Gun Control

[ssimpala]

I believe that the best type of gun control begins with a good set of grips and lots of practice. Now that you know where I stand, let me tell you a little more about myself. I am a Vietnam yet who saw many battles and battle causualties. I am also a retired Texas peace officer having served 37 years. During this time, I also served as Concho County, Texas Sheriff and was elected President of the Sheriff's Association and several other law enforcement associations. A Texas sheriff garners a lot of political power, so to speak, and is often consulted by other polititions on matters of law enforcement, etc. I have advised many times and have testified at both the Texas capitol and in DC. I'm now retired, but as past President of the Sheriff's Association, I "think" I may still have a little political clout.

I am considering calling upon my friends and associates and lobbying against an outright ban on so called "assault weapons" and such. I don't know yet what to offer instead...and for sure, there will be something.

What do you guys think?

[fuzzcar]

Allow the staff to be armed if they have a CCW and wish to carry. Just let them know that it must be on them, or in a locked box that cannot be carried off by a student.

[BALLSS]

OP

My $.02 is the shooter involved who murdered children and the adults trying to protect them would have used ANY gun that was available to him. He chose his moms AR15 but had 2 semi auto hand guns on him + another rifle in his car. The AR15 is not the only clip fed semi auto long gun available so, IMHO, banning AR will not prevent this act of horror. A multi round shotgun for example would have been just as horrific and lethal

While specific details are not in and may never be really known it appears this killer had mental problems and chose to act out against innocent people in this maner. He had access to his moms guns and used them. sitting on this side of the TV it appears more effort should have been made by his mom to secure these weapons from his access vs baning these types of weapons to the general public.

Today Dicks Sporting, cheaperthandirt.com and others have stopped selling AR15's as a result of this horrific action taken by a lone individual. Do I think it will stop these kind of actions, no. Is it a PR step by these companies, possibly. They have the right to sell whatever they want under the current firearm laws in this country

I, like you and assume the rest of us, would embrace a way of preventing these type of massacres but short of collecting every gun, knife, bow & arrow, hammer, screw driver, etc. in the country I don't see banning a 223 cal clip rifle will prevent further incidents. Possibly making the Calif. type AR15 mandatory in every state (10 round, need a "tool" to release clip) would have some effect...but frankly there are very simple ways around that...look on the internet.

A 10/22 in this close shooting circumstance would have been equally as lethal...maybe a smaller wound but still a 25 'legal" round clip fed rifle

Thank you for your selfless service to this country by serving in the military and your years of public protection in law inforcement

[Freedog]

Originally Posted by ssimpala

I believe that the best type of gun control begins with a good set of grips and lots of practice. Now that you know where I stand, let me tell you a little more about myself. I am a Vietnam yet who saw many battles and battle causualties. I am also a retired Texas peace officer having served 37 years. During this time, I also served as Concho County, Texas Sheriff and was elected President of the Sheriff's Association and several other law enforcement associations. A Texas sheriff garners a lot of political power, so to speak, and is often consulted by other polititions on matters of law enforcement, etc. I have advised many times and have testified at both the Texas capitol and in DC. I'm now retired, but as past President of the Sheriff's Association, I "think" I may still have a little political clout.

I am considering calling upon my friends and associates and lobbying against an outright ban on so called "assault weapons" and such. I don't know yet what to offer instead...and for sure, there will be something.



What do you guys think?

I would think that as a former LEO that you would be against these types of weapons being readily available to the general public.

In an effort to stay on topic, I see my opinions on this matter evolving. I personally don't see any redeemable value in having these types of weapons available to the general public. Having said that, I have to agree that banning these weapons wont solve the problem at hand. In fact, I don't have the foggiest idea what can fix the issue at hand. Even more unfortunate is that NO ONE has the foggiest idea on how to move forward no matter if they are for or against gun control. The most unfortunate part of all this is that most people will choose a side and blindly champion their agenda, spend a ridiculous amount of time and resources, and absolutely nothing will be solved.

[ScottLC]

You keep saying "these type of weapons". What do you think they even are? You do know that nothing the media and fringers like Brady and Feinstein and Schumer say is accurate, correct?

This...



does exactly the same thing as this...



Same caliber, same rate of fire. One is an "assault weapon" and on is not.




At least, it isn't until you change some cosmetics...



And suddenly it, too, is an evul "assault weapon".

Of course in truth, nothing changed. Both remain small caliber semi-autos that fire one round with one pull of the trigger. And that's all an "assault weapon" is: It's (supposedly) scary looking.

[Barbarossa]

Ahhh! It's black and doesn't have a wood stock!

I'm scared...

I'm going to call feinstein!

[Big Kahuna]

Yeah, black guns (like black people) scare some Amuricanns!

Seriously though, my thoughts have changed a bit. There is really no good need for a weapon that can fire that quickly and be reloaded so fast to cause such destruction in a civilians hands. Have you LOOKED at your friends and neighbors?

And lately, for obvious reasons, the AR-15 and similar weapons are being used to commit these atrocities.

I really don't know what the answer is. I agree, when does the 'ban' stop? What constitutes a killing machine and what is just a good ole boy huntin' rifle?

I wish I knew, but I do know I'm leaning more towards keeping the high end stuff in the professionals hands.

[Barbarossa]

It is a civil right Bill.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

It is as fundamental as free speech. It is not granted by the bill of rights, but excluded from government restraint, as a natural God given right.

[SSlowride]

I really believe putting more firearms in more hands is the thing to do. I know that while many don't feel that way, I do. I mean think about it... Had the principal of that school had a gun locked away in her office she could have stopped the shooter or at the least, stalled him long enough for police to get there. Instead she could only lunge at the guy and lost her life. Chances are in any of these tragedies no matter what you do, there is going to be casualties, but if there had been another gun present it may have been a much lower number. The more good guys you have on the field, the less chance the bad ones have of doing exponential harm. That is just my view.

About two months ago I purchased my first gun for home defense purposes and I am happy to have done so, and I do feel safer with it in the house. I don't believe banning anything, including assault weapons, is going to do any good. Do I believe that any normal civilian should feel the need to have an assault weapon? No I don't because lets face us, none of us need that kind of fire power in the first place. If someone wants to go through with something like this and they set their mind to it then it doesn't matter what laws or bans we have in place. Its a scary thought, but its human evil and it is never going away.

[ScottLC]

Originally Posted by Big Kahuna

Seriously though, my thoughts have changed a bit. There is really no good need for a weapon that can fire that quickly and be reloaded so fast to cause such destruction in a civilians hands. Have you LOOKED at your friends and neighbors?

I wish I knew, but I do know I'm leaning more towards keeping the high end stuff in the professionals hands.

This is where things seem to fall apart. All semi-auto's fire at the same rate: Each time you squeeze the trigger. The only differences are in milliseconds of lock time. The AR is the Mini 14 is your .22 is your hunting rifle. They all fire equally "quickly". The time it takes to swap a magazine is about as important as the lock time, zip. A dozen 10 rounders or 4 30's means nothing. The only real differences are caliber and all these "evul black rifles" are .223. A little, low end cartridge...and the AR is an almost 60 year old gun. Stoner came up with the .308 version of this thing around '54. There's nothing high-end in any of this.

There's just nothing going on here except cosmetics and media hype.