Gun Control?

Okay, a little aside here.

Looking at the events of the past few weeks, I have to point out I told someone... anyone so.

We have sufficient gun control, the people with guns in C'ville didn't use them. They remained safe because they had them. They remained civil because they had them or they had them because they wished to remain civil & to be given the respect that gun demands if they can't get any other.

The violence was clubs, thrown objects & a car.

Vans are being weaponized all over the place & it's not a new gimick, it's just getting more common. It's easy to get a van & not so easy to get a gun. It's easy to make a bomb & you can't outlaw the materials, you can restrict some of the better chemicals. You cannot restrict ammonia, chlorine, propane, diesel or petrol. You can't restrict nails, ball bearings & broken glass. There's a problem with making guns too difficult to acquire it is that people resort to the next best way to achieve their goals. When an idiot has a gun they shoot one or two people... maybe they shoot 70 & kill a few, when that same idiot uses a car they kill 1 or 20 & injure 20-100 or more. With a gun you have to reload, with a car, var or truck you've got all the fuel you need & plenty of room for a payload. You can't steer a bullet to stay on target & acquire new ones.

 

I'm just saying maybe we take some of that outrage I hear everytime a gun is used for an act of horror & turn it to better tracking rental vans, it's real easy to do & it might have prevented this attack by alerting authorities to the van by colocation.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (19)

  1. stevehayes13

    When someone kills some by using a vehicle as a weapon, they use it to call for more gun control – are you really expecting the gun control lobby to be rational?

    August 18, 2017
    1. Munkyman

      not even a little bit.

      August 18, 2017
    2. fuall

      The problem there is that there’s no clear definition of who the “gun control” lobby is. There are so many factions to this debate that anything approaching common sense just gets painted with the same crazy-as-shit brush of “banning” guns. Those advocating for “control” are usually advocating for exactly that, CONTROL. No one, even the majority of gun owners themselves, opposes common sense measures to help law enforcement. But that’s not where it goes. As soon as someone brings it up, another jumps in with another proposal to ban guns outright, which is a polarizing stance that immediately gets shot down. (pun intended!) If the batshit crazy assholes on the left could bring themselves to accept “control” measures without feeling the need to push for “banning,” they might achieve some measure of success.

      August 18, 2017
      1. Munkyman

        We have plenty of control, the biggest issue is enforcement at the FFL Dealer. They are the single largest source of illegal guns. Straw purchases & family are next. As soon as you create a gun free zone without gun lockers, you create a situation where there’s a gun out of control. I’d like to point out again that the armed protesters actually prevented violence around them. Had they not been armed I have no doubt they would have been assaulted.

        August 19, 2017
        1. fuall

          You’re overlooking the bigger picture. No amount of “gun control” would have stopped any of the attacks where guns were used, which is why most legal gun owners are okay with “common sense” controls like background checks and waiting periods, magazine size limits and even registration. None of those things either interferes with your right to own a gun or is unreasonable for law abiding citizens to comply with to help law enforcement do their jobs. There will always be bad people doing bad things, but they’re not who “regulations” and “laws” are trying to keep in check. By definition outlaws are outside of the law and will simply continue to do whatever the hell they want to no matter what rules, regulations, or laws are passed. But with legal gun owners abiding by reasonable measures, we can seriously reduce the amount of backlash from the left by simply giving them things they whine about that don’t affect the law abiding citizens in the first place. In other words, those whining the most about giving up things 99% of us don’t care about are the ones that need watching… and regulating. I don’t care if they limit my magazine size because I don’t plan on going on a shooting spree. And if I did, there’s little difference in time changing out a 10 round clip repeatedly as opposed to a 40+ if you’ve been trained. “Combat firing” exercises were/are taught to all USArmy recruits (and I assume to Marines as well) as part of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) during basic training. It’s nothing more than awareness (counting) of rounds while firing your weapon so you can drop your clip and insert another after the last round has been chambered so you don’t have to recharge the receiver bolt. Fire 9, drop and pop in a new clip, keep firing.

          August 19, 2017
          1. Munkyman

            I don’t see the use in magazine size limits & I do see the use in large capacity magazines for those who carry in bad weather. I don’t personally favor a 72, but I am quite fond of 32. The issue is the onerous burden of getting a federal permit if you are a person who rides a fence line on a snowmobile.

            August 19, 2017
          2. Munkyman

            The only exclusion to background checks in Virginia is the private sale. Since we aren’t registered to our weapons & won’t be that’s impossible to require or check. They only gun I’ve sold… I still have the bill of sale in my safe more than a decade later.

            August 19, 2017
            1. fuall

              …and most legal gun owners wouldn’t object to some form of background check for private sales either, if someone could come up with a practical method of implementation. Which, again, reinforces my original point that there’s pretty much no practical “gun control,” short of banning them or the ammo outright, that should be a non-starter for legal gun owners, because none of them will impact their rights or interfere with their legal use of those weapons. Additionally, it takes away the argument of the left that somehow implementing these controls will somehow magically stop gun violence. A crazy asshole with a gun is still a crazy asshole with a gun no matter what “controls” you impose on the law-abiding population. And that’s where more focus should be instead of pretend punitive measures levied against law-abiding citizens, focus on weeding out those that aren’t mentally fit to operate weaponry. Between mental health screening and eliminating various legal loopholes with respect to what constitutes a “gun dealer,” there may be a dent put into the episodes of gun violence…over time… a lot of time. Let’s not forget that there’s already over 300 million guns (that we know about) distributed among the population, today. Even if not one more gun were sold we’d be up to our assholes in firearms for years, maybe decades.

              August 19, 2017
            2. Munkyman

              Then they don’t understand the 2nd, a registry makes the 2nd useless. Without a registry background checks cannot be mandated for private sales.

              August 19, 2017
            3. Munkyman

              The major point of the 2nd is to protect ourselves from the authorities. A registry if halfassed would enable the seizure of 1/2 the weapons in civilian hands. If complete would leave us with no choice but, car bombs & suicide vests… big knives.

              August 19, 2017
            4. Munkyman

              Mental health screening is a very subjective process that I will not willingly surrender my rights to. Whites were discriminated against by the Poll Taxes & Literacy Tests too. I am all for flagging those declared incompetent, not tagging them though. In Virginia the standard is that No Freeman Shall Ever Be Debarred the Use of Arms, any restriction has to argue against that ideal. We don’t restore the rights of felons after their sentencing is fulfilled, that to me is not acceptable. I don’t like extended DUI penalties & I don’t like sex offender registries. If they have to be registered they shouldn’t be able to live among us. If they can live among us they don’t need to be labeled.

              August 19, 2017
            5. fuall

              Well, I can’t really argue with anything you’re saying because it’s all “opinion” and doesn’t matter. We’ll have to simply “agree to disagree.”

              August 19, 2017
            6. Munkyman

              We can do that. I’d argue that most of that is logic not opinion, but that’s okay.

              August 20, 2017
  2. T3wig

    I had a good laugh with this one: the people remain safe because they had them…meaning the world is bad…can’t we just get rid of them and start over? The select, the protected, the few in would be secure and shielded from the protection; in which, is idiotic. It is the education…certain other countries possess certain laws that in which they would probably want to enact over America…if you act to in a certain manner…the force dealt with; i.e., in gun control will be meet with a big hole or a missing part. But, upon taking that Office of work; one has to be prepared, to want to workout a strategic plan to educate the public. And, when can individual people start if not wanting to take ownership for the past to give a baseline of a starting point to move forward? in which entails acknowledging. So the gathering was not to go hunting but to protect in a protest what the ideology of what the Statue stood for…tragic and :sad:

    August 21, 2017
    1. Munkyman

      You don’t just get rid of technology, guns exist many people know how to make them & thanks to CAD drawings & 3D mills/printers, computers can make guns… really good ones. SO when we accept that the only way to get rid of guns is a global apocalypse that results in a very long tribal dark age where we lose even the memory of technology.
      Lee would not have wanted the Civil War memorials to have never been erected beyond the graves, he said as much 4 years after the war. Stonewall Jackson was a devout Presbyterian, I don’t think he’d be that comfortable with his graven image on a pedestal.
      The reality is that those who were armed with long guns were able to do their thing, they got yelled at, but nobody threw anything at them, touched them or in any credible way threaten them. They used their 2nd as it was intended to protect their 1st Amendment right to peacefully assemble.

      August 21, 2017
      1. T3wig

        I agree there is different ways to honor a person and mention their contribution to beliefs that exhibits the 2nd but I guess that would be for museums in a memorial.

        August 22, 2017
      2. T3wig

        protect their 2nd amendment rights but not in deceptive practice as to lie and deceive but to protect such practices for the gain of getting ahead. It was the state of the people’s rights granted by the State to peacefully assemble the gathering of hostile being opposed to being in bondage that had been contrary to individual people’s belief, the love of a Superior Being, God. That stands out to protect us in the safety of the regulation of rules that we must learn how to respect ourselves for the advancement of the human race which is to honor the respect for people to peacefully assemble.

        August 22, 2017
        1. Munkyman

          2nd Amendment Rights are not about getting ahead, they have nothing to do with hunting, they are about the ability to preserve all your other rights yourself. In this case to assemble peacefully & utilize free speech to petition the local government. It’s a damn shame they had to carry long guns to assure themselves of this, but there’s ample proof from the day that had they not been credibly armed they would have been subjected to abuse.

          August 22, 2017
          1. T3wig

            That is a strong argument; which, point is taken. But arguably when the emotions of feeling surmount rational thoughts in the order of thinking is and has become in the proper channels lost. In which, in the proper petition had in order of request been broken upon freedom of speech; in whom, in a distort having not sought the correct interrogatory question in the proper sentencing. Thus being ill equipped subject to abuse under represented in representation.

            August 25, 2017