Nine myths of the gun-control debate

[fmj]

Hey XL
Thanx for welcoming me, I appreciate it.
Are you a member of the NRA.??

[Oggie]

Hey Xl - no worries. Your points are well made. Here's my take...

Firstly let me assure you I love guns. Own em, fire em, hunt with em and have and will continue to enjoy them for years to come. However its probably important to understand that while guns dont kill people...people do. Guns do make that task a lot easier. Therefore their ownership must come with some level of responsibility etc. Now lets look at School teachers being armed. The logic to this is that if teachers were armed then they would be able to respond to a situation a lot quicker and mitigate it. This is not correct. I just saw a program (think it was on CNN) the other day where they conducted an exercise to prove /disprove this. They did this by arming a civilian in a mock gathering with a pistol (that fires paint capsules ...had a real case and charge but the projectile was a paint capsule) with another 25 odd civilians. The other civilians did not know that this civilian was armed. Then they allowed a perp to enter the room. In the first case the armed civilian could not even unholster his weapon. He stumbled, fell and was shot lethally. Second situation the same happened. In the 3rd case the civilian shot and would have potentially killed other civilians and was again terminated. To expect teachers to respond effectively to almost suicidal heavily armed maniacs in schools would not be logical unless the teachers are trained to the level of police officers. And if that is the kind of training and remember also re-training that will be required then you need the teachers to be committed to that level. This is probably neither practical nor possible.

Now what irks me no end with the gun control debates I see is that almost every pro gun lobbyist seems to come across as so completely detached from reality that its not funny anymore. To me Arming teachers is a bit like trying to extinguish a fire with fire and I say this as a matter of speech - I am aware that explosives are used in certain situations to extinguish large fires !

There is such a radical streak of devotion to the second amendment that it is almost scary. I think America needs to ask itself some really hard questions. One of them being the relevance of the 2nd amendment right in today's environmental context. You will remember we had a robust discussion on the open carry issue a while back. Well post that I saw about 5 or so more You Tube video's of guys being absolute Twats , baiting police officers and just trying to make a point. To me this is just silly, unnecessary and distracting the police from the job they are really meant to do anyway.In my opinion and as it is in my country - Firearm ownership should really be a privilege granted based on good character and robust background checks. My country has a very high ratio of firearm owners on a per capita basis yet our gun crime is negligible. Personally I believe this is because our process of issuing a firearms license is robust.

I had to apply, was then interviewed, two character references were interviewed, my wife was interviewed, my firearms safe was assessed , I had to pass a written test and was then issued my license. I'm glad I had to earn it. Because now I'm going to really value it.

Cheers,

Oggie

[liljake82]

Oggie, I recall seeing something similar while allowing college students to carry concealed weapons was being debated. There were several huge holes in the one I saw. First none of the students had any formal training in defensive shooting. A little training in defensive tactics could have really changed the outcome of their experiment. The people advocating arming teachers are also advocating training for these teachers. Training that would teach them how to determine when and how to employ their weapons.

nd, there was a presupposition that the confrontation had to occur in the classroom. A threat could be intercepted outside the classroom, in the parking lot or anywhere in between. There are a million variables and the reporters implied it could only happen according to this very limited scenario.

Another interesting fact is that citizens that carry concealed weapons often spend more time practicing than the "trained police officers" that opponents often speak of. Just a few Weeks ago there was an incident (I believe in new York) in which police officers open fire on a suspect and ended up wounding several (10 IIRC) civilians in the process.

[fmj]

Kia Ora Oggie
This is getting intresting,
I will respond later.
Meanwhile Crack a Woody.
Cheers

[Hammerhead]

Well, nice discussions all of you. Would not name the names but some times we look through our own eye glasses to judge others especially other countries which we never seen in our life times or ever visited. XL has too many thinks now, so no more thanks, going back to video games. We bought our kids some games about few years back, they were a bit small that time. Once they start playing, I sneak peeked into their room. You would have your jaws dropped by looking into the grossness of those games, I mean the blood splashes and head shots. Being a hunter myself, I clean our own game meat, process it, handled it many many times and seen dead animals many many times. But it was horrific to watch the amount of killing going on in the videos, so I called my wife, we talked and kids decided that they will play without the blood splash options. Few days later they just stop playing that game, I don't remember the name but it was gross to the max. I bought them basketball net and bikes and more stuff but till today I never seen that much blood in any video or even Band of Brothers movie. That is not one cause of kids being disconnected and there could be many more others but they needs to realize that this is one of them. It seems like unreal to shoot and no consequence and without any thinking involved. Good job XL - Thanks


@ Oggie .......

There is such a radical streak of devotion to the second amendment that it is almost scary. I think America needs to ask itself some really hard questions. One of them being the relevance of the 2nd amendment right in today's environmental context

What other parts of the Constitution would you recommend to change ? All was written two centuries ago and they never knew that we could land on the moon. So is landing on the moon is Constitutional, that is considered taking unknown land by force ?

I had to apply, was then interviewed, two character references were interviewed, my wife was interviewed, my firearms safe was assessed , I had to pass a written test and was then issued my license. I'm glad I had to earn it. Because now I'm going to really value it.

Cheers,

Oggie

Were you a bank robber that time ? And could they guarantee now after going through all the BS that you would not rob a bank now ?

That is difference in going through the Gov't's thrown hoops to deter the people from owning the firearms not some safety of the public thing. All those mass murders could have passed those background and safety checks so easily and they could buy their own guns without asking any one.
And having no guns did not stop the guys in Delhi to commit the heinous crime of ever ever known to mankind - Haji

[xl_target]

Firstly let me assure you I love guns. Own em, fire em, hunt with em and have and will continue to enjoy them for years to come. However its probably important to understand that while guns dont kill people...people do. Guns do make that task a lot easier. Therefore their ownership must come with some level of responsibility etc. Now lets look at School teachers being armed. The logic to this is that if teachers were armed then they would be able to respond to a situation a lot quicker and mitigate it. This is not correct. I just saw a program (think it was on CNN) the other day where they conducted an exercise to prove /disprove this. They did this by arming a civilian in a mock gathering with a pistol (that fires paint capsules ...had a real case and charge but the projectile was a paint capsule) with another 25 odd civilians. The other civilians did not know that this civilian was armed. Then they allowed a perp to enter the room. In the first case the armed civilian could not even unholster his weapon. He stumbled, fell and was shot lethally. Second situation the same happened. In the 3rd case the civilian shot and would have potentially killed other civilians and was again terminated. To expect teachers to respond effectively to almost suicidal heavily armed maniacs in schools would not be logical unless the teachers are trained to the level of police officers. And if that is the kind of training and remember also re-training that will be required then you need the teachers to be committed to that level. This is probably neither practical nor possible.

Oggie,
If you're basing your doubts on the video, you need to go and watch that video again. I have watched that video too. Now go back and watch it carefully. Watch it several times. Notice how the Police Officer who is playing the active shooter always zeros in on the student with the gun. He lets everyone else run away but usually the first student shot is the poor dummy with the gun. Oh, he gets a few shot in on the persons on each side of the dummy. That is because the cop already knows which student has the gun. Also notice that the student is always placed dead center in the middle of the row of students. The whole thing is staged specifically to bolster the MSM's point of view that guns are bad and the average person is an idiot and can't be responsible for his own safety. Then they pick the most inept people to represent the gun owner. I'll also mention that no one I know who carries IWB, wears a tight, clingy outer garment. It's pretty bad when one guy can't even get the gun out of the holster. Hell, I could do that when I was ten years old and we played cowboys and Indians.Then you will notice that one student, again with no training and with all the chips stacked against her, actually tags the intruder who is a professional cop. Hmmm! Remember that the NRA has offered free training to any teachers who want to do this. A modicum of training will give one quite an advantage, even if it just shows one how to get the gun out of the holster . As liljoe says, most people who carry concealed, have taken some training. The one student who has fired all those guns; you can tell by his actions that he doesn't have any training in concealed carry. I'll also mention that the MSM in the US today has a heavy bias against guns and any info obtained from them is usually skewed to reflect that bias. Part of that comes from so few people owning so many of the outlets.

There is such a radical streak of devotion to the second amendment that it is almost scary. I think America needs to ask itself some really hard questions. One of them being the relevance of the 2nd amendment right in today's environmental context.

You can call devotion to the constitution scary but that is the way it is.
In the US, the right to keep and bear arms is a right granted by the constitution.
The relevance of the second amendment can't be called into question. The Supreme Court of the US has certified that. End of story.
The US constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was created. The date is irrelevant.
It (the constitution) IS the highest law of the land.

Well post that I saw about 5 or so more You Tube video's of guys being absolute Twats , baiting police officers and just trying to make a point. To me this is just silly, unnecessary and distracting the police from the job they are really meant to do anyway.In my opinion and as it is in my country - Firearm ownership should really be a privilege granted based on good character and robust background checks. My country has a very high ratio of firearm owners on a per capita basis yet our gun crime is negligible. Personally I believe this is because our process of issuing a firearms license is robust.

In a lot of those cases, if the police followed the letter of the law, they wouldn't have had a confrontation, regardless of what most of the idiots out there were doing.
Now please remember; in the USA, gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT.
The background check that I have to undergo for EVERY firearm purchase is run by the FBI. Information from my local police is on that check. information from any mental health commitments/treatment that I have undergone is in that database too. I don't see how much more robust it can get. The gun crime committed by citizens who have carry permits is infinitesimal. None of that does anything to stop crime committed by criminals. However, usually most measures taken impact the law abiding citizen and not the criminal. 99.9% of what the politicians want to do are "feel-good" measures that do nothing to stop crime but they keep chipping away at that right.

[Oggie]

Well, nice discussions all of you. Would not name the names but some times we look through our own eye glasses to judge others especially other countries which we never seen in our life times or ever visited. XL has too many thinks now, so no more thanks, going back to video games. We bought our kids some games about few years back, they were a bit small that time. Once they start playing, I sneak peeked into their room. You would have your jaws dropped by looking into the grossness of those games, I mean the blood splashes and head shots. Being a hunter myself, I clean our own game meat, process it, handled it many many times and seen dead animals many many times. But it was horrific to watch the amount of killing going on in the videos, so I called my wife, we talked and kids decided that they will play without the blood splash options. Few days later they just stop playing that game, I don't remember the name but it was gross to the max. I bought them basketball net and bikes and more stuff but till today I never seen that much blood in any video or even Band of Brothers movie. That is not one cause of kids being disconnected and there could be many more others but they needs to realize that this is one of them. It seems like unreal to shoot and no consequence and without any thinking involved. Good job XL - Thanks

Hey Hammerhead not sure how to use the "quote" thingie so bear with me - I am responding but you might have to make a bit of an effort to see the responses in context...apologies. Also pls do not get tied into knots as my response is attacking your thoughts not you personally. I'm sure we'll be able to have a beer and a laugh about some of these later on !


@ Oggie .......

There is such a radical streak of devotion to the second amendment that it is almost scary. I think America needs to ask itself some really hard questions. One of them being the relevance of the 2nd amendment right in today's environmental context

What other parts of the Constitution would you recommend to change ? All was written two centuries ago and they never knew that we could land on the moon. So is landing on the moon is Constitutional, that is considered taking unknown land by force ?

Hey mate this is exactly the kind of absolutely illogical references that makes gun ownership advocates seem out of touch ! Comparing the moon landing to mass murders is a bit "looney" even by the longest stretch.

I had to apply, was then interviewed, two character references were interviewed, my wife was interviewed, my firearms safe was assessed , I had to pass a written test and was then issued my license. I'm glad I had to earn it. Because now I'm going to really value it.

Cheers,

Oggie

Were you a bank robber that time ? And could they guarantee now after going through all the BS that you would not rob a bank now ?

That is difference in going through the Gov't's thrown hoops to deter the people from owning the firearms not some safety of the public thing. All those mass murders could have passed those background and safety checks so easily and they could buy their own guns without asking any one.
And having no guns did not stop the guys in Delhi to commit the heinous crime of ever ever known to mankind - Haji

So your point is - do away with any checks since the person could become a criminal afterwards anyway ??????? Look Hammerhead, I enjoy a robust but logical argument. If you wish to make points like the one you have made above I cannot argue back....I have to declare myself out...peace !

[Oggie]

Firstly let me assure you I love guns. Own em, fire em, hunt with em and have and will continue to enjoy them for years to come. However its probably important to understand that while guns dont kill people...people do. Guns do make that task a lot easier. Therefore their ownership must come with some level of responsibility etc. Now lets look at School teachers being armed. The logic to this is that if teachers were armed then they would be able to respond to a situation a lot quicker and mitigate it. This is not correct. I just saw a program (think it was on CNN) the other day where they conducted an exercise to prove /disprove this. They did this by arming a civilian in a mock gathering with a pistol (that fires paint capsules ...had a real case and charge but the projectile was a paint capsule) with another 25 odd civilians. The other civilians did not know that this civilian was armed. Then they allowed a perp to enter the room. In the first case the armed civilian could not even unholster his weapon. He stumbled, fell and was shot lethally. Second situation the same happened. In the 3rd case the civilian shot and would have potentially killed other civilians and was again terminated. To expect teachers to respond effectively to almost suicidal heavily armed maniacs in schools would not be logical unless the teachers are trained to the level of police officers. And if that is the kind of training and remember also re-training that will be required then you need the teachers to be committed to that level. This is probably neither practical nor possible.

Oggie,
If you're basing your doubts on the video, you need to go and watch that video again. I have watched that video too. Now go back and watch it carefully. Watch it several times. Notice how the Police Officer who is playing the active shooter always zeros in on the student with the gun. He lets everyone else run away but usually the first student shot is the poor dummy with the gun. Oh, he gets a few shot in on the persons on each side of the dummy. That is because the cop already knows which student has the gun. Also notice that the student is always placed dead center in the middle of the row of students. The whole thing is staged specifically to bolster the MSM's point of view that guns are bad and the average person is an idiot and can't be responsible for his own safety. Then they pick the most inept people to represent the gun owner. I'll also mention that no one I know who carries IWB, wears a tight, clingy outer garment. It's pretty bad when one guy can't even get the gun out of the holster. Hell, I could do that when I was ten years old and we played cowboys and Indians.Then you will notice that one student, again with no training and with all the chips stacked against her, actually tags the intruder who is a professional cop. Hmmm! Remember that the NRA has offered free training to any teachers who want to do this. A modicum of training will give one quite an advantage, even if it just shows one how to get the gun out of the holster . As liljoe says, most people who carry concealed, have taken some training. The one student who has fired all those guns; you can tell by his actions that he doesn't have any training in concealed carry. I'll also mention that the MSM in the US today has a heavy bias against guns and any info obtained from them is usually skewed to reflect that bias. Part of that comes from so few people owning so many of the outlets.

Hey XL - You are right, however we have to take this with a pinch of salt ! The chances of a civilian responding to a highly charged stressful situation is bound to be sketchy at the very least. Sure if they were trained regularly to a high standard then it would be a different case, however that is an idealistic situation not realistic in my opinion.

There is such a radical streak of devotion to the second amendment that it is almost scary. I think America needs to ask itself some really hard questions. One of them being the relevance of the 2nd amendment right in today's environmental context.

You can call devotion to the constitution scary but that is the way it is.
In the US, the right to keep and bear arms is a right granted by the constitution.
The relevance of the second amendment can't be called into question. The Supreme Court of the US has certified that. End of story.
The US constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was created. The date is irrelevant.
It (the constitution) IS the highest law of the land.

Sure. I'm not arguing that it is-int the case. I'm arguing that it should not be the case. A document is created by citizens and should be amendable when required...perhaps via referendum perhaps not. Anyways I quite understand that the chances of this ever happening in the US is a good as that of the moon growing cabbages.

Well post that I saw about 5 or so more You Tube video's of guys being absolute Twats , baiting police officers and just trying to make a point. To me this is just silly, unnecessary and distracting the police from the job they are really meant to do anyway.In my opinion and as it is in my country - Firearm ownership should really be a privilege granted based on good character and robust background checks. My country has a very high ratio of firearm owners on a per capita basis yet our gun crime is negligible. Personally I believe this is because our process of issuing a firearms license is robust.

In a lot of those cases, if the police followed the letter of the law, they wouldn't have had a confrontation, regardless of what most of the idiots out there were doing.
Now please remember; in the USA, gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT.
The background check that I have to undergo for EVERY firearm purchase is run by the FBI. Information from my local police is on that check. information from any mental health commitments/treatment that I have undergone is in that database too. I don't see how much more robust it can get. The gun crime committed by citizens who have carry permits is infinitesimal. None of that does anything to stop crime committed by criminals. However, usually most measures taken impact the law abiding citizen and not the criminal. 99.9% of what the politicians want to do are "feel-good" measures that do nothing to stop crime but they keep chipping away at that right.

This is interesting. I did not know that there were such rigorous measures already in place.

[Oggie]

Kia Ora Oggie
This is getting intresting,
I will respond later.
Meanwhile Crack a Woody.
Cheers

Kia Ora me mate - crackin a woody in the middle of the day does not usually go down well with the wife

[xl_target]

Hey XL - You are right, however we have to take this with a pinch of salt ! The chances of a civilian responding to a highly charged stressful situation is bound to be sketchy at the very least. Sure if they were trained regularly to a high standard then it would be a different case, however that is an idealistic situation not realistic in my opinion.

Ok Oggie, it is quite possible that an untrained civilian would not respond fast. However as I mentioned, the NRA has offered free training for any teacher who is interested. Some people come back with stuff like "there is no way they could have enough training and this is best left to the cops. Well, let me let you into another secret. The average police officer in the US has to qualify twice a year and usually with 50 rounds each time. There are some departments that only train once a year. That's it! Sure, specialized units like SWAT spend more time practicing. Let me let you into another secret, a lot of cops can't shoot that well because of their almost non-existent shooting training. Look at what happened in the NY city active shooter shooting. They hit more innocent bystanders with bullets than the perp.
Permit holders in general spend a lot of money on ammo and on training. A lot of permit holders that I know will be faster and more accurate than most cops and more careful about the four rules of gun safety.

A document is created by citizens and should be amendable when required...perhaps via referendum perhaps not.

It can be changed if there are enough votes for that. It works as designed.
Here's what really ticks gun grabbers off. Even with the media on their side, they know that not enough people want to change this.

This is interesting. I did not know that there were such rigorous measures already in place.

It has been this way for a long time. Now you understand what I mean about media bias and the omission of the truth. If you listen to them, anyone can walk into the corner gas station and walk out with a gun.
Now you understand what I mean when I say that one more law is not going to make a difference.
Now you also understand what I mean about gun grabbers wanting more and more concessions? For whatever reason, they hate guns with a religious fervor and will not rest till they are all banned. It's time to just say NO.

So your point is - do away with any checks since the person could become a criminal afterwards anyway ??????? Look Hammerhead, I enjoy a robust but logical argument. If you wish to make points like the one you have made above I cannot argue back....I have to declare myself out...peace !

That's really not fair, Oggie. He said no such thing.
You can choose to debate a point or you can choose to be deliberately obtuse, in which case there is no debate.

[timmy]

There is such a radical streak of devotion to the second amendment that it is almost scary. I think America needs to ask itself some really hard questions. One of them being the relevance of the 2nd amendment right in today's environmental context. You will remember we had a robust discussion on the open carry issue a while back. Well post that I saw about 5 or so more You Tube video's of guys being absolute Twats , baiting police officers and just trying to make a point. To me this is just silly, unnecessary and distracting the police from the job they are really meant to do anyway.

Oggie, I would like to point out a couple of things that you may not be aware of:

1. Back when the original 13 colonies won their freedom from Great Britain and were no longer under "The Crown," these colonies sent representatives to design a government, one that would be spelled out in writing so that kings, tyrants, dictators, and mentally unbalanced rulers (such as King George III) would have limits and responsibilities clearly spelled out for them. Without going into details, these representatives did a fairly good job at building a government from scratch.

However, when they showed their work to the people they represented in the individual colonies, those people did not like the Constitution. It was fine, as far as laying out a government went, but it did nothing to prevent the rights of citizens from being ridden over roughshod, like mad King George and his government had done. They demanded guarantees of citizens rights be written into this new document, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and yes, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

So your reference to a "radical streak of devotion to the Second Amendment" is what got it included, along with Free Speech, Religion, Assembly, etc. in our Constitution as a requirement for its acceptance. Those early Americans, in other words, were the original radicals, and Americans are pretty radical about those same rights today. Trying to force someone to shut up or to join a certain religion against their will is serious business in this country -- most everyone will not stand for it.

Pulling just one right out of the Bill of Rights and calling its supporters radical puts them right in the same company as America's founding fathers and first citizens, who refused the founding father's first work unless all of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights were added to the original document.

Knowing this, your comment seems to lack quite a bit of context.

2. You speak of "guys being absolute Twats." Frankly, I agree with you. I was very angry with gun owners who chose to wear open sidearms when the President -- MY President, mind you -- spoke publicly a few years back.

However, it was their right to do this, and despite my opinion that they exercised poor judgment, I still support their right to have done this. You may not understand why, but let me try to explain something else about America that you don't appear to understand:

Back in the 50s and 60s in America, there was a group that had a different color skin than the majority of Americans, and they said it was their Constitutional right to enjoy the same benefits as others did in this country. They rejected segregated facilities in public places, like buses and public restrooms. They refused to accept laws that curtailed their ability to vote or access the same goods and services others had access to. So what did they do? They DEFIED those laws! They were thrown in jail, lynched, murdered, threatened, and even spied on by the head of the FBI, but they did not stop.

Many so-called "reasonable" people tried to strike a "middle road." They suggested that those "customs" of the South would eventually pass, if everyone would just be more patient and not stir things up with strikes, boycotts, marches, protests, and even that famous tactic of the Mahatma (who, incidentally, Dr. King freely took a page from), non-violent Civil Disobedience.

These people who did these things were also called crude names, just as you have done in your post. But they persevered, and today, we have an African-American President. I was in Europe as a young man in the early 70s, and it stung me to hear Europeans talk about America's race riots, segregation, and long history of injustice, where some citizens were denied the same rights others enjoyed.

Being from New Zealand, you might understand my feelings here, since your own country has not always been free of judging others by the look of their skin, either.

In 2008, I held my head up high, as those European countries still practice racial intolerance and bigotry, while my country elected one of the very people who had been denied here. I looked with pride when my President and his lovely wife walked with Queen Elizabeth. I thought they looked just as good as any of the other rulers and leaders of the world. But I know that their path to this high office, and my own country's progress on these things, had a difficult and dangerous trail blazed for it by people who were willing to demand their rights when others belittled them, spat upon them, beat them, and called them names.

So my two points here to you, oggie, is that, if you understood the way things are done in America, you would have a different outlook on what you term as "radical" and worse (omitting language that the moderators commonly remove on these boards).

I could make some other comments and observations, but as this is a forum that focuses on India and gun rights in India, I'm not going to do that. However, I will observe that your posts in this thread were not always of a friendly nature, which prompted my response to parts of them.

[Oggie]

Hi Timmy,

Firstly - thanks for the detailed response. Its well written and you have presented quite a detailed historical perspective that I do appreciate.
Secondly, its not been my intent to be un-friendly. If I've been so then I apologise.
Thirdly - Lets agree to disagree on some issues.
Regards,

Oggie

[xl_target]

The fixation of anti-gunners against the AR15 and other "Evil Black Rifles" (EBR) is puzzling as they are focusing on how it looks. Maybe years of watching war movies with superhuman America soldiers charging across the landscape, mowing down everything in sight with their M16's have imbued the rifle with some kind of terrible aura (in their minds). I don't know.
Many people don't appreciate the fact that the AR15 is like any other hunting rifle. It is a centerfire, magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle. Why is it that people are fixated on how it looks? I would also like to mention that the AR15 rifle is now about 50 years old, it not some new fad. It is liked by hunters and target shooters because of its ergonomics, inherent accuracy and the very large numbers of accessories available for it. It is also relatively simple in its construction, easy to take down and clean and it is rugged. Everything a hunter looks for in a hunting rifle.

Here is an old Colt ad promoting it as a hunting rifle. Check out the price back then


Image from

[timmy]

Nobody wants to drive a car from the 60s or even the 70s any longer. They look old, often are gas hogs, and many don't even have automatic transmissions or air conditioning. No, people want something new, with exciting styling and ergonomic comfort, along with high tech sound systems and the ability of the car's electronics to remember the mirror and seat settings of multiple drivers.

Yet, when it comes to guns, we gun owners are expected to use equipment that looks like it did in the 1920s! Improvements in ergonomic fit and use of space age materials is fine for every other consumer item, but when it comes to a gun, such things are "evil," which in many minds incites people to commit unspeakable crimes.

How can reasonable people believe such silliness? In the last "assault weapons ban," bayonet lugs and separate pistol grips were considered "evil features," as if the way the gun was held incited people to affix bayonets to long guns and perpetrate atrocities with no doubt whatsoever-- if this were not so, what on earth was the rationale for banning such features?

I have a reasonable amount of mental abilities: present a proposal that makes some sense or has some shred of scientific research to support it! Many of these ideas put forth by anti-rights people belong to a Monty Python show, not reasoned discussion of public policy.

[xl_target]

Ah! Well said Tim. Below is a post from someone who echoes your thinking.

I was on another forum and read this response from a Law Enforcement Officer. I though I would share it here.

I have been an LEO for half a century now. I have also gathered up several degrees(including a PhD and JD-thank you GI bill) and have been teaching part time since 77.
I do not know one real cop who thinks that more restrictive gun laws will help reduce crime or provide more protection for an LEO. A couple of years ago the "U" that I teach at part time changed their policy that prohibited LEO who teach from carrying their weapons to school. Some administrator got some sense and decided that some moron seeing a few guys packing guns around campus couldn't hurt.
The very definition of criminal indicates that he will not obey any laws that hinder his activities.
Our concern with mass killings is very logical, only the potential responses are so diverse that some of them defy logic at any common sense level.
Personally I have never felt threatened by an armed citizen who was not a ciminal. Just about the only gun "control" laws that I would favor is a requirement that an armed citizen be obligated to inform police that he may be interacting with that he is armed, mainly because it could prevent problems if the weapon is observed prior to the LEO knowing about it.

Excerpt from here