the POP made the post for which this thread was originally provided, I forgot once more that you do not actually believe what is contained at that link.

        My apologies. However, I hope you also feel the same way about 911 conspiracy fanatics, since that was only one of the issues addressed by the author of that article?

  2. Because the person who posts an article like that usually at least supports its premise. But I guess no need to bust my chops, I have already critiqued the author, thanks to article you posted.

      • Yes, but I hope you can see why his post confused me? “Meanwhile, back at the ranch.” is a phrase meant to indicate something going on at the same time but in another location, but it does not inherently let us know if what happens at the other location, is pro, con, worse, less bad, etc. And since it is a play made on old melodramatic westerns, it’s sometimes meant to indicate absurdity—and in this case the linked article’s position seems to imply an absurdity. So when an anonymous commenter gives us a link to an article without telling us who wrote it, or who might disagree, even after reading the author’s name at the link, how are we to know if the author is the same person as the commenter on this website?—Yes, I assumed wrong, but given the context my conclusion it was really not so wrong or unfounded. But then you guys know about all that already.

  3. I used it as a figure of speech; there’s no need to read more into it without additional information. And it would have been courteous to ask for clarification.

    • I did ask for clarification:

      “the individual person who actually said or wrote the words you provided, speaks for many others who are likeminded–thus my initial comments still apply to he or she or them. Do you really agree or are you just trying to be sly?

      I asked you if you really did but got no direct answer, other than that, yes its a figure of speech and apparently you did not write the article you linked to. I get it.

      • You only “asked” for clarification after you realized you had erred in assuming that I either wrote the article or agreed with it, and only then as a snarky part of an apologia that tried to deflect responsibility from yourself.

        You would have been better off if you had used your first response to ask rather than launch an unwarranted attack based on false assumptions.

  4. I asked for clarification to make sure I had your actual opinions right. All you had to do is tell me what your intention was. If by saying “I get it! I gave a snarky answer then yes it was one. I have already admitted I was mistaken twice. No sense in wasting any more time trying to blame each other, that attempt only wastes space on this forum.

  5. Let me make one more statement about the protestations of Anonymous in regards to my mistake about his own statements.

    The Truth is that after I assumed your link went to something you did not write, I felt a bit punk’d after mistaking it for your own. But I did agree with the POPs observation that sometimes a link is provided to illustrate how awful it is, and just tried to state why I made that mistake. And, when you confronted me about taking responsibility for my mistake, I felt like you were claiming a “gotcha” moment.

    Regardless of the fact that the mistake was mine, I feel its easy to understand why that mistake was made—after commenting on this website for several years, I have confronted all kinds of Pro-gun people who claim there should be no limits on the 2nd amendment’s guarantee that all Americans have the right to own guns. Virtually all of these people provided links to (confirm) their own opinions, and I considered your link to be just one more. So yes,, apparently I was wrong and that was not your intention.

    The reason for any snarky tone is, as I explaIned in this comment above, because I felt punk’d, and like I was being ambushed with a “gotcha” ploy, which would soon be followed by something like, “if you know so much about pro-gun people why did you assume that my negative example was a statement of my own beliefs?”

    Sometimes its embarrassing to make such mistakes, so in order to save face, I just thought I’d clarify why my mistake was made. But no offense–my bad. you provided a good link in order to illustrate the way that some gun fanatics think.

  6. I read your thoughts on gun control, and my takeaway is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the views of those who seek to preserve the right of firearm ownership in this country. You ahbor the “cherry picking” of countries, but in another paragrapg go on to applaud the strict gun laws and low violent crime rate of Japan. Because I suppose Switzerland or Mexico don’t support you conclusions. Gun control is not crime control. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence- like where I live in New York, is to create hundreds of thousands of black market guns that are now illegal and can only be sold to criminals. If you listen to gunb advocates, it’s not that they want to shoot up schools, it’s that the second amendment, regulationg the Government’s ability to disarm the citizenry, ultimately ensures that the government adhere to thw will of the citizenry and that the citizenry don’t become subjects of a tyrannixal government,m which has been clearly demonstrated in about a dozen cases in history following gun control/disarmament of the populace by various governments.
    Just like to don’t NEED a military if there is no war, but the military is necessary as a deterrent, an armed populace is also necessary as a deterrent against a rogue Government that decides other Constitutional rights no longer apply,. In the age of Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.- this should be a concern for those who choose to own guns and those who do not. The second amendment is what ultimately provides the defense of the other amendments. this is the fundamental purpose of the second amendment, it does actually not have to do with sport or hunting or school shootings or suicide or gang violence. The expression “Freedom isn’t free” applies here. Some people will misbehave with whatever tools they can lay their hands on, but gun control laws don’t remove those tools, they only make them black market items. And that’s worked so well to cure our epidemics of say, heroin and methamphetamine. Current gun control proposals like AW and magazine bans make those items illegal, only exacerbating the situation since if a gun is illegal anyway, you might as well file off the serial number, right? And, are you gonna do a background check on the guy you sell an illegal gun to??


    I don’t understand why you espouse the talking points used above which are full of false equivalencies and irrational assumptions? The recent gun laws I’ve heard proposed are not aimed at taking away all American guns. Most of them have been devised as a way to deter those people who purchase guns and are planning to kill others with them. If that requires stricter enforcement of gun show requirements, or if it means that such a person will not be able to buy 100 round magazines or use tactical guns which are devised in order to make injuries much worse should not be allowed to be easily available to the public. who said all guns will be illegal? Better background checks will be in place so it will still not be a good idea to file off their serial numbers–especially when selling someone one of those legal weapon!.

    The idea that guns should not be banned if knives or rocks can also be used to kill, is nothing but another red herring in the large but debatable barrel of talking points that people with your opinions used to squelch any and all gun regulation proposals. Yes, a car can be driven into a crowd (like it has been) in order kill those participating in a large group of protesters in Charlottesville Virginia.But a car is not devised for the purpose of killing! Can you provide me with a list of mass murders done by crazy people attacking with cars? Do injuries and murders committed with a car far outnumber the victims who have been shot by semi-automatic weapons and other guns? Can you imagine the Newtown shooter or the Colorado movie theater shooter saying, “Don’t give me any stinking guns, I need a car to kill my victims,not an AR-15, which along with hundred round magazines, would kill the largest numbers of people?”

    when a car is used in a violent attack, do the authorities confiscate the killers vehicle in order to prevent its driver from killing again? No, they will instead seek to put mass murderers in prison and thus prevents them from doing the same things over again. which is also why guns need to be regulated–to prevent madmen and killers from easily shooting multiple people, or killing more after getting into another easily available car. Regardless of your unsound analogy we know that the guy inside the car does the killing, and therefore we need to take measures to keep (HIM) from using a car to kill again. In the final analysis its really both the killer and the gun he gets too easily, which really should be legally regulated. Cars and guns both will both potentially enable someone who wants to kill large numbers of people. But, even if that’s true, neither a driver nor a mass shooter could murder large numbers of victims unless they had access to guns or vehicles? The driver or shooter, might be charged with premeditated murder, but if it were a bit harder for them to gain access to their weapons of choice, that would also make it much harder for them to run a car into a crowd of innocent people, or to stand in front of a movie theater while mowing down people with an AR-15 (for example).

    In the real world, drivers go through a period of training that might be offered at their High Schools. And they must prove that they know the rules of the road and will not drive recklessly. They must pay to obtain a drivers licence, annually renew there license plates, pay for car insurance and–if they don’t want their vehicles or licences to be taken away,their licenses may be revoked or suspended– thus physically preventing themselves from using weapons irresponsibly.

    Anyone knows that it’s the kind of shooter and the kind of driver who have access to things that can potentially kill, i.e. the easy availability of cars and/or guns. However, regardless of what some might claim, there (are) laws designed to rapidly imprison people who murder with guns or who keep on using cars to mow down any innocent people so easily.

    How in the world, is the government going to attack its own citizens in some fiendish way?–one that would force the original government to dissolve and be replaced with ease? Lots of pro-gun activists insist on repeating this argument ad infinitum, but none of them has ever been able to explain how such a takeover might actually happen? So I’d like to give you that opportunity.

    There is no notorious Obama here to confiscate your guns. so are you thinking that maybe the current government will attack gun owners under Trump? Indeed, just how might enough senators and Congressmen in DC pull off such a plan?–assuming that they are rational and moral human beings? If the President uses his powers to launch an attack on our own citizens, will every branch of our military readily comply? Would the pentagon brass easily surrender their authority in order to attack gun owners in DC?–or perhaps to attack the Hoboken, Walla-walla, and, Albuquerque?

    Is our system of checks and balances so easily abandon just to virtually worship a supreme leader, a King, or a “stable genius?

    There are far too many hiderences that will limit the actions of any hypothetical or rogue government (in America)–will such a rogue government really be able to hide its intentions from all US voters?-I hate to break it to you, but just as many liberals and Conservatives would fight such forceful usurpings of power. Perhaps all we need is to breathe in deeply and hope that the Republican leadership doesn’t screw up the constitution too much in order to get what it wants.

    So please provide visit with a believable scenario that might be used to accomplish such a treasonous take over–if not, then give up your fear laden conspiracy claims! Nothing is real or can possilble be real, unless there’s some way that it can truly happen in objective reality!

    • So please provide visit with a believable scenario that might be used to accomplish such a treasonous take over.

      I meant to say, “So please provide me with a believable scenario)….”

      Why did I Inject the word “visit?” who knows what the wild goose knows? It was just a goofy mistake.

    • A believable scenario- how about some examples, like China, Cambodia, VIetnam, and the Soviet union? How about efforts to disarm the citizens of the US- by force if necessary- at the onset of the breakdown of social order when guns are needed most for personal protection? How about the forced confiscation of guns (ALL guns!) post Hurricane Katrina, as POLICE OFFICERS SHOT CIVILIANS FROM THE BRIDGE??

      The problem with current gun control proposals is that they are an erosive process, in other words, large caliber and automatic weapons have already functionally been banned- yes in some states you can get a tax stamp and purchase these weapons but oddly nobody is shooting anyone with them- why is that? I mean, if they are so dangerous?

      Now it’s semiauto, and soon it will be ALL guns- because as the perpetrators of crimes move to, say .22 caliber single shot rifles, the proponents of gun control will inevitably cry “If it saves just one life!” or “It’s for the children!” . Gun owners know this to be a fact because it’s been clearly demonstrated again and again. Look at the UK now. Now there are “acid attacks” and you can’t even purchase battery acid, because the criminals have simply adopted other means (weapons).

      The problem with “Universal background checks” is that it involves a gun registry, that is, a list of people that have the (legally owned) guns in the hands of the Government., That’s a heck of a powerful tool for gun confiscation, and that’s why when New York state imposed gun control and a registry hundreds of thousands of gun owners refused to comply and as a result there are now hundreds of thousands of illegal, black market, semiauto rifles in New York State which are completely outside of the “regulated system”. Who do you think these guns will eventually be sold to? It will be a crime to buy one, so my guess is- criminals- right?

      I totally agree with you that firearms training- particularly safety training- is a GOOD thing. However, who is going to manage this and how stringent is the qualification going to be? You can’t make it a prerequisite for exercising what is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

      I wish that the people who want to ban guns, actually would go through the ridiculously complicated red tape of acquiring them legally, so they knew what was currently in place. Where I live, it will take you a year to get a pistol license,involve hundreds of dollars, interviews, four personal references that can’t be related or law enforcement, and eventually the whim of a pistol licensing officer.

      Meanwhile straw purchases and people lying on the 4473 form go virtually unprosecuted because the deterrrent of crime is not the priority of gun control proponents, gun ban laws that criminalize gun owners are the actual intent- the politics of this are very clear- at least to the gun owners.

      It’s interesting to me , Peter, that although your response is well written, you seem to scoff at the possibility of a “treasonous take over”, while my liberal friends are accusing the POTUS of treason, and racism, and fascism- it would appear from their viewpoint this has already occurred! The main point is that if the citizenry does not have the CAPABILITY to resist the government, the Government can do whatever it wants, and if we look at the historical record, usually does. I say if you want to live in a country where the Government imposes gun control to prevent insurrection, Venezuela has nice weather!

      There are tow sides to every argument, but banning guns because somebody shot up a school does not actually remove the guns and the guys who would shoot up a school can still get them. “Smart gun” laws have been attempted and the technology does not work. It may simply not be a mature technology, but it needs to be reliable enough to allow the gun to serve as a potentially life saving tool.

      The one thing that WOULD reduce gun deaths is firearms education, even the basics of if a child finds a gun “Don’t touch, walk away and find an Adult” was the cornerstone of the “Eddie Eagle” program for kids, but now the liberal, anti-gun parents won’t allow that, maybe because if the kid found a gun and led them to it they themselves would not have the slightest clue how to render the gun safe. Everyone should know basic firearm safety and how a gun works, we should not have to have conscriptive military service like the Swiss to teach people that. There would be less irrational fear about guns “going off”, better gun handling, less accidents, and solutions everyone could work towards, instead of a divide characterized by panaceas and misguided narratives or the idea that banning guns would somehow make them go away- instead of out of sight into the criminal underground. Which is the actual reality of unintended consequences.

      • Surprised you didn’t resort to “false equivalence”- a favorite phrase employed by those who can’t make a counterpoint.

      • You actually had some false equivalence in there too. Just didn’t mention it. I get exhausted sometimes. There is no “counterpoint” appropriate for nonsense and lunacy. I’m not even going to publish your other comment. Absolutely nothing there that ventures into the waters of sanity even enough to be worthy of consideration.

  8. First since I made some confusing grammatical errors in my recent post. I’d like to post this edited version instead. The when I have enough time to comment, I’ll answer your comment above:

    I’m sorry to tell you, but using countries like China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union, to explain your belief that the United States could easily suffer a government takeover at the hands of hostile 2nd Amendment objectors who want to confiscate all weapons, is a truly bogus and irrelevant hypothetical simply because my question had nothing to do with them. I asked about this country—America–where very few people, liberal or conservative, are in favor of completely banning guns—and which is a country governed by three co-equal branches which are tasked with the responsibility of keeping the others in line. Thus, If Obama, GW Bush, Reagan, Clinton etc. tried to ban all weapons, or do anything which denies the clear constitutional freedoms we have, it would require the combined will of that President, 2/3rds of the Senate, and the House, as well as the cooperation of all the President’s men to pull off such a plot. And although Trump is unlikely to send (for example) storm troopers to confiscate legally purchased weapons, that would have no chance of happening anyway! For example, even though towns, States, and our entire judicial system have long ago placed plenty of prudent restrictions on how old one must be to drive a vehicle, or to drink alcohol, and bartenders must accept the responsibility of knowing when to cut someone off, are you expecting that liberals are going to have no trouble enforcing their wills on anyone who disagrees with them? And what pray-tell do you think all liberals agree about?

    My family was DFL all the way, but my father and dozens of other people in our community were enthusiastic about using their rifles to hunt deer, shoot wildfowl, and perhaps target practice at times. You can also bet your bippy that if my father saw an aggressive and violet person threatening to harm his family, he would have used those guns to protect us in a heartbeat! In fact there are more than 80 million gun owners in America compared to only about 4 million members in the NRA! How many of them are liberals and how many are conservatives? What party does someone need to belong to before they consider basic safety important?

    Why do you insist on accusing liberals of wanting to ban all guns? Most proponents of regulating weapons do not insist that each and every gun must be banned, nor do they want to take away the guns of others. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s 1994 proposal was about banning bump stocks, not all guns.

    “Feinstein was a driving force behind the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. It prohibited the manufacture of 19 specific kinds of military-style, semi-automatic weapons–often called assault weapons.”—NOT ALL GUNS!”

    “Those restrictions did not apply to any semi-automatic weapons made before the ban’s effective date Sept. 13, 1994. (Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004.)”

    “In a Feb. 5, 1995 segment on CBS News’ 60 Minutes, correspondent Lesley Stahl explored the surge in sales that preceded the ban. Stahl cited government estimates that as many 1.5 million weapons were in circulation due to the exception carved out in the law.”

    “Her words—{Feinstein’s} have always applied to assault weapons, not all firearms. In a 2012 op-ed, she wrote “Let me be clear: If an individual wants to purchase a weapon for hunting or self-defense, I support that right.”

    It seems to me that you are willing to jump to conclusions in a rather extreme way, since your arguments completely distort the intentions of those you seek to accuse!

    Yes, I heard about the corrupt policemen who shot at innocent citizens in New Orleans during Katrina, who were just trying to survive, but instead of thinking we should immediately ban all guns or all cops with guns, my first reaction was that the politics of corruption in Louisiana needs to be revealed and reformed.

    Can you even comprehend the idea that very few people who self-identify as liberals are in favor of (total gun bans)? (Regulating) guns on the other hand, is meant to reduce the potential for unlawful violence—like placing restrictions on things like, firecrackers, liquor, motor vehicles, dynamite or nitro-glycerin, cancer causing smokes, and harmful ingredients in medications and food—and yes, a ban on the sales of AR-15s to! The endeavor to protect the public has never been perfect, but would you prefer to feed products to your children if there were no FDA laws governing how food can be manufactured or sold? What about the Heroin or speed addicts nodding off at the end of the block? Do you think that they or anyone like them should be able to easily purchase any weapon he wants from an authorized dealer—let alone at a gun show?

    The mistake you are making is in considering that all those who disagree with you about regulating guns must be some kinds of fanatics who are scheming to take away all guns. But that’s far from the truth. Most so called anti-gun people, are trying to protect their children, their neighbors, and themselves from being in the next active shooting that might kill dozens of people in their hometowns! However, I never heard any liberal say that all of our guns need to be confiscated? I suppose a few may feel that way—but they are far from the majority! And although one of our candidates—Pete Buttigieg, is in favor of banning them all, but he is not the one who will be getting my vote!

    Your entire adverse response to “registration,” stems from the fictitious narrative you want to believe—that the government intends to ban or confiscate all weapons etc. But there are many kinds of regulations that actually increase public safety—such as my aforementioned reference to the laws governing Alcohol consumption when driving a motor vehicle. Do you really object to ways of reducing the risks to others by keeping alcohol abusers from driving, placing potential law breakers on probation, naming sex offenders, and requiring those who drive to have good driving skills before obtaining a driver’s license, and paying the many fees necessary before being in the driver’s seat of a three ton hunk of metal that’s hurling down the road at more than 60 MPH? Do you believe that if any of these things are regulated in any sensible way, that somehow means that those regulations will destroy your freedoms? You sound like someone who would complain about not being able to own your own nuclear weapon to defend you from nuclear attacks? That may be an extreme analogy but isn’t that really what you would tacitly embrace if opposing (any) regulation of weapons?

    Please just consider shooters like the kid at Newtown who slaughtered more than two dozen victims, John Holmes who killed and wounded dozens of people in a Denver movie theater with an AR-15 in addition to a 100 round magazine—as well as the Virginia Tech college student who went on a killing rampage on campus with weapons he was easily able to get.

    Although Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist, he still walked into the local gun shop and easily purchased his weapon, as well as ordering tons of ammunition online, and even his own body armor! The young shooter at Newtown was able to steal his Mother’s weapons which were left unprotected—something that happens all too often. And, although the Virginia Tech student had a history of mental illness in a neighboring state, the lack of a centralized registry prevented authorities form being aware of his background—so he too, waltzed right into a gun dealership and bought some semi-automatic weapons. A state registry containing data about known criminals in only those states, as well as those with mental illnesses, often fails to keep shooters from buying guns. Yes, Holmes did not have a history of hospitalizations, but his therapist was not able to share her concerns with the authorities lest she break the bond of doctor patient trust. Personally, I’d prefer relaxing that law enough to enable therapists to report the mental condition of a troubled patient. But priests have been known to break that trust, just as attorneys have—either when their consciences betray their concerns about their client’s states of mind, or, if a warrant from a judge removes such obstacles. I’m all for allowing concerned mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials who rely on the gun registration system. After all, we keep track of sex offenders by placing them on a sex offenders list, so how much worse would it be if mental health professionals privately alerted officials (without revealing their diagnoses to the public)?

    What do you mean by saying that, “The deterrence of crime is not the priority of gun control proponents?” Even if total confiscation of guns were the goal (which it is not), what then are gun regulation advocates really trying to do—keep all liberals in power? Could you tell me how many liberals own guns and how many conservatives do? All partisans are NOT merely cookie cutter images of each other, and may want to deter gun violence by imposing prudent limits on the legal use of weapons such as improved background checks. Yet you seem to think that political affiliations always determine the course of the law, and that mere philosophies pertaining to the way we live our lives are the Alpha and the Omega? Please examine the website below and see why it strongly supports improving gun regulations.

    This market is comprised of both private sales (such as those taking place at gun shows or online) and black market transactions (such as a gang member buying a stolen gun from a street source), but ultimately the line separating the two is often blurry. Indeed, illegal transactions occurring in the black market — often involving guns transferred from one criminal to another — are properly understood as a subset of a much larger gray market encompassing all sales that don’t require background checks. More than two decades later, with the explosion of online marketplaces, and private firearm transactions, there is no good data on the number of guns illegally sold through the gray market.”

    I also find it hard to believe that the process of buying a gun is “ridiculously complicated,” and rife with unneeded red tape.

    “The South Carolina man accused of murdering nine people at a Charleston church Wednesday bought the gun used in the shooting from a dealer with money he got from his parents in April for his birthday authorities say.”

    “In doing so, Dylann Roof, 21, would have had to go through a background check — a test he appears to have passed despite previous arrests for drug possession and trespassing.”

    “After more than 200 other mass shootings over the past decade, the Charleston shooting has put a renewed spotlight on the widespread availability of legal guns in the United States.”

    “Though there are many ways to obtain guns illegally — through gun trafficking, theft and “straw purchases— there are thousands of avenues for legal sales.”

    “A gun store. There are more than 54,026 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the 2014 annual report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That’s 14% more gun stores than the year President Obama took office, but much fewer than the 248,155 there were in 1992. Still, 98% of the U.S. population lives within 10 miles of one, according to a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”

    “There are 10 types of people who would be rejected by a background check: felons, fugitives, drug addicts, the mentally ill, illegal immigrants, some legal immigrants, people who have renounced U.S. citizenship, people under restraining orders, people convicted of domestic violence and anyone charged with a crime that could bring more than a year in prison are ineligible. But the quality of information submitted to that national database varies by state.”

    So I guess the common sense involved in preventing, felons, fugitives, drug addicts, the mentally ill, illegal immigrants, some legal immigrants, people who renounce their US citizenship, People under restraining orders, people convicted of domestic violence and anyone charged with a crime bringing more than a year in prison, are just clever ways of keeping the people that Democrats don’t like out of office, and that democrats could care less about regulating weapons for anything but political motives? How would it have looked if the list included those who have committed rape, those who embezzle from their companies, or those who commit identity fraud etc. Surely keeping them under wraps really means something if it keeps violent people from hurting others. Thus, if that involves a plan to prevent crimes from being committed by dangerous people who truly want to pursue partisan politics, then so be it! Once again, though I hate being angry at those “libtards” they really have left a smoke trail of ethical behavior and responsible governing behind them, not Trumpian power trips—err What?

    About the Trumpian Universe; Are you implying that if people like Trump have already committed high crimes and misdemeanors then what’s the use of complaining? If so, may I ask why you believe this? Trump is using propaganda, lies, and deceptions every day to hang onto his power, while the GOP (now made of representatives and Senators who have become apologists for Trump’s insanity), just will not admit the truth about his crimes—even though he has already fired, or caused nearly forty members of his own cabinet and staff to be prosecuted criminally or have no options other than deciding to resign?

    Here’s a reality flash—although Trump has done nothing but obstruct justice for three years, and has openly defied subpoenas—preventing even those who no longer work for him from testifying–while concocting a list of provably false charges concerning the motivations of the House intelligence committee, Trump has dissed the family of a fallen soldier, offered to pay the legal bills of anyone desiring to punch anti-trump demonstrators in the nose, denied the heroism of John McCain, mocked a disabled reporter, called women pigs and chided a debate moderators for bleeding from, “you know where,” and then unapologetically endeavored to advance his own interests at every turn. Trump is violating the constitution and has insulated himself with the help of his own handpicked DA. So his treason, not limited by physical reality, is based on neglecting the many constitutional principles our laws are based on.

    Some info from the following Wikipedia article:

    “Wayne LaPierre of the NRA frequently casts doubt on the ability of regulations to curb criminal behavior, stating earlier this year that “we don’t have to guess how hardened criminals will get their guns if universal background checks are passed, because we already know how they get them now: through theft, black market purchases, criminal associates, and straw purchasers. Background checks cannot and do not stop any of these things.”

    “Contrary to LaPierre’s pessimism regarding the apparent futility of trying to stem the tide of illegal guns, Philip Cook of Duke University and several colleagues have found that it is the flow of firearms, not the volume, that is the key factor in gun crime. These market characteristics mean that regulations on transactions, even in the legal channels, can help increase costs in the black market and subsequently deter criminals from obtaining firearms. If gun regulations can effectively dampen the supply of new firearms and ammunition, thereby making transactions more challenging to complete, prices will rise, and criminals will be more hesitant to obtain a firearm — and may even forgo it altogether.”

    You may believe that better gun laws cannot possibly reduce crimes committed with guns, but in reality that myth is not substantiated. Sometimes by cherry picking information those who oppose gun laws can bend the truth—saying that after the gun laws in Chicago prohibited the sales of guns in the city, this did not reduce homicides committed with guns. However, gun advocates always fail to mention that in counties and States nearby, guns were perfectly legal… So, someone intent on purchasing a gun to commit violent crimes merely had to drive a few miles out of the city and legally purchase their guns!

    Some parting information;

    “Americans make up only 4 percent of the world’s population but owned about 46 percent of the entire global stock of 857 million civilian firearms.”[5] U.S. civilians own 393 million guns. That is 3 times as many guns as the armed forces of the Russian Federation (30.3 million), China (27.5 million), North Korea (8.4 million), Ukraine (6.6 million), United States(4.5 million), India (3.9 million), Vietnam (3.8 million), Iran (3.3 million), South Korea (2.7 million), Pakistan (2.3 million), and all the other countries have (39.7 million) combined.[6] American civilians own more guns “than those held by civilians in the other top 25 countries combined.”

    “American civilians own nearly 100 times as many firearms as the U.S. military and nearly 400 times as many as law enforcement.”[8] Americans bought more than 2 million guns in May 2018, alone.[8] That is more than twice as many guns, as possessed by every law enforcement agency in the United States put together.[8] In April and May 2018, U.S. civilians bought 4.7 million guns, which is more than all the firearms stockpiled by the United States military.[8] In 2017, Americans bought 25.2 million guns, which is 2.5 million more guns than possessed by every law enforcement agency in the world put together.[8] Between 2012 and 2017, U.S. civilians bought 135 million guns, 2 million more guns than the combined stockpile of all the world’s armed forces.[8]

    So would you please explain why the personal ownership of so many weapons has not consistently resulted in lower crime rates in the US, while in many countries which restrict the sales of firearms, the rates of gun crimes are usually quite a bit lower?

    “Now before everyone in the gun violence prevention (GVP) community gets all hot and bothered about a tidal wave of gun owners out there who are endlessly surging forward to defend their ownership of guns, let me inject a bit of reality into the NRA’s membership claims. In 2015 the organization claims to have received $165 million in dues, which happens to be $10 million less than what they picked up in their biggest year, which was 2013. At the current rate of $40 a year, this works out to slightly more than 4 million members, although there are various multi-year deals which might alter those numbers somewhat.”

    So what does the above tell us? That there are far less gun owners belonging to the NRA as there are ordinary owners. So a mere 4 to 5 million members of the NRA are managing to control the gun regulation debates even though they are way outnumbered by just plain gun owners?—which begs the question why NRA members are really much less in numbers, than are all gun owners in America? Could it be that the NRA really does not speak for most of American gun owners?

    No one I know, liberal or conservative, is hiding a conspiracy behind their sincere desires to lessen gun violence via common sense gun regulating legislation! It’s really just you and other extremists who are thinking that. Unfortunately, you must completely misunderstand what motivates those who want to see better gun laws! For me and most other Dems I know, the issue is simply about public safety—i.e. allowing people to buy machine guns with minimal effort would probably cause many more crimes to be committed using fully automatic weapons. And, just junking all of our gun regulations will not cause gun assaults to vanish nor will it reduce gun crimes overnight!
    Nor will it suddenly convert those prone to gun violence into becoming less violent with guns overnight–no matter how vicious or immoral a given individual may be, or how law abiding ordinary people are.

    You are probably a car owner, so let me ask, has the government ever taken your car away for no reason, even if you have committed a few driving violations? Is it wrong for the government to insist that you possess a legal driver’s license, including all of the fees that go with it? Should the government instead say, “Here’s a big bunch of cars, take anyone you want, and no one will be the wiser? Is it possible that the government does things by the book because they really don’t want to make violent crimes easier to commit? This may be a partisan issue simply because both parties have a different way of viewing gun regulations, but it doesn’t have to be. We all want personal freedoms as well as prudent laws used to protect us. So would merely banning 100 round magazines do no good—basic logic alone disagrees! The fact is that a shooter can be more easily tackled while fumbling to change smaller magazines—and if you and I got into a gun fight, in which only one of us had a hundred round magazine, which would you rather have? It hard to imagine oneself being helpless with only 16 or 20 rounds, but it isn’t hard to conceive of a maniac who has a 100 round magazine, being able to cause far more deaths and suffering when using one?

    I object to your implication that shooting up a school and taking dozens of lives, is not worth being gravely concerned about! The fact is that many people who once defended the NRA changed their views overnight after their children and loved ones were taken away by a madman with a gun! Funny how those parent who actually lose children to gun violence quickly decide that something more than a gun is needed if we truly want to protect our children.

  9. In response to, Anonymous,

    “Also, Peter- I wanted to mention that “if you and I were in a gunfight” – there would be ZERO use for a 100 round magazine- I would want YOU to have that gun. All it will do is make your gun more cumbersome. If you can get through a standard magazine (30) in an AR-15, without neutralizing your opponent with no cover, you are either bleeding out or very very lucky. In an actual tactical situation, where you make use of cover and do magazine changes, you don’t shoot all 30 rounds in the magazine, you do what is called a “tactical reload” so that you always have a magazine that’s got reserve capacity. But in an actual gunfight, the goal is to escape or neutralize the threat, the guy who fails to realize this in favor of trying to kill the other guy usually ends up dead.”

    “School shooters and the like don’t play by actual tactical rules, their opponents are unarmed thanks to “gen free zones” and about all they can hope for is to find cover or escape the threat. If you think you are gonna “tackle a guy while he’s fumbling with a magazine” you are 99 percent likely to also get shot at very close range. Maybe somebody that has never handled a gun before. Perhaps even a 14 YO kid who is mad at the world. but not anybody who has been through the sort of firearms training you propose that everyone should go through before they can acquire a gun. Hell, I’ve got better sense than to try to tackle YOU during a mag change, and I know you don’t know much about guns judging from some of your other statements.”

    Well said, but first of all, I did not stipulate a tactical or non-tactical situation, I just hypothetically asked what would happen if only one of us had a 100 round magazine if you and I would be in a gun fight. But assuming that most home invasions are not preceded by a knock on the door or a written notification. what makes you even think you’d have time to take cover, or to make sure your magazine had a reserve capacity? Therefore, why assume you could establish any tactical advantage at all in the few seconds it might take for a bad guy with a gun, to shoot at you?

    Firstly, I have debated many 2nd Amendment activist who have specifically argued that if they had guns with smaller round capacities, they would automatically be at a disadvantage. So what is it, large capacity or smaller capacity?—which one do activists really need the most?

    Secondly, the shooter In the Colorado movie theater was obviously in a non-tactical situation. He did not need to take cover since the likelihood is that not one of his potential victims would be carrying a gun. Thus, with a larger magazine capacity, a mass shooter has the advantage of being able to pick off theater goers like “shooting fish in a barrel.” Thus, your explanation actually contradicts the idea that large capacity magazines should NOT be banned? If by your own reasoning, they provide no advantage for defenders—especially in non-tactical situations, then imagine a mass shooter killing victims in a theatre with only one small capacity clip, or only a few of them—how great would the resulting carnage be? Greater than shooting into a crowed while equipped with a 100 round magazine ready to go? Do we really need to give them the opportunity to find out?

    I have also discussed magazine capacity with 2nd Amendment activist like you who use that very same argument, (needing to change magazines often) as an argument against prohibiting large capacity magazines—apparently due to the fact that it WOULD take some extra time between magazine changes and would thus make them vulnerable to attackers even in a tactical situation! If you disagree, does that mean you are also claiming that soldiers or policemen who are under heavy incoming fire, don’t care if they have a six shooter or a 100 round magazine—because a 100 round magazine would only make their guns more cumbersome?

    Although I am not a believer in violence, I do like to watch films like the John Wick series simply because the special effects and choreographed movements in them, which portray Wick’s rapid fire instincts are amazing to behold! But even in fiction like that, Wick has to hurriedly change magazines before being brought down by nearby bad guys. And in those movies Wick is shown overcoming massive odds by just barely changing magazines in time, or quickly grabbing the gun of another bad guy.

    I see no reason at all why having to change magazines several times in either a tactical or non-tactical situation would not increase the chances of being tackled or even shot by others? Also, whether in a gun, or no gun zone, that does not guarantee a mass shooter that not one of his potential victim might also be carrying a concealed weapon.

    In many real life shooter situations, shooters have been tackled when either changing magazines or after their guns jam—its only very few experienced gun owners who can remain calm enough during a mass shooting to change magazines with sufficient rapidity. If you have ever read the accounts of police officers under fire, you would know that even they are understandably terrified, and thus may feel their legs turning into jelly while trying to avoid being shot by an assailant with a semi-automatic weapon. So in their situation even if they could change magazines rapidly the time needed to do could feasibly place them at a distinct disadvantage compared to a shooter equipped with a large capacity magazine. Then there is this interesting comment you made:

    “If you can get through a standard magazine (30) in an AR-15, without neutralizing your opponent with no cover, you are either bleeding out or very very lucky.”

    I totally agree, so why protect private ownership of 100 round magazines anyway? So far the NRA has refused to approve of limited round capacities even though very large capacities are not likely to be needed by civilians for self-defense—even during home invasions! Would you also believe that over the years I have been debating this same issue, but not one other 2nd Amendment proponent has conceded that 100 round capacities have no practical use. But, in this case you strangely disagree with those kinds of commenters even though you think there should be no limits on magazine capacities? Care to explain?

    • Sure, Peter: My point was you are discussing something that you don’t have any direct experience with and are making some bad assumptions based on presumably what you’ve seen in the movies or media.

      Large capacity magazines (50 plus, drum mags, etc.) Aren’t really good for anything but suppressive fire- that is, in a firefight where you might need to throw a lot of not-very-specifically-aimed lead in a general direction to keep the enemy from, say, getting out from behind the car they are hiding behind to reach the superior cover of a building. I can totally imagine how someone might presume that it gives a school shooter fire superiority over responding LE or allows them to mow down more innocent kids, but in reality there are a couple of dynamics going on here. the first is that magazine changes can be executed- even by a novice- in well under a second. And much faster by someone who is trained and has muscle memory for the mechanics of that firearm.Try standing even 15 feet from an object and running over to it in one second, let alone tackling it. Give that a go a few times and you will will quickly realize reloading isn’t the opportunity to tackle a gunman that you think it is.

      Drum mags are pretty much a novelty vs. practical for those that have them- the same could be said for bump stocks. Sure, they give your gun a rate of fire like a full auto gun, but basically they are a fun novelty or a waste of ammo depending on your personal feelings, I’m in the latter camp and have no desire to own one.

      Now, would a bump stock allow more rounds to fired in the event of a crazy shooter? Probably- he’s still going to have to deal with his magazines and ammo issues and potential jamming,m but he could get through whatever ammo supply he has faster.

      Will it allow him to kill more people? Probably not. At least not vs a shooter that is aiming his shots for the upper torso of his victims, what is called “center mass” and represents a small area that has highest probability to neutralize and also highest probability of lethality.

      Now let’s talk about, ok, how about 20 round mags? Now we are talking about a very practical size- if you are a target shooter you can fine tune your technique without having to completely reposition your body as you would with a magazine change. The standard magazine for an AR-15 is 30 rounds, That’s what the Marines would teach you to shoot an M16 with,, the difference being the M16 is a select fire weapon with 3 round burst (bet you’re surprised the armed forces don’t use “machine guns” as standard issue rifles either?)

      But the gun banners want to limit now to not 100 rounds, not 30 rounds, not 20 rounds, but 10 rounds. If your magazine holds eleven rounds you are an instant felon.

      Anti-gunners don’t know there are thousands of gun laws already, including federal laws about guns that shoot bullets over half an inch in diameter, shot guns less than 26″ long, Etc.Etc.Etc.

      At some point we get to the point where we have to ask “At what point is it OK for the Government to dictate what property I can own, vs, my rights supposedly guaranteed under 2A? And the answer, as defined in 2A, would be arms that are suitable as militia weapons.

      Is a .22 caliber rifle (AR-15) limited to 10 rounds an effective militia weapon? I think you have better sense than to use the “muskets” argument I’ve heard from some gun control advocates)?

      What gun owners (including myself- I’m not claiming no bias here, I’m a pistol and home firearm safety instructor and certified range officer) see is a continuous erosion of 2A to the point that it defies the constitutional intent, (Imagine 1A only applied withing your own home)

      We also see the “Big Brother” or “Nanny State” implications and are reacting to that. I hate to use the automobile analogy because there’s a fundamental difference between an enumerated right and driving a car, but let’s just say- are you lobbying for all cars to have a maximum top attainable speed of 55MPH? Think how many lives would be saved (much more than any gun ban)- and..the environment, right?

      Now let’s say you have all your money tied up in exotic cars, and suddenly the Government comes in all Greta Thunberg and says your cars are illegal and you can only dispose of them by selling to another country. And any new car you buy has to be electric and can’t go above 55. And maybe next year it’s 45, because 55 didn’t seem to save lives the way they thought it would and 45 must be safer.

      This is EXACTLY what is happening in gun control, there was already a (useless) cosmetic feature ban, it was the 1994 Clinton sponsored “AWB” (ridiculous definition of “Assault Weapon”) and how many lives did it save? Well, they actually couldn’t determine that it saved ANY. NONE. It cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, let Bill Clinton tell the public he was “Doing something about gun violence” (sound familiar) and accomplished nothing- other than punishing law abiding gun owners.

      Does it really come as no surprise to you that these same gun owners are now not interested in repeating this painful experience? Or that they honestly doubt they are are not well down the slippery slop to confiscation (through legislation)- or at least confiscation of EFFECTIVE arms?

      Heck, even for just a hobby- how would you feel if the Government mandated you couldn’t have any woods and nothing lower than a six iron in your golf bag because it was too dangerous to hit a ball over 150 yards and people could get killed? If you were a golfer, I’d imagine you’d be somewhere between very annoyed and downright irate.

      In the case of the gun owners, and in particular the 3% movement, their fear is that if they do not resist gun control- by force if necessary- they will lose that right through erosive legislation. It’s really not about bump stocks or 100 round mags. It’s about the fact we have a ton of gun control laws already (many of which are not effectively prosecuted on the Federal level as it is) and the pile-on of new legislation is eventually going to destroy a fundamental cornerstone of our constitution- the one that ultimately protects the Constitution itself. No, I don’t hink the governent is just going to turn on the people- but Patriot Act, NDAA, and other legislation are creating areas where suddenly the Constitution doesn’t apply to certain people, how long before it ONLY applies to certain people? How long before I’m on a no-fly list because the Government doesn’t like what I have to say politically? How long before they can detain me without due process or a speedy trial? These are all real-world things that we should be concerned about, whether we cast our votes D or R.

      Incidentally, the D’s lost my vote SOLELY on the 2A issue, I pretty much loathe Trump as a human being, and if the other party had one single candidate who didn’t have “gun control” at the forefront of their agenda they might have my vote. Even Sanders has hopped on the gun-ban-wagon now. Should be easy for you to see why Hillary didn’t get my vote. 2A should not be a partisan-polarized political issue, a liberal’s life is worth saving too.

      • In response to Anonymous,

        You say I don’t know what I’m talking about. Well perhaps as far as the way certain weapons are used, however I know enough to make some observations about your comments and point out the flawed reasoning in them.
        For example, you say that large capacity magazines are not good for anything but suppressive fire, yet in the same breath you point out some aspects of very large capacity magazines that make them the perfect choice for mass shooters to use? For example, you point out that large capacity magazines are perfect to use when one needs to cover oneself by using suppressive fire, which consists of some pretty poorly aimed shots which are used to “Throw some not very specifically aimed lead in a general direction, to keep the enemy, from say, getting out from behind the car they are hiding behind to reach the superior cover of a building.”
        Firstly, that’s what two or more comrades do while covering someone to keep them free form harm while running in plan site of the enemy. So, if the idea of covering someone else is used in the movies, it is virtually the same concept as using suppressive fire.
        Secondly, don’t you realize that using a large number of shots aimed in a general direction, is just what the Colorado theater shooter did while standing in front of a movie theater and firing quickly into the crowed of movie goers—exactly what he needed to inflict the largest number of deaths and injuries on his victims? It’s also what the Las Vegas shooter did as well as what has happened to crowds of church goers, and nightclub patrons! Targeted shootings in which the shooter intends to kill specific people for personal reasons, do not usually involve guns like the AR-15, but in those cases a semi-automatic handgun is often the weapon of choice, why? Because the ability to shoot many rounds in as short a period of time is what any mass shooter wants! It would be foolish of them to use a 22 or a handgun with only 6 rounds to shoot before reloading! Someone who needs to kill only one person may not use a semi-automatic because he doesn’t need to kill large numbers of people. But proposed gun regulations today are often intended to help prevent mass shootings—not to get even with one’s enemy. So, any proposed legislation banning AR-15s is a horse of a different color.

        “Large capacity ammunition magazines are a common thread in many high-profile mass shootings in the United States. Because shooters with such magazines can fire at large numbers of people without taking the time to reload, those in the line of fire do not have a chance to escape, law enforcement does not have the chance to intervene, and the number of lives shattered by acts of gun violence increases dramatically.”
        In other words, there is no practical reason for allowing 100 round magazines to be used and sold to the public! Yet you justify not taking direct action, even though you admit that large magazines they are useless—apparently invoking a “give em an inch and they’ll take a mile,” approach? Pardon me, but that kind of excuse is also what appeals to AGW deniers who believe that if any attempts to cut world CO2 emissions would lead to the destruction of capitalism, when actually it would require even more involvement the private sector and capitalistic principles in order to succeed in lowering worldwide atmospheric C02!
        Its also like saying to one’s self, “I know I shouldn’t drink too much tonight because I have to make sue everyone gets home safely, and then saying “but if I remain sober that will not end all drunk driver caused car crashes?” For Gods sake! If large capacity magazines are not needed, then why defend them! Don’t you think the founders had no knowledge about how weapons in the future could be used—as I said previously, how could they conceive of weapons that could be fired 100 times in about as man seconds?
        Nothing in the constitution says that any particular amendment is beyond modification, and some justices believe that considering the passage of time is a good precedent to include whenever the SCOTUS rules on issues like the regulation of guns!

        About the supposed ineffectiveness of laws banning high capacity semi-automatics—from the same link used above:

        “The more rounds a shooter can fire consecutively, the more gunshot wounds they can inflict during an attack.”
        • “Mass shootings that involve large capacity magazines result in twice as many fatalities compared to mass shootings that do not involve high capacity magazines.1”
        • “Using an assault weapon and a drum magazine that held 100 rounds, the assailant in the 2019 Dayton, Ohio mass shooting, was able to fire at least 41 rounds of ammunition in less than 30 seconds, killing nine people and wounding 26 others.2”
        • “The shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre was able to fire 100 rounds in just 10 seconds—without having to pause and reload—because he used a large capacity magazine, bump stock, and an assault rifle in his attack which killed 50 and injured hundreds.3”
        ‘The time a shooter takes to reload his weapon can be critical in enabling victims to escape and law enforcement or others to intervene. When shooters have high capacity magazines, more bullets can be fired before this crucial time period for escape or other intervention.”
        • “The 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, AZ, where six people were killed and 13 others were wounded, including US Representative Gabrielle Gifford, was interrupted when the gunman stopped to reload his weapon and was tackled by a bystander.4”
        • “Similarly, during the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, students were able to escape down a stairwell while the shooter paused to reload his weapon.5”
        Apparently ever second counts, which is just common sense!

        The ammunition magazine is the most likely part of the gun to malfunction. If your gun doesn’t work in a gunfight, well, that really sucks. When the gun she don’t run, the “tap rack” drill is your first port of call. Smack the magazine underneath your gun and rack the slide to chamber a fresh round. If that doesn’t work, say you suddenly “discover” you’re out of ammo, change magazines. Dump the old mag and insert a fresh one.”

        “Even if you don’t train your mag changes, even if you think tap rack is a form of sexual harassment, carry a spare mag. It may take you a lot of fumbling to switch magazines but what’s the alternative? Run! Hide! Bite, scratch, kick, throw a chair! Seriously.”

        Two pertinent things in the article are that; Even someone who has trained to change magazines faster, might need lose time fumbling to change magazines quickly, so what length of time does a novice need to change magazines, as well as the fact that a magazine is the most likely to malfunction—Gifford’s assailant was tackled when he stopped to reload his gun!

        You also claim that using a bump stock will probably not enable the shooter to kill more people, while a shooter who aims for the center of torso of his victims will. But again, many mass shootings happen in busy or crowed places where a shooter needs only to fire into a crowd! And no! I already knew that “machine guns,” were not weapons used in WW2, because bursts of ammo by M-16s do not a fully automatic weapon make! I also know, (unless the laws have changed) that no one can purchase a “machine gun,” legally without jumping through many hoops, some of which include having the skill set to use such weapons responsibly, as well as satisfying a mountain of red tape.

        “A high-capacity magazine ban is a law which bans or otherwise restricts high-capacity magazines, detachable firearm magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition. For example, in the United States, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that could hold more than ten rounds. Eight U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high capacity. The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity. States that do have large capacity magazine bans or restrictions typically do not apply to firearms with fixed magazines whose capacity would otherwise exceed the large capacity threshold.”

        Specifically involving California: “Most pistols sold in the U.S. are made and sold with magazines holding between 10 and 17 rounds.[7] In November 2013, the National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco over an ordinance banning possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.[8] In March 2014, the Supreme Court refused to halt a similar ban by the city of Sunnyvale, California.[9] In March 2019 a California lower court declared magazine restrictions to be a violation of the Second Amendment.[10]”
        Bet you didn’t know that one of the most liberal states, (California), gave the proposal of limiting all magazine restrictions for handguns the AX?

        So, who are all the gun banners whom you say insist on having no more than a ten round limit? If 42 states gave no restrictions on magazines according to capacity, and that my laws vary from State to State there couldn’t really be that many of them?

        Now some information about the notorious 1994 assault weapons ban;

        “The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban’s enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts.”

        “In 1989, the George H. W. Bush administration had banned the importation of foreign-made, semiautomatic rifles deemed not to have “a legitimate sporting use.” It did not affect similar but domestically-manufactured rifles.[13”

        Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 30, NRA head Wayne Lapierre said of the 1994 ban that “independent studies, including one from the Clinton Justice Department, proved that ban had no impact on lowering crime.” The testimony Lapierre submitted to the committee cited the first of the three major studies on the ban — this one by Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth in 1997 — in a footnote to support that claim.“The 1997 study said its analysis “failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.” But that’s not the same as saying the ban had “no impact.” The authors noted that the study was “constrained” to findings of short-term effects, “which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects.”

        “And most fundamentally, the authors wrote, “Because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.” The two later major studies of the ban included more years of analysis and concluded with an “updated assessment” that was published in 2004.”

        “That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5 million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.”
        “So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.

        “The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of the study Feinstein seized upon, done by Koper and Roth), the reduction in the use of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with large-capacity magazines.”

        “But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.”

        Wayne Lapierre emphasized the fact that the assault weapons ban study by Koper could not report any moderate or large decrease in the number of shootings due to the ban, was used by Lapierre as proof that the 1994 law failed to reduce gun crimes, but here is something else Koper said:

        “That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5 million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million large-capacity magazines still in the pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.”

        Koper also said, “What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.”

        One of those exemptions was the 10-year limit, one was that it applied only to a small portion of the guns used in violent crime. And another was that Feinstein attempted to ban significant cosmetic feature—her stipulations were easily brushed aside by gun manufacturers who found many ways to provide cosmetic features that did not violate the law. That left people like Feinstein feeling like they were playing wack-a-mole to counter each new adaptation made in regards to the law.

        So, there goes most of your claims—they are not accurate or necessarily even relevant! One final observation was made by Koper though:

        “Other studies, he said, have suggested attacks with semiautomatic guns – particularly those having large magazines – “result in more shots fired, persons hit, and wounds inflicted than do attacks with other guns and magazines.” Another study of handgun attacks in Jersey City during the 1990s, he said, “estimated that incidents involving more than 10 shots fired accounted for between 4 and 5 percent of the total gunshot victims in the sample.”

        Koper, Jan. 14: “So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent.’ Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course, having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders, could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”

        !s using your right to self-defense any less important than your right not to be gunned down by a murderer in the Parkland school system?

        Now a few things you said;

        “Is a .22 caliber rifle (AR-15) limited to 10 rounds an effective militia weapon? I think you have better sense than to use the “muskets” argument I’ve heard from some gun control advocates)?

        The “musket argument” has nothing to do with eliminating all but the least effective guns today. Its purpose is to shine a light on the fact that as time changes, as history progresses, the context of our constitutional rights might need to be adapted accordingly. Thus, the second amendment and any of the others are not set in stone (so to speak) and can all be modified in response to the present state of society and technology. It’s not intended to eliminate the 2nd amendment altogether, or to determine that only 22 caliber weapons should be the only legal guns available!


        “I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?”

        “The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.”

        “The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9 mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 is outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds, which allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.”

        “With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.”
        Conclusions; the caliber of the ammunition used is not the only factor that determines damaging effects of being struck by one!

        As the doctor concludes:

        “I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, a movie theater, or a concert and to know that they are safe.”
        When we discuss arguments, you use like this;

        “We also see the “Big Brother” or “Nanny State” implications and are reacting to that. I hate to use the automobile analogy because there’s a fundamental difference between an enumerated right and driving a car, but let’s just say- are you lobbying for all cars to have a maximum top attainable speed of 55MPH? Think how many lives would be saved (much more than any gun ban)- any. The environment, right?”

        “Now let’s say you have all your money tied up in exotic cars, and suddenly the Government comes in all Greta Thunberg and says your cars are illegal and you can only dispose of them by selling to another country. And any new car you buy has to be electric and can’t go above 55. And maybe next year it’s 45, because 55 didn’t seem to save lives the way they thought it would and 45 must be safer.”

        I can only conclude that these comparisons represent false equivalencies. One is that the regulations of automobiles can be used as a reason NOT to pass laws regulating guns. However the second amendment is part of the Constitution, and no amendment or law is beyond being modified to reflect current reality. The Supreme Court is free to recall a ruling it made in the past in order to question the judgement the court used the the first time. The speed limit laws have been determined State by State after studying speeding car accidents for many years, so, these laws are more than just arbitrary whims—they are practical solutions for lowering highway deaths by setting speed limits, passing seat belt laws, using anti-lock brakes and throwing the book at drivers who are caught driving while under the influence of massive amounts of Alcohol! My wish is that soon rear-view cameras will be standard on each new automobile, since the loss of a child is one of the biggest tragedies that can ever be experienced by grieving parents. Likewise, my hope is that regulating guns that can fire bullets rapidly, will not include high speed, and low caliber ammunition, Its also a relief to see that finally the uselessness of very high capacity magazines is becoming a serious issue–truly!

        I also like the fact that state by state each one is passing laws regulating the speed of snowmobiles. I like this because back in the 60s and 70s snowmobiles seldom were sold with more than 30 HP engine, yet even my 12 HP Moto-Ski, could bounce across open fields as 30 MPH–well enough to kill us if we tried to do anything irresponsible like traveling long distances alone or at night, as well as not trespassing on property that may have barbed wire fences we are unaware of, and/or terrain we were not used to.

        I think very few regulations are passed just for to allow big brother rule our lives. Most often they are made to guard the safety of individual and of society itself!

        What big brother really represents to me, are forced attempts by the government or restrict freedoms according to its whims. But not in cases when the government acts responsibly to protect our lives instead of hiding behind concepts like “fake news” or “alternate facts!”

  10. “AGW deniers who believe that if any attempts to cut world CO2 emissions would lead to the destruction of capitalism, when actually it would require even more involvement the private sector and capitalistic principles in order to succeed in lowering worldwide atmospheric C02!”

    What I said in this excerpt from my letter above, should have read more like this:

    AGW deniers who believe that any attempts to cut world C02 emissions would lead to the destruction of capitalism are mistaken, since such an attempt would require even more involvement form the private sector and the use of capitalistic principles in order to succeed in lowering worldwide levels of atmospheric CO2.

    I also hope that readers who see my comments will be able to decipher some of the other sentences I wrote, which include missing words or bad sentence structures, (several of them).

    • I’m amazed that Anonymous has not answered my most recent comment? Pro-second Amendment people rarely find themselves at a loss for words, and virtually always respond with some kind of pseudo oir deceptive comeback?

      • What the hell does global warming, or climate change, or whatever phrase is currently in vogue have to do with 2A??

  11. It’s interesting that you want to debate tactics- which you admit you know very little about- with someone trained in this area, but I’ll humor you. Gifford’s shooter dropped a magazine, a 33 round magazine ( which are ridiculously cumbersome novelties, not combat worthy) and almost certainly BECAUSE it was cumbersome, with stock magazines at half that capacity he would have been arguably MORE dangerous.
    The issue for most of us his owners is not whether bump stocks or drum mags or 33rd stick mags for a Glock serve a legitimate tactical purpose, it’s whether the Govt has the right to ban whatever it wants to for whatever purpose- if under the guise of “public safety” that needs to be demonstrable, and in most cases it really isn’t. If Jared lighter had four standard capacity mags as opposed to two hi-caps and two standard, he probably would have been able to fire DOUBLE the number of rounds he actually did, which only added up to the equivalent of two standard mags ( note that gun banners misidentify anything over TEN rounds as “high capacity regardless of what is standard for the firearm)

    Will crazy people get their hand on guns, of high capacity magazines? YES- regardless of what you make legal or illegal. You know that saying “freedom isn’t free”? That’s what it means. Your right to defend yourself and your family comes at the cost some evildoers might do evil with the same tools. Which they will do whether those guns are legal or not- because murder is illegal too, did that stop them?

    The NRA even supported the bump stock ban- I don’t, I think they are stupid but I don’t think the government should dictate that you can’t own something because somebody else might use the same item in a way that is dangerous. It’s all a slippery slope from there. Note that you can “bump fire” without a bump fire stock. Neither is an accurate way to fire a gun. Which is kind of interesting because with the amount of weapons the Vegas shooter had, one can only assume he could have modified at least a couple of his guns to take black market drop-in auto sears.

    • I’m trying to stay out of this, but I can’t help noting the use of several fallacies in your comments, including “criminals don’t follow the law” and “slippery slope”. I either have written about these in the past or will in the near future.

    • The argument is not about you not being able to own something that is misused by criminals, its about allowing people like you to own guns of your choice after you satisfy the requirement of submitting to a background test which is better able to identify those with a history of felonies and/or violent behavior? So your our refusal to note the overkill possible with the use of semi-automatics and high capacity rounds that are the chosen preferences of insane killers, or by those with risky and justifiably disqualifying conditions means your argument implies that even though criminals are able to get weapons that are used to commit massacres, that does not qualify the government to allow you to own them? Thus, even though you claim that certain High capacity magazines are inefficient to use, you would deny adequate background checks to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the insane is similar to arguing that hard liquor should not be sold to minors because next you fear you would be denied their use?

      There are many areas in which the government can be used to minimize the dangers of various products that need to be properly used, and common sense gun laws are one of them.

      As far as being not being able to kill more people with the use of high capacity mags, you are not the only expert around. Most police and experienced gun owners say that they can easily shoot up to 50 rounds in sixty seconds, and many say even more than that is possible. But what is truly illogical about your claims is that you admittedly affirm your view that large mags are cumbersome and inefficient, as well as the fact that bump stocks cannot easily be used to kill more innocent people, yet you refuse to be a gun owner who is willing to admit that they have no real practical advantages when used for for self defense, you refuse to regulate such things. You have also stated that very large capacity magazines are only useful when used to fire large numbers of rounds in a general direction to provide cover between you and another shooter, yet you fail ot see that for the Colorado theater shooter and many other mass shooters a large number of bullets that can quickly be fired in one direction without real accuracy are just what those killers need.

      The fact is that if you refuse to compromise regarding any and all suggestions for improving background checks, or to compromise by continuing to allow certain features used by shooters who own guns which are not really the best features needed by law abiding shooters to own, then WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO COMPROMISE ABOUT?

      Your own contradictory debating points betray that you want only guns and more guns available for anyone to use, and that prudent restrictions should all be scrapped because by denying them your own use of weapons (you don’t even need or want to use) might be denied you? To me that kind of reasoning is unsound and is unable to be used to prevent putting the public in grave danger.

      As far as the NRA, don’t even bother to defend them. After every major shooting they and the republicans in Congress all join hands with Democrats in singing cum bi ya, only to change their minds later and refuse to make any practical suggestions at all. Even though the Manchin Toomey background checks bill was one of the most unrestricted proposals imaginable, the NRA refused to consider any of its provisions as being practical at all. So if they are against bump stocks one day, the next they will claim that no restrictions should be made on them at all? So Gee wiz! I might as well protest if the government wants to legally deny known psychotics from having the right to own ballistics weapons, because the next thing you know they will also deny my right to own the same flame RPGs and machine guns too?

      There are many real and sensible compromises both sides could accept but the NRA does not truly want to submit to any of them. And its easy to see that reasoning with you has been preempted by the use of obstinate denial and hypothetical scenarios that you have shown no real arguments which prove such government attempts at complete control can really happen! Maybe you should also raise the specter of a future in which belligerent 2nd amendment activists take over the government and submit us all to their will? Isn’t that also possible according to the completely false and unprovable assumptions such an argument would need to depend on?

      • Again, I’m going to say you- and a lot of liberals in my StAte- have no idea what current regulations are in place – regarding “background checks” – have YOU ever filled out a 4473? Have YOU ever been put on hold to buy anything because your “instant check” didn’t come back? If you want to use the car analogy, if you went to buy a car and they said they had to check out your driving history to make sure you didn’t have any speeding tickets and then told you they didn’t get an answer from the DNV so maybe you should come back in a week, you think that’s “common sense” – then why aren’t you lobbying for THAT law?
        Maybe instead of passing NEW laws, they should enforce existing laws- why aren’t people that lie on a 4473 being prosecuted ( answer: so politicians can incite the ignorant to pass more laws)
        Here’s what I’ll “compromise@ on- in fact SUGGEST: 20 year minimum for straw purchasers, guns in commission of violent felonies, etc. Why is the gun charge (unlawful possession of a firearm) the first one the DA throws out in court?
        I’ll tell you what I tell my liberal friends in NY : When YOU complete the arduous licensing process in six months, the interviews, the four references, the employer and household residents check, the fees, the waiting, and all the other BS, THEN you can lecture ne about “background checks”- not if you have never even been put through one! Then try to buy an “assault weapon” through a “gun show loophole “ since neither one of these things is a reality and instead a completely contrived definition, and let me know how you make out. Failing that, stop trying to pass legislation you don’t understand to solve problems that laws already exist to address. Thousands of laws, I might add- if that’s not good enough where’s your “compromise” oh yeah- the law that got rammed through in NY with no debate that criminalized tens of thousands of gun owners and created hundreds of thousands of illegal guns- what’s the made up phrase you folks use for that- oh yeah, “ghost guns” -whose interests are served by that?

  12. To Anonymous:

    I don’t Know how my comments about AGW were posted above, unless I was too fatigued to notice where I was posting? But here is another reply to your comments about gun regulations:

    The argument is not about you not being able to own something that is misused by criminals, it’s about allowing people like you to own guns of your choice after satisfying the requirement of submitting to a background test which is better able to identify those with a history of felonies and/or violent behaviors? So your refusal to note the overkill possible with the use of semi-automatics and high capacity rounds (that are the chosen preferences of insane killers), or by those with risky and justifiably disqualifying conditions, means your argument implies that when criminals are able to get weapons that are used to commit massacres, that automatically motivates the government not to let you to own them? Thus, even though you claim that certain High capacity magazines are inefficient to use, you would deny adequate background checks to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the insane (which is similar to arguing that hard liquor should not be sold to minors because next you (for no real reason) would also be denied to buy it? Even though you most likely have a little thing called a valid ID?

    There are many areas in which the government can be used to minimize the dangers of various products that need to be properly used, and common sense gun laws represent some of them.

    As far as being not being able to kill more people with the use of high capacity mags, you are not the only supposed “expert” around. Most police and experienced gun owners say that (while using them) they can easily shoot up to 50 rounds in sixty seconds, and many say even more than that is possible. But what is truly illogical about your claims is that you admittedly affirm your view that large mags are cumbersome and inefficient, as well as the fact that bump stocks cannot easily be used to kill more innocent people, yet you refuse to be a gun owner who is willing to admit that they have no real practical advantages when used for self-defense, and therefore, render your objections about them moot? You have also stated that very large capacity magazines are only useful when used to fire large numbers of rounds in a general direction (in order to provide personal cover from another shooter), yet you fail to see that, for the Colorado theater shooter and many other mass shooters, a large number of bullets capable of being fired quickly in one direction without accuracy, is just what such killers need.

    The fact is that if you refuse to compromise regarding any and all suggestions for improved background checks, or to compromise by prohibiting certain gun features used by shooters (which are not, by your own admission), really the best features desired by law abiding shooters? SO, WHAT THEN (ARE) YOU WILLING TO COMPROMISE ABOUT?

    Your own contradictory debating points betray the fact that you only want guns and more guns to be available for anyone’s use, and that all prudent restrictions should be scrapped because by denying certain aspects of guns (which you don’t even need or want) might result in a series of endless legal denials designed to restrict your own 2nd amendment rights? To me that kind of reasoning is unsound and unable to prevent putting innocent members of the public in grave danger.

    As far as the NRA, don’t even bother to defend them. After every major shooting they and the Republicans in Congress all join hands with Democrats and sing cum bi ya, only to change their minds later and refuse to accept any practical suggestions at all. Even though the Manchin-Toomey background checks bill was one of the least restricting proposals imaginable? the NRA refused to consider any of its provisions at all. So even if the NRA is against bump stocks one day, the next they will claim that no restrictions of them should be allowed at all? So gee whiz! I might as well protest if the government wants to legally deny known psychotics from having the right to own ballistics weapons, because the next thing you know they will also deny my right to own the same RPGs and machine guns too?

    There are many real and sensible compromises both sides could accept but the NRA does not truly want to submit to any of them. And it’s easy to see that reasoning with you has been preempted by the use of obstinate denial and hypothetical scenarios that you offer with no real proof of such arbitrary government confiscations being possible! Maybe you should also raise the specter of a future in which belligerent 2nd amendment activists take over the government and submit us all to (their) wills? Isn’t that also possible according to the completely false and unproven assumptions that such an argument depends on?

    • Actually NO, if in fact “gun control” merely consisted of a background check to make sure a person wasnt prohibited and then they could own what they choose ( which is what you wrote) we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because I support that 100 percent.
      The REAL argument is about people that met all those requirements and bought their guns and magazines and are now being told their property is illegal and they have to dispose of them or become felons. THAT is what the argument IS about, FYI.

      • First of all I was not arguing tactics. I was merely pointing our some of you statements which make no sense in regards to your being a second amendment activists. So to avoid confusion can you simply tell me which laws regulating guns you agree with? Its been my experience that you convey only that you are opposed to all laws which attempt to regulate semi-automatics? So do you actually support laws to regulate the sales of semi-automatics even though you claim they are not the best way for crazed killers to kill the largest numbers of people? And do you support legislation used to limit the size of high capacity magazines? It seems to me that you reject them all, but I could be wrong so edify me if I am mistaken–seriously!

        I gathered these facts after limiting my search to articles that have been published only during the past year.

        “There are 10 types of people who would be rejected by a background check: felons, fugitives, drug addicts, the mentally ill, illegal immigrants, some legal immigrants, people who have renounced U.S. citizenship, people under restraining orders, people convicted of domestic violence and anyone charged with a crime that could bring more than a year in prison are ineligible. But the quality of information submitted to that national database varies by state.”

        “Definition of ‘large capacity ammunition magazine’ includes magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (Hawaii, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, District of Columbia).”

        So your complaint about the 10 round stipulation only applies in only 8 states and the District of Columbia!

        “…Ban applies to large capacity ammunition magazines for use with all firearms (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and District of Columbia).”

        “Prohibited activities include possession, sale, purchase, transfer, loan, pledge, transportation, distribution, importation, and manufacture of large capacity ammunition magazines (California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York are the most comprehensive, banning manufacture, transfer, and possession).”

        “No allowance for pre-ban magazines (California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York); alternatively, if pre-ban magazines are grandfathered, the owner must register them before a specified date (Connecticut).”

        “If the manufacturing of large capacity magazines is permitted, all magazines manufactured after the adoption of the ban must be identified by distinct and legible markings (Colorado).”

        “Conversion” or “repair” kits that can be used to build large capacity ammunition magazines from spare parts are prohibited (California).”

        “How effective are gun laws?

        from the above Handgun waiting periods study;

        “We reached out to Philip Cook, one of the authors of the Brady Law study, who pointed us to more recent research focused on waiting times and gun violence.”

        “One gun control expert told us the 2017 study, determined that,’Handgun waiting periods reduce gun deaths,’ and represented the best research on the relationship between waiting periods and suicides. (Note: Cook is listed as the study’s editor.)”

        “Researchers studied every change to waiting period laws in the United States from 1970 and 2014, and compared the laws with changes in the government’s annual data on gun-related deaths. (Forty-three states plus the District of Columbia had a waiting period for at least some time between 1970 and 2014; researchers also looked at the federal Brady Law.)”

        “The study noted that delaying the purchase of a gun could create a “cooling off” period to allow a “visceral state” — including suicidal impulses — to subside before the gun buyer took possession of a firearm.”

        “Michael Luca, a professor at Harvard Business School and one of the study’s authors, pointed us to the key passage for purposes of checking Jones’ claim:”

        “Waiting periods lead to a 7–11 percent reduction in gun suicides (depending on the control variables used in the specification), which is equivalent to 22–35 fewer gun suicides per year for the average state.”

        “Jones is on solid ground here,” Luca said.”

        Universal background checks and gun permits: What the research says;

        “There are 36 jurisdictions in which sellers contact the FBI directly for checks. In 13 states, state agencies conduct checks by electronically accessing the NICS, as the (national instant criminal background check system) is often called. The rest of the states have a mix of checks that either the state or FBI conducts, depending on the type of gun being purchased.”

        “Federally licensed and private vendors both sell at gun shows. The most recent analysis of how gun owners got their firearms was published in 2017 in the Annals of Internal Medicine and included 1,613 adult gun owners who took a nationally representative, web-based survey. This survey found 22% of participants obtained firearms within the last two years without a background check.”

        So as you can see the use of background checks has not been pursued as comprehensively as it should!

        “A Pew Research poll from October 2019 finds 93% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans “favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.” Support for other proposals, like assault weapons bans, tend to fall along partisan lines, with Democrats more widely supportive than Republicans, according to Pew.” But as you can see, many Republicans also favor background checks ‘for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.” Thus can we really say that the NRA represents the opinions of gun owners?

        “The FBI has completed roughly 328 million firearm background checks since 1998. It conducted about 26 million last year. There are 12 reasons the FBI denies gun sales. From November 1998 through October 2019, the FBI denied nearly 1.7 million gun sales. More than half of those denials were because the potential purchaser had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.”

        “If the FBI cannot complete a background check within three days, a federally licensed dealer may — but isn’t required to — complete the sale. From 2006 to 2015, there were roughly 6,700 guns sold to people with domestic violence records after the FBI did not meet the three-day deadline, according to an analysis from the Government Accountability Office, an independent nonpartisan congressional watchdog.”

        “The number of firearms sold after the three-day deadline to people who should have been denied has doubled in recent years, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. (The U.S. Senate hasn’t taken up a bill the House passed earlier this year that would extend the deadline to at least 10 days.)”

        “Some three-quarters of people incarcerated for gun crimes got their firearms from someone who did not legally have to conduct a background check, according to a 2017 review of research and state gun laws published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics.”

        So background checks have not been used in ways that truly block the sales of handguns to those who should not have them!


        “The authors found four studies, including the one mentioned above from JAMA, that explored background checks. They note that the suicide reduction observed among people age 55 and older seems linked to waiting periods and not necessarily to felony restrictions. Yet another early study, published in the American Journal of Public Health and mentioned in the literature review, found that denying handgun sales to felons was associated with a 20% to 30% lower risk of those felons committing new gun-related or violent crimes.”


        “There is not much recent, federally-funded research on gun violence. In 1996, Congress passed legislation that prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using federal funds to “advocate or promote gun control.” That means there is little federal funding to examine gun violence on a national scale.”

        No waiting periods of three months were mentioned in the research I examined, except on this website which is representative if the NRA?

        It said, ‘Waiting periods do not change the background check process; no additional investigative measures are taken no matter how long of a waiting period is imposed. Most background checks are resolved instantly, but investigations can currently last up to 90 days. “

        And consider that–

        Apparently, so open minded are 2nd amendment activists, that Congress passed legislation that prohibited federally funded research on gun violence, in 1996. The ban applies to the Centers for Disease Control which cannot use Federal funds to ‘advocate or promote gun control?”

        So that means there is little federal funding available to examine gun violence on a national scale. As far as a mandatory three month waiting period, that is possible, but it almost never is required!

        So I ask you (Anonymous,) what does all this mean in regards to which side is playing it straight and thus is not afraid to discuss studies which might contradict their claims. When the gun activists make sure that such research cannot be funded, guess which side overwhelmingly supported that legislation?–Obviously conservative members of Congress who were backed by the power of the NRA!

        That isn’t knowledge, it’s a preordained way of producing biased information about the effects of gun control (which thankfully have only been applied in a few states)!

        Once again let me add that background checks do not merely apply to those who have committed felonies but that also– “There are 10 types of people who would be rejected by a background check: felons, fugitives, drug addicts, the mentally ill, illegal immigrants, some legal immigrants, people who have renounced U.S. citizenship, people under restraining orders, people convicted of domestic violence and anyone charged with a crime that could bring more than a year in prison are ineligible.

        So which of these categories do you deem unimportant—they include far more than just convicted felons and the mentally ill—all of these additional categories include people who may be prone to use guns for violence! So I’d say we have Pretty fair gun laws–though they need improving!

  13. “So your complaint about the 10 round stipulation only applies in only 8 states and the District of Columbia!”

    Actually I miscounted. They actually include only 6 states and the district of Columbia!

  14. To (anonymous) about one of your recent posts:

    Of course, when I mentioned the (post background check right) for a citizen to buy weapons of his or her choice, I was not referring to any kinds of weapons an individual desires—obviously I was referring to the legal options available to him. And in my previous long post, I have already enumerated how many of our gun laws are enforced in different states.

    Your car analogy is so flawed that it’s absurd of you to use it as a pertinent argument! First of all, if you had a record of serious traffic violations like repeated DUI charges, that means your driver’s license has probably been revoked and you would be unable to drive legally anyway. So here again, when someone misuses the privileges of having a license, it is reason enough to revoke those privileges, but only because allowing that person to drive would be hazardous to other motorists, as well as to oneself. This is really about the necessity to protect the public from abuses at the hands of someone who should not have a license by preventing that person from driving. So although the waiting period may be long (in some cases) the end goal is to prevent someone from endangering the public. In the case of driving, as far as I know, checking for serious driving infractions (before making a purchase) is not the norm and most people would not have their record checked before being allowed to buy a car, but when stopped by police one’s driving record would then be examined—so the only difference might be when that person is prevented from doing others harm. However, it’s always better to be safe than sorry rather than allowing someone who is a danger to the public from driving. So both types of restrictions, (owning a weapon that one shouldn’t be allowed too own), and keeping someone from driving who is a danger to others, are part of the same branch on the same legal tree. In both cases restricting them will keep others from being harmed. So what would you prefer?–that a homicidal drug addict might have to endure a long wait before being prevented from owning a dangerous weapon, or going on the assumption that any delays are motivated by nothing more than unfair attempts to restrict yourself unfairly?

    Once someone is driving dangerously and they have too many serious strikes against them, they may have their licenses revoked or be prevented from driving. So the only difference is (when) ones record is checked, before shooting someone (maybe a cop), or after several serious driving violations which place the public in danger. Do you prefer that the offender should be allowed to keep driving ad infinitum, rather than having that person’s right to drive a car taken away? Of course simple parking tickets or a few speeding tickets do not add up to any good reasons to deny anyone’s driving privileges, while being a thief, or being arrested for domestic abuse, are both pretty good indication that such a person should not be able to purchase a gun or to operate a three ton vehicle at 60 mph.

    How about another inconvenience? Is the government violating one’s right to privacy by enforcing mandatory baggage checks or having passenger’s belongings X rayed? When the rationale is to prevent a high jacker from taking over a passenger jet airliner, and crashing it into a skyscraper, killing nearly 3000 innocent lives? Well, I’d say, if such precautions are nothing more than the actions of a hostile government that deliberately wants to inconvenience passengers for no reason, maybe? But preventing the loss of many lives by preventing a terrorist from boarding a plane. I’d say, go ahead and protect myself and the rest of the public, from harm!

    Sure, waiting six months may be far too long when one’s busy life demands that a purchase be made sooner! But if a long wait can cool out someone with a grudge, or prevent someone who is mentally ill from killing or injuring the object of his hatred, having my bags X rayed, or removing my shoes at an airport, are simple precautions, and you’re damn RIGHT I will comply!!–especially if my compliance prevents the passenger airliner I am on, from Crashing into the ground at 500 mph as the result of terrorists taking over the cockpit and gaining the opportunity to do their worst!

    Where public welfare is involved it’s entirely appropriate to comply with laws that truly protect our safety as well as the safety of others. And, (in most cases), no one will be required to await a decision involving gun safety for three or six month, or even a few weeks. So, when simple common sense allows us to step out of danger in time, we would be incredibly foolish if we refused to understand that sometimes our rights (DO) need to be protected by the government, and one of the ways it can do that, is by requiring us all to accept prudent ways of using the government to keep us safe!

    The overly burdening effects of regulations you are describing are far from being common and only a few states allow them.

    I’ll give you the fact that even with gun regulations crazy people or potential felons cannot all be prevented from obtaining dangerous weapons, but in many other cases they just might!!

    You may seriously believe that AR-15 or large capacity mags are actually not practical for mass shooters to use, but if that’s the case, have some gumption and dare to disapprove of their use. And when small caliber bullets are propelled at three times the speed of conventional ammunition what is your rationale behind not regulating them? Does each shot have to do extreme damage to someone who is threatening your own life if they are to be effective, or will ordinary ammunition fired at normal speeds not be enough to spot an assailant in their tracks? And if they are way to damaging to a shooter, or to police who are engaged in a firefight, why not have the guts to stand up against the way that they are allowed to be sold to gun owners far too easily.

    In my book, the government’s authority to regulate dangers that threaten the public outweigh the mere convenience of buying things that are not required for adequate self-defense. Yet you seem to believe that any inconvenience to yourself or to violent criminals who own them, amount to unforgivable government tyranny. However, most of us realize that if not for prudent government oversight, the market would be flooded by many products that are capable of killing or endangering lives, (usually innocent lives) so why not stand for preventing these products from being bought by anyone who uses them to harm others? Do you really think that being refused the option of buying high speed ammunition is a valid reason for believing that the government is out to get you? The fact is that high speed ammunition and powerful weapons will not allow you to outgun a government which already controls the largest military in the world, especially when that military is unlikely to blindly follow the orders of an American president who can supposedly order the largest military forces in the world to confiscate the weapons of its citizens and kill those who refuse to give them up!

    Before that day comes we will need to have given up the division of power in our three branches of government and be far on the road to becoming a banana Republic. The whole idea is akin to Sara Palin’s claims that the ACA included a provision that would allow the government to pull the plug on granny, something so ludicrous that any thinking person could not buy it! The real danger in our present government is the attempts of its leaders to control the very idea of objective reality, to villainize the free press and all of our intelligence agencies and thus undermine the idea of objective reality. However, even now enough congressmen have stood up to the Presidents manipulation of the truth and his endless attempt to obstruct a lawful investigation into his affairs. And guess which side has effectively thrown up their hands and decided to defend him by manipulating our system? Does even that mean we are about to be run by a police state? Not as long as we realize that the truly corrupt leaders in this world have access to a weapon far more powerful than an AR-15 or than high velocity ammunition—it’s called propaganda, and its being used In a very destructive way, part of which portrays the parents of murdered children of engaging in an unsavory plot to take over the world by requiring dangerous products from being freely used without any attempts to regulate them? You might as well claim that its your right to own nitro-glycerin or a tank if you want to, even though the movement to keep them from being regulated, is being used to polarize the American public into turning its back on the common welfare of all of its citizens!

    By now I know that nothing I say will ever cause you to give up your self-perceived right to define prudent regulations as ways to enslave the public. But the rule of law in a country like ours is far more important than fighting an imaginary war that is being defined by the right as an attempt to take away our liberties, rather than an attempt to undermine the importance of our many protective laws. So this is the last response on this thread that I will make to you. I’ve been involved in many endless back and fourths before and it’s a waste of time and effort to keep discussing an issue with someone who refuses to change his mind! And of course you’re free to feel the same way about me, but either way it’s a waste to keep this pointless discussion going forever!

    • Your long-winded response is full of major logical holes, such as the supposition that a six month wait will give people “time to cool off”- what will it do for the person being victimized by a gang or abusive ex that has threatened to kill him/her and needs a gun for self defense? The only acceptable gun control measures are those that are not capricious and arbitrary, based on subjective criteria, or deny law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. Then there is a second tier of “gun control” which sounds good on paper but which is really designed to be cumbersome and has no actual basis in public safety, these are “smart guns”, “assault weapons” (based ENTIRELY on cosmetic features!) and other “feel-good” legislation that is simply not effective. But my real point is that those who do not have even basic knowledge about a subject should not be legislating it (Michael Bloomberg does not know the difference between semiauto and automatic firearms, for example). Again, rifles aren’t the problem. If you want to solve the problem of guns being used to commit violent crimes, start with life incarceration for using a gun in commission of a violent crime. Make lying on a 4473 a mandatory 20 year sentence. Enforce it. Make straw purchasing a 30 year sentence. Enforce that. Criminalizing me because my gun has a stock with a hole in it my thumb can go through is the stupidest, most ridiculous thing possible. It makes nobody safer, and if you want to convince me you are actually not after my guns, stop trying to make my guns illegal, Lets start with the people that are actually the problem. I just got my Utah CCW renewed and noticed Utah lets me carry on school grounds. Did you hear about that horriffic school shooting in Utah? Me neither. Could it just MAYBE be true that eliminating “gun free zones” is how you PREVENT idiots from going to schools to shoot defenseless kids? Could it just MAYBE be true that a lot of your assumptions about “gun control” are, in fact, incorrect since you don’t have any actual expertise on the subject matter? I believe smart people constantly evolve their perspective on things. I’ve had a lot of time to analyze what is going on politically with gun control, what the difference is between legislation and actual public safety, and seen an awful lot of poor logic backing public policy panaceas. Always consider the unintended consequences of new legislation- we have plenty of current legislation to go around. Most of it isn’t being enforced. Maybe you can tell me why that is.

  15. “or will ordinary ammunition fired at normal speeds not be enough to spot an assailant in their tracks?”–of course I should have said, “to (stop) an assailant in their tracks.” And please forgive me for the many other minor mistakes which I inevitably seem to make.

    • LOL could you define “ordinary ammunition” and “normal speeds”? Is a “normal speed” 960fpm from a .45 or 2300fpm from a 5.56mm? If somebody asked me to define “normal” ammunition, I’d have to say I’d be at a loss.
      “High velocity” ammunition is not some kind of super-ammo, or necessarily more powerful, it’s usually lighter ammo that flies in a flatter trajectory, this is important in long range shooting where you have to account for bullet drop, but pretty much NOT what you want for a self defense situation where (generally speaking- there are exceptions) you are better served with a slow-moving, heavy bullet that will transfer more energy by stopping in a body rather than simply punching a tiny hole right through and retaining a large percentage of its energy. And the “stopping in their tracks” has much more to do with physiology and shot PLACEMENT than the ammo you are using, or even the caliber you are using, let alone if it was fired from an “assault rifle” or a handgun. Of course I can see how “high velocity” sounds extra-scary if you don’t have a clue what it’s for and think its for murdering schoolchildren or some special military ammo or some such nonsense. That’s clearly the message you’d get from the media- which is why I’m letting you know this.
      Why don’t you just emulate my experience, get yourself a CCW for a bunch or states, become a responsible shooter, learn (or teach) firearm safety- have the state you live in try to criminalize you and confiscate your firearms- and see if you THEN can see where I’m coming from? I’d have a lot more respect for your opinion iof your opinion were accompanied by any sort of actual experience rather than derived from hyperbole, misinformation, and (you admit this) fundamental lack of subject knowledge. I don’t know the first thing about Basketball- that’s no crime- but I’m not going to debate some NBA expert on who is a better player for what team and position. In fact, there’s a whole lot I don’t know. And there’s a whole lot you don’t know about the POLITICS masquerading as “gun control”. I do. BTDT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s