I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Even the most cursory glance at anti-firearm organization websites discloses their ultimate goal of ending private firearm ownership, with the current agenda focused on destroying the firearm industry (which will pose sort of a quandary for law enforcement since that’s who supplies their guns) by making them liable for the criminal misbehavior of others, perverting longstanding jurisprudence in the US.

Punishing decent people and businesses for the predations of criminal psychopaths isn’t common sense; it’s nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you mentioned the amount of training and how fast someone could pull a gun.

I was surprised that the person who shot the YouTuber at Dulles Town Center pulled his gun out AND shot it so fast. It’s almost as though he did that in one fluid motion, which seems to indicate a high level of skill.

Maybe that guy learned to shoot as a kid? Or would the training to use a gun be better than some of us assume.

I don’t carry a gun btw.

It was a decently fast draw but it’s nothing crazy for concealed carry folks who have a bit of practice. A lot of modern guns like Glocks don’t have a manual safety which means you only need to pull the trigger to fire once it’s removed from the holster which speeds things up. Manual safeties can get you killed if you forget to flip it off in the stress of a self defense situation. Glocks have several internal safeties which make them safe to carry with a chambered round as long as the trigger is protected.

Thank you. How would a manual safety get you killed if you forget to flip it off?

PP

The manual safety poster has been reading too many gun magazines. The thesis is that since the gun won’t fire with the safety engaged, if the user needs the gun in an emergency but fails to disengage (not “flip off”) the safety, they will not be able to discharge a round and might be overcome by their attacker before they sort out the issue.

Firearm safeties vary in design, and some are easier to miss than others, but if a person has done any practice with their weapon they should be disengaging the safety as part of the draw stroke and should not need to think about it.

Indeed you shouldn’t need to think about it with proper training, but it is an additional step that can in theory slow you down when every split second counts. Self defense situations are very up close and personal where you are going to be in extreme fight or flight mode, I prefer to have fewer things to think about in a scenario like that. It’s more a matter of opinion and depends on the type of person carrying. The US military insists on manual safeties on their sidearms for regular enlisted soldiers and they had Sig create a special version of the P320 that has one. The Navy SEAL teams use Glock 19’s with no manual safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

Switzerland issues fully automatic (machine gun) assault rifles (real ones, not just scary looking sporting rifles) and ammunition to its personnel including reservists, to be kept at home. Reservists constitute the bulk of the Swiss military.

Citation?

My understanding is that fully automatic weapons are for active duty only and soldiers are NOT allowed to store ammunition at home. Reservists can keep their gun after it’s converted to semi-automatic. And only after they’ve requested a permit and provided justification.

Why do you think the government would “insist” that you are issued one immediately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

Sign up for “active duty”? WTAF? Did you read my post at all? I’ve served in TWO wars. I was medically retired due to hearing loss from gunfire, explosions and helicopter noise. Otherwise I’d still be on active duty today. I lost my career because I went half-deaf from combat operations….

That you think “would you sign up for active duty?” is some kind of gotcha-question to give me pause…. it’s revealing. It’s illustrative about how little you understand about a lot of things, reading comprehension being only one of them.


We’re going to have to accept that we are never going agree on things.

Thank me for my service. Good day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

The AR15-type rifle (and similar/copies of it) accounts for 80% of all rifles in the US. There are more AR15-type rifles in US than there are SUV’s - of ALL makes, that are on the road. There is roughly 1 AR15-type rifle for every 6.2 people in the US. The AR15-type rifle is likely of the 100 most common objects that has ever been manufactured. That’s how many AR15’s there are.


When your “common sense” gun laws ban the most ubiquitous gun in the history of the country, there’s absolutely nothing common sense about them.

Are you okay with banning some types of guns, though?

Nope. None.

That unambiguous enough? Or do I need to further elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

Sign up for “active duty”? WTAF? Did you read my post at all? I’ve served in TWO wars. I was medically retired due to hearing loss from gunfire, explosions and helicopter noise. Otherwise I’d still be on active duty today. I lost my career because I went half-deaf from combat operations….

That you think “would you sign up for active duty?” is some kind of gotcha-question to give me pause…. it’s revealing. It’s illustrative about how little you understand about a lot of things, reading comprehension being only one of them.


We’re going to have to accept that we are never going agree on things.

Thank me for my service. Good day.

I'm not sure what was so upsetting by my comment.

My understanding is that fully automatic weapons are for active duty only (which is why I asked about active duty) and soldiers are NOT allowed to store ammunition at home. Reservists can keep their gun after it’s converted to semi-automatic. And only after they’ve requested a permit and provided justification.

Again, why do you think the government would “insist” that you are issued one immediately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

Sign up for “active duty”? WTAF? Did you read my post at all? I’ve served in TWO wars. I was medically retired due to hearing loss from gunfire, explosions and helicopter noise. Otherwise I’d still be on active duty today. I lost my career because I went half-deaf from combat operations….

That you think “would you sign up for active duty?” is some kind of gotcha-question to give me pause…. it’s revealing. It’s illustrative about how little you understand about a lot of things, reading comprehension being only one of them.


We’re going to have to accept that we are never going agree on things.

Thank me for my service. Good day.

I'm not sure what was so upsetting by my comment.

My understanding is that fully automatic weapons are for active duty only (which is why I asked about active duty) and soldiers are NOT allowed to store ammunition at home. Reservists can keep their gun after it’s converted to semi-automatic. And only after they’ve requested a permit and provided justification.

Again, why do you think the government would “insist” that you are issued one immediately?

Actually not true. You have to apply for a license with ATF to own a VERY expensive and old automatic weapon, but they can be obtained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

Sign up for “active duty”? WTAF? Did you read my post at all? I’ve served in TWO wars. I was medically retired due to hearing loss from gunfire, explosions and helicopter noise. Otherwise I’d still be on active duty today. I lost my career because I went half-deaf from combat operations….

That you think “would you sign up for active duty?” is some kind of gotcha-question to give me pause…. it’s revealing. It’s illustrative about how little you understand about a lot of things, reading comprehension being only one of them.


We’re going to have to accept that we are never going agree on things.

Thank me for my service. Good day.

I'm not sure what was so upsetting by my comment.

My understanding is that fully automatic weapons are for active duty only (which is why I asked about active duty) and soldiers are NOT allowed to store ammunition at home. Reservists can keep their gun after it’s converted to semi-automatic. And only after they’ve requested a permit and provided justification.

Again, why do you think the government would “insist” that you are issued one immediately?

Actually not true. You have to apply for a license with ATF to own a VERY expensive and old automatic weapon, but they can be obtained.

PP and I are discussing fully automatic weapons in Switzerland. Not sure if PP understands the current laws there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like proposed common sense gun control then I fully support changing over to the Swiss model of gun control. I’ll take that over our “draconian” laws.

So you’re comfortable with me living nextdoor to you with a fully automatic SIG 551 machine gun? Because the government would insist I be issued one immediately, as I meet/exceed all the applicable criteria: no criminal or psychiatric record and of military service age, in addition to: former military, combat Veteran, business owner, holder of a postgraduate degree, author, volunteer firefighter.

There’s lots of similarly qualified people in this country, many millions just like me who’ve been to war on your behalf. Under the Swiss system, there’d be a machine gun in every one of our homes.

So you’re cool with that?

Maybe.

Why are you so confident that “the government would insist” that you are issued a fully automatic SIG 551 “immediately”?

You would sign up for active duty?

Sign up for “active duty”? WTAF? Did you read my post at all? I’ve served in TWO wars. I was medically retired due to hearing loss from gunfire, explosions and helicopter noise. Otherwise I’d still be on active duty today. I lost my career because I went half-deaf from combat operations….

That you think “would you sign up for active duty?” is some kind of gotcha-question to give me pause…. it’s revealing. It’s illustrative about how little you understand about a lot of things, reading comprehension being only one of them.


We’re going to have to accept that we are never going agree on things.

Thank me for my service. Good day.

I'm not sure what was so upsetting by my comment.

My understanding is that fully automatic weapons are for active duty only (which is why I asked about active duty) and soldiers are NOT allowed to store ammunition at home. Reservists can keep their gun after it’s converted to semi-automatic. And only after they’ve requested a permit and provided justification.

Again, why do you think the government would “insist” that you are issued one immediately?

Actually not true. You have to apply for a license with ATF to own a VERY expensive and old automatic weapon, but they can be obtained.

PP and I are discussing fully automatic weapons in Switzerland. Not sure if PP understands the current laws there.

^ and, more specifically, the automatic weapons issued to active military members (vs reservists or retirees).

[Anonymous]

Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

There are certainly MANY things we can do to reduce gun violence that don't involve "depriving decent people of their own rights". The US has faced spiraling gun violence in the past and regulation (ie, National Firearms Act of 1934) has successfully reduced gun homicides.

Looking at which policies can effectively change gun violence:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

There are certainly MANY things we can do to reduce gun violence that don't involve "depriving decent people of their own rights". The US has faced spiraling gun violence in the past and regulation (ie, National Firearms Act of 1934) has successfully reduced gun homicides.

Looking at which policies can effectively change gun violence:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The National Firearms Act was aimed at violent bootlegging gangsters and bank robbers. The gangsters got sent to jail for tax evasion, put out of business by the repeal of prohibition, and learned to go underground to avoid attention. The bank robbers, well, ask Bonnie, Clyde, Baby Face Nelson about how they got handled. Not with kid gloves. Comparing the NFA to the preposterous patchwork of redundant confiscatory measures proposed today is ridiculous. And the NFA may well be unconstitutional. Read the posts on DCUM — people with an irrational fear of guns and their own interior rage and violence want to end private firearm ownership. They’ve just learned not to admit it outright.

Possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited persons; possession of ammunition by felons and other prohibited persons; interstate sales of handguns; straw purchases; sales to minors; theft of firearms; smuggling of firearms; and every form of criminal misuse of firearms — each and every one of these things is already unlawful at the federal level.

DC has at least the following gun laws:

1. All firearms must be registered.
2. Unlawful to possess unregistered firearm.
3. Unlawful to possess ammunition without registered firearm.
4. Lengthy list of banned long guns by name and/or characteristics.
5. Specified list of handguns allowed -- no "Saturday Night Specials."
6. Unlawful to carry firearm openly.
7. Unlawful to carry pistol without a license.
8. Training with actual target exam required for license.
9. Places where licensed pistol can be carried highly restricted.
10. No open carry.
11. No vehicular long gun carry.
12. No possession of firearms or ammunition by minors, prohibited persons (felons, drug users, violent mentally ill).
13. No private sale of firearms.
14. Prepurchase safety training.
15. Background check on all purchases.
16. Longstanding (at least the 1970's) limit to 10 round magazine capacity.
17. Negligent firearm use unlawful
18. Criminal firearm use unlawful.
19. Use of firearm in crime of violence, drug crime, etc., unlawful.

Oh “but the guns come from other places, so all those places need the same restrictions as DC!”

Balderdash. Trafficking firearms into DC is already unlawful. As is trafficking of illicit drugs — and there is no shortage of those, just as there will be no shortage of firearms in criminal hands as long as the focus is on inanimate objects and not the criminals who misuse them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Lies. Common sense gun control doesn’t “take away guns” from anyone who shouldn’t have them.

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

None of those infringe on 2A or propose "taking away all guns from responsible gun owners"

Even the most cursory glance at anti-firearm organization websites discloses their ultimate goal of ending private firearm ownership, with the current agenda focused on destroying the firearm industry (which will pose sort of a quandary for law enforcement since that’s who supplies their guns) by making them liable for the criminal misbehavior of others, perverting longstanding jurisprudence in the US.

Punishing decent people and businesses for the predations of criminal psychopaths isn’t common sense; it’s nonsense.

None of these "punish decent people"

Expanded mandatory universal background checks which includes any documented history of mental illness, domestic violence, anger management issues
A persistent database tracking every gun transaction
Stop sale of military-patterned weapons like AR-15s
Stop sale of extended capacity magazines
Red flag laws
And there are many many more very reasonable and common-sense gun control proposals

There's absolutely no rational reason why we shouldn't be pursuing them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

There are certainly MANY things we can do to reduce gun violence that don't involve "depriving decent people of their own rights". The US has faced spiraling gun violence in the past and regulation (ie, National Firearms Act of 1934) has successfully reduced gun homicides.

Looking at which policies can effectively change gun violence:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The National Firearms Act was aimed at violent bootlegging gangsters and bank robbers. The gangsters got sent to jail for tax evasion, put out of business by the repeal of prohibition, and learned to go underground to avoid attention. The bank robbers, well, ask Bonnie, Clyde, Baby Face Nelson about how they got handled. Not with kid gloves. Comparing the NFA to the preposterous patchwork of redundant confiscatory measures proposed today is ridiculous. And the NFA may well be unconstitutional. Read the posts on DCUM — people with an irrational fear of guns and their own interior rage and violence want to end private firearm ownership. They’ve just learned not to admit it outright.

Possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited persons; possession of ammunition by felons and other prohibited persons; interstate sales of handguns; straw purchases; sales to minors; theft of firearms; smuggling of firearms; and every form of criminal misuse of firearms — each and every one of these things is already unlawful at the federal level.

DC has at least the following gun laws:

1. All firearms must be registered.
2. Unlawful to possess unregistered firearm.
3. Unlawful to possess ammunition without registered firearm.
4. Lengthy list of banned long guns by name and/or characteristics.
5. Specified list of handguns allowed -- no "Saturday Night Specials."
6. Unlawful to carry firearm openly.
7. Unlawful to carry pistol without a license.
8. Training with actual target exam required for license.
9. Places where licensed pistol can be carried highly restricted.
10. No open carry.
11. No vehicular long gun carry.
12. No possession of firearms or ammunition by minors, prohibited persons (felons, drug users, violent mentally ill).
13. No private sale of firearms.
14. Prepurchase safety training.
15. Background check on all purchases.
16. Longstanding (at least the 1970's) limit to 10 round magazine capacity.
17. Negligent firearm use unlawful
18. Criminal firearm use unlawful.
19. Use of firearm in crime of violence, drug crime, etc., unlawful.

Oh “but the guns come from other places, so all those places need the same restrictions as DC!”

Balderdash. Trafficking firearms into DC is already unlawful. As is trafficking of illicit drugs — and there is no shortage of those, just as there will be no shortage of firearms in criminal hands as long as the focus is on inanimate objects and not the criminals who misuse them.

Not "balderdash" at all. Chicago also has horrific gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The problem is that less than a half hour away from Chicago, Indiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. A loose patchwork of local laws clearly does not work, because then criminals will just find the weakest link, like Chicago criminals going to Indiana or DC criminals going to Virginia. This is why we need stronger national laws.

For all your handwaving and impotent arguments of "balderdash" this really isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

There are certainly MANY things we can do to reduce gun violence that don't involve "depriving decent people of their own rights". The US has faced spiraling gun violence in the past and regulation (ie, National Firearms Act of 1934) has successfully reduced gun homicides.

Looking at which policies can effectively change gun violence:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The National Firearms Act was aimed at violent bootlegging gangsters and bank robbers. The gangsters got sent to jail for tax evasion, put out of business by the repeal of prohibition, and learned to go underground to avoid attention. The bank robbers, well, ask Bonnie, Clyde, Baby Face Nelson about how they got handled. Not with kid gloves. Comparing the NFA to the preposterous patchwork of redundant confiscatory measures proposed today is ridiculous. And the NFA may well be unconstitutional. Read the posts on DCUM — people with an irrational fear of guns and their own interior rage and violence want to end private firearm ownership. They’ve just learned not to admit it outright.

Possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited persons; possession of ammunition by felons and other prohibited persons; interstate sales of handguns; straw purchases; sales to minors; theft of firearms; smuggling of firearms; and every form of criminal misuse of firearms — each and every one of these things is already unlawful at the federal level.

DC has at least the following gun laws:

1. All firearms must be registered.
2. Unlawful to possess unregistered firearm.
3. Unlawful to possess ammunition without registered firearm.
4. Lengthy list of banned long guns by name and/or characteristics.
5. Specified list of handguns allowed -- no "Saturday Night Specials."
6. Unlawful to carry firearm openly.
7. Unlawful to carry pistol without a license.
8. Training with actual target exam required for license.
9. Places where licensed pistol can be carried highly restricted.
10. No open carry.
11. No vehicular long gun carry.
12. No possession of firearms or ammunition by minors, prohibited persons (felons, drug users, violent mentally ill).
13. No private sale of firearms.
14. Prepurchase safety training.
15. Background check on all purchases.
16. Longstanding (at least the 1970's) limit to 10 round magazine capacity.
17. Negligent firearm use unlawful
18. Criminal firearm use unlawful.
19. Use of firearm in crime of violence, drug crime, etc., unlawful.

Oh “but the guns come from other places, so all those places need the same restrictions as DC!”

Balderdash. Trafficking firearms into DC is already unlawful. As is trafficking of illicit drugs — and there is no shortage of those, just as there will be no shortage of firearms in criminal hands as long as the focus is on inanimate objects and not the criminals who misuse them.

Not "balderdash" at all. Chicago also has horrific gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The problem is that less than a half hour away from Chicago, Indiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. A loose patchwork of local laws clearly does not work, because then criminals will just find the weakest link, like Chicago criminals going to Indiana or DC criminals going to Virginia. This is why we need stronger national laws.

For all your handwaving and impotent arguments of "balderdash" this really isn't rocket science.

Every single sale between Illinois and a Indiana that did not go through a federally licensed firearm dealer and/or was not conducted by the actual ultimate recipient, who was truthful in every way on the required declarations, was already a federal felony (indeed, probably multiple federal felonies, each of which is a slam-dunk case).

So for all your hand waving and impotent arguments of “common sense,” and “stronger national laws,” you’re right — it really isn’t rocket science — you can’t get much stronger than an absolute prohibition accompanied by two decades in federal prison for violation.