Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

america is one of the most violent countries on earth, we tend to be opinionated, hostile, and poorly educated

our egos are often both enormous and frail at the same time

we feel very self entitled as if we deserve whatever we want, and yet resentful when its suggested we have to give up ANYTHING, even our opinions

i do agree that its easierthan it ought to be to get guns, and i agree that there are restrictions and laws which it seems obvious need to be initiated, but imo these shootings are a trend, and like all trends they will spike and they will eventually decline, and i dont want to put the wrong permanent solution in effect to curb a temporary problem

more than that, the fact that i dont pursue the "lets outlaw guns" line of reasoning as a solution to gun violence isnt because i think its too hard to achieve

i dont pursue it because i think its the wrong solution

to me, the question is this: "how do we affect our society so that it gets more efficient at producing individuals who are intelligent, self sufficient, courageous, honest,and respectful of themselves and each other?"

no other line of inquiry is appropriate at this point in our national development - the is the pivotal issue of our era and it is by and large being dismissed in favor of much smaller, less consequential and more divisive topics

this is a much more layered question but imo we cant afford not to face it directly, even at the expense of other issues, including this one

we dont know how to get along with each other and to a great extent we have forgotten how to be responsible

thats what we have to deal with
if we can meet that challenge, then it will really be possible to meet all the others in an effective way

until we meet it, its not

Just out of curiosity...I've heard it at least 3 times on this thread alone, and somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times between FB and Twitter... what's with this "disarming us, "disarming citizens," "taking guns away from law abiding citizens" bullshit?

Excuse my language because that's exactly what it is. Will someone please explain to me why, who, and how they're taking them away? Is the ATF showing up at every registered gun owners house and confiscating every gun in the country? Or maybe, just maybe, people seem to be ignoring the part that says common sense. Like stopping the wrong people from accessing guns, eliminating assault rifles, and implementing Universal Background Checks. That also means getting rid of gun show loopholes, private sales, etc. Joe Blow does not need an assault rifle to defend themselves. Defend yourself against whom, the US Government? Why do you need an assault rifle? "Because it's my right to have one!" Regardless of the incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, if you want to cling to that so bad you get the same rifle they got when they wrote it. Even if it is your right to own a weapon, you don't get to own whichever weapon your heart desires. You don't get to have RGPs and tanks and military/police assault rifles. What does Joe Blow need with a military/police assault rifle when he's not military or police? Can someone please explain the logic behind that? "Those rifles certainly didn't look California regulated." Perhaps they got them somewhere else like say AZ or TX or wherever there's lax gun regulation and brought them here. What a concept. No one is disarming the citizens. Where's the common sense in making them harder to get for people who shouldn't have them in the first place? Well...because criminals will act like criminals anyways and get them anyways. Ok...so we're not going to try and make it harder anyway becauuusee??? Might as well throw the driving traffic laws out the window, criminals are going to act like criminals anyways so, what's the point in even having traffic laws? I'm sorry, I'm just so sick of this happening in our country and I especially don't want to see it happen 5min away from my Dad's office building ever again. So please people....where's your common sense to pass common sense laws?

No one is talking about eliminating legal gun ownership. No one. So please don't throw that out there as if it's a serious matter on the table, which it never will be because of the 2nd Amendment. Will the banning of assault rifles solve one of many problems? Yes. Should we do it? Yes. Why aren't we then? Onto the next problem...Will universal background checks solve one of many problems? Yes. Does the vast majority of American citizens, including gun owners and the vast majority of NRA members, agree? Yes. Should we do it? Yes. Why aren't we then? Onto the next problem...

1) Recruiting, training, and implementing non-lethal force and apprehension by Police with civil oversight
2) Judicial inequality
3) Racial inequality
4) Income inequality
5) Ease of health care access for all (specially mental health)....

It's a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. Not implementing one because it doesn't solve the entire problem makes zero sense.

/rant

OB1Shinobi wrote: to me, the question is this: "how do we affect our society so that it gets more efficient at producing individuals who are intelligent, self sufficient, courageous, honest,and respectful of themselves and each other?"

no other line of inquiry is appropriate at this point in our national development - the is the pivotal issue of our era and it is by and large being dismissed in favor of much smaller, less consequential and more divisive topics

Couldn't have hit it any more on the head. Create a culture of peace and only then do we stand a chance

Couldn't have hit it any more on the head. Create a culture of peace and only then do we stand a chance

I wonder which lobby group will support this. Certainly not BigOil or BiggerGuns. not even "moms against being shot at by their own toddlers of america" will, because let's be frank the problem is with the tool, not with the people. It's easy to tell which belongs and which does not: People and their behaviors are naturally occurring, guns are not.

It's a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. Not implementing one because it doesn't solve the entire problem makes zero sense.

No one has made this argument.

The rest is a bit confusing as well, but I will just look at this part.

Like stopping the wrong people from accessing guns, eliminating assault rifles, and implementing Universal Background Checks. That also means getting rid of gun show loopholes, private sales, etc. Joe Blow does not need an assault rifle to defend themselves. Defend yourself against whom, the US Government? Why do you need an assault rifle? "Because it's my right to have one!" Regardless of the incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, if you want to cling to that so bad you get the same rifle they got when they wrote it.

There are background checks for guns, a lot of cases in recent mass shootings have been people circumventing that through various means. I believe one stole his mothers gun(s) and if im not mistaken killed her. Well, thats more than a gun problem, as that mentality is not going to be stopped by most any measure of security.

No, no one needs an assault rifle, but what if they want one? What about the right to freedom of choice, and expression? Do you know just how many guns are out in the US, and how many people that do not shoot other people?

What makes the mass shootings unique to this is that its almost unstoppable. The process, the method is not as predictable as you want to make it.

What about fertilizer? Timothy Mcveigh used a van and some clever chemistry to level half of a building. I think people forget that. Unabomber also did not use guns. BTK did not use guns.So, shootings are out? Well, what about bombings? In the case of Columbine, they were using propane explosives, they just had poor craftsmanship.

You also do know that its not exclusively assault rifles that are used in these shootings yes? People, when properly motivated are quite creative. Necessity is mother of invention and all.

Also in those cases people are taking it upon themselves

People and their behaviors are naturally occurring, guns are not.

What do you mean by naturally occurring? They are a product of us, they are naturally occurring.

In any case, murder, is one of those behaviors that are naturally occurring, and that is why you do not blame the tool because murder is not exclusive to fire arms.

So, now, when it comes to the more passionate of those individuals on this topic, if it is that important to you, what are you doing in your communities to make that world you want.

Who are you looking to, too address the problem of guns, and violence in your communities and the world.

Outrage only goes so far, so does finger pointing. So ranting, while there is nothing wrong with it, it accomplishes little in regards to a solution, or solutions, and it implements nothing

The argument of how to stop these mass shooting has been a long and seemly unmoving one. Is an untrained citizen capable of properly defending themselves? When reacting to any situation that cause high stress you can use a simple color coded system. Code White- unaware and casual, a feeling of total security. Code Yellow - aware of your surroundings, scanning, and constant assessment of situation. Code Orange - Possible threat detected, heightened awareness, preparing response to possible threat. Code Red - Active threat occurring, responding to threat. Code Black - Extreme tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, under respond or over respond.

Most people go about their day functioning in Code White because to operate in Code Yellow is a very draining process and takes a level of skill and practice that people don't bother with. In a high stress situation if you are in Code White you will instantly move to Code Black. This is the inherit problem with untrained people expecting to respond to a high stress situation.

I will never advocate the disarming of a people but expecting untrained people to respond properly is not an answer. Goken quoted any FBI study showing 21 out of 161 people responded. It goes to the credit that most will freeze. Now give someone in the other 140 incidents a gun and I would be curious to see if that number would change. A gun is a tool but by having a gun it does not change how people react, it's doesn't make you more confident or a good shot.

Saying there are already gun laws on the books, you would be correct, but the majority of gun laws are only prosecutable by the federal government, not local authorities. I’ll tell you from experience getting the federal government to prosecute is a challenge.

In order for this discussion to move forward in any meaningful way, emotion needs to be taken out. Fear that the government is going to take your guns away puts a thought process that, number one the government is organized enough, and number two willing to fight anyone that opposes them. Regulation does have a chance to decrease availability. Use Colorado as an example. Since marijuana has been legalized, marijuana use has increased across the board. The more available something is, the more it is used. Criminals will always be able to find away but being able to save one life would make it wroth it. Mental health is also an issue but I’ll save that for another day.
We as a nation need to step back and talk about this problem logically and without extreme emotion so we may find the middle ground.

Desolous wrote: I really appreciate you guys complete defeat in the face of a terrible problem. /s

'Oh, there's too many guns. We can't do it, its impossible. We'll just have to suck it up and get shot in herds randomly just about every day in random locations by random people.'

Khaos, I guess you are excused here. But to you who call yourself Jedi, I am disappointed in this viewpoint. Defeat. Acceptance of the terrible status quo.

Next, your precious second amendment rights do not trump my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let's get that straight. These are terror attacks, emboldened and enabled by the above mentioned acquiescence, and premature defeat.

And You are partly culpable. Each and every time. Because you accept it. You allow it. You oppose serious change. And in the case of Fox quote unquote news junkies and the like spewing hate and falsehoods, even more so culpable, to the point of actual criminality.

There will be change. It is the only constant in life. And in the world I see, many decades from now, my grandkids will wonder at how we allowed just everyone to own a gun or at least get their hands on one, and then use it any way they wish. And I say this as a trained and decorated former soldier: most of you civilians are simply not qualified to own and or operate a firearm. In my professional opinion.

I want to be on the right side of history. I want to be for right, for justice. I want to act as a Jedi should. And allowing these things to continue is simply not it. And you have to ask yourself, each of us does, 'what would a Jedi do here'?

:laugh:

Look Jedi or not, every individual must decide for themselves whether or not they will accept that violence exists and can happen at anytime, whether a mass shooting or someone just beating you up on the street for your money. Those who do not take responsibility for their own safety, not because of fear but just by understanding how the world is, are the ones who have accepted this and allow it to happen. And those who will just emotionally react to these rare albeit tragic events and attempt to make decisions without even attempting to look at or understand all the facts, statistics and history regarding guns and these incidents are in for a rude awakening when these solutions don't end up having the effect they so desire. There are millions of gun owners and millions more guns, yet there are only a TINY handful of people who go out and commit these atrocious acts.

No one's second ammendment rights have ever trumped your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in actual fact it is because of this precious second ammendment that you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention freedom of speech and the rest. Maybe you'd prefer to raise your grandchildren in China? I think most "civillians" as you call them arming themselves for defense or sporting uses don't seem to need qualifications as 95% of them aren't out killing people or doing anything crazy with their firearms.

BionicPianoMan wrote: Just out of curiosity...I've heard it at least 3 times on this thread alone, and somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times between FB and Twitter... what's with this "disarming us, "disarming citizens," "taking guns away from law abiding citizens" bullshit?

Excuse my language because that's exactly what it is. Will someone please explain to me why, who, and how they're taking them away? Is the ATF showing up at every registered gun owners house and confiscating every gun in the country? Or maybe, just maybe, people seem to be ignoring the part that says common sense. Like stopping the wrong people from accessing guns, eliminating assault rifles, and implementing Universal Background Checks. That also means getting rid of gun show loopholes, private sales, etc. Joe Blow does not need an assault rifle to defend themselves. Defend yourself against whom, the US Government? Why do you need an assault rifle? "Because it's my right to have one!" Regardless of the incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, if you want to cling to that so bad you get the same rifle they got when they wrote it. Even if it is your right to own a weapon, you don't get to own whichever weapon your heart desires. You don't get to have RGPs and tanks and military/police assault rifles. What does Joe Blow need with a military/police assault rifle when he's not military or police? Can someone please explain the logic behind that? "Those rifles certainly didn't look California regulated." Perhaps they got them somewhere else like say AZ or TX or wherever there's lax gun regulation and brought them here. What a concept. No one is disarming the citizens. Where's the common sense in making them harder to get for people who shouldn't have them in the first place? Well...because criminals will act like criminals anyways and get them anyways. Ok...so we're not going to try and make it harder anyway becauuusee??? Might as well throw the driving traffic laws out the window, criminals are going to act like criminals anyways so, what's the point in even having traffic laws? I'm sorry, I'm just so sick of this happening in our country and I especially don't want to see it happen 5min away from my Dad's office building ever again. So please people....where's your common sense to pass common sense laws?

No one is talking about eliminating legal gun ownership. No one. So please don't throw that out there as if it's a serious matter on the table, which it never will be because of the 2nd Amendment. Will the banning of assault rifles solve one of many problems? Yes. Should we do it? Yes. Why aren't we then? Onto the next problem...Will universal background checks solve one of many problems? Yes. Does the vast majority of American citizens, including gun owners and the vast majority of NRA members, agree? Yes. Should we do it? Yes. Why aren't we then? Onto the next problem...

1) Recruiting, training, and implementing non-lethal force and apprehension by Police with civil oversight
2) Judicial inequality
3) Racial inequality
4) Income inequality
5) Ease of health care access for all (specially mental health)....

It's a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. Not implementing one because it doesn't solve the entire problem makes zero sense.

/rant

Well you're talking about getting rid of "assault rifles" which you must mean semiautomatic rifles with detachable magainzes, any weapon can be an assault weapon. I'm sorry your bubble was bursted by the recent event striking so very close to home but, if you ban semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines (disarmament) you're just going to make criminals and terrorists have much more power over the herds of people who refuse to defend themselves and those who would defend themselves. Again, so many MILLIONS of these evil, black rifles that you're scared of are already out there and only less than a few dozen have ever caused any mass amount of tragedy and harm. The thing is I think those next problems you listed are actually the primary causes of these tragic events.

Why do I and others want military/police style weapons? They're more efficient, comfortable and easier to use whether just having fun at the range, hunting, or if in the rare yet possible defensive situation against criminals as an effective deterrent. Are there some idiots out there who act stupid and maybe get this style of rifle for shady fantasy reasons? Of course but if they don't have an outstanding criminal history or have had some psychological issues then there's no reason why they shouldn't if they want it and don't have ill intentions. Gun free zones and an unarmed populace just invites abuse and makes for easy targets.

I guess you don't understand why people are so worried about being disarmed and having their guns confiscated. Well for one there's many people in political positions who believe citizens should not own guns and so they slowly increase the gun control rhetoric, not because they actually care about violence but because it's a good way to get votes and support by appealing to the unthinking gullables and if only people didn't have guns they'd be able to push anything on them. It's also because in countries like Russia, China, Germany, Turkey that when gun control was implemented and people were disarmed it gave way to the genocide of millions of people who were no longer able to defend themselves. Also while the US government can't manage it's economy or take care of it's infrastructure and citizens, supplies millions of dollars in weapons to various terrorist organizations, does not fulfill the basics of border protection, and whose foreign policy opens the door and basically invites terrorist attacks I would say that people should have genuine concern about the need for potentially defending themselves against a government operating under it's own prerogative or those who come to hurt you because of your government. The government and police cannot always protect you and can actually hurt you.

But you know what? Putting all the rhetoric aside I agree with you that there should be enhanced background checks, there should be documentation of transfers and even registration. Why people are so opposed to common sense controls is that the government will always be expanding the reasons for becoming prohibited from owning firearms and you never know what's going to make you unable. Yup this is a touchy issue and can get emotional for everyone but I think it's something we all need to debate and learn from both sides to find a middle ground like Anubis says. Not every concealed carrier may react in a way that brings about the best outcome, but time and time again not every police officer or soldier does either.

Lightstrider wrote: [
No one's second ammendment rights have ever trumped your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in actual fact it is because of this precious second ammendment that you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention freedom of speech and the rest. Maybe you'd prefer to raise your grandchildren in China? I think most "civillians" as you call them arming themselves for defense or sporting uses don't seem to need qualifications as 95% of them aren't out killing people or doing anything crazy with their firearms.

Uh, yes they do. When Joe blow gun nut decided he wants to amass an arsenal, then open carry it around my children, when they ask me why that man has a gun and I wonder the same thing, when I watch him carefully. All the while wondering if he is gonna shoot up the place.

You tell me how that DOESNT infringe on my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Better yet, you go find the family's and friends of whatever mass shooting is closest to you and ask them their opinion of the shooter s second amendment rights.

Next, I find it deeply disrespectful that you pull the 'why don't you raise your grandkids in China ' to a 4th generation American soldier. You wanna rethink that comment?

Finally, please explain to me how second amendment rights have contributed to my personal righta to free speech, etc. The US has not had an internal war in over 100 years. How does armed civilians protect me and my rights? Cite examples. Dead serious.

You're infringing on your own rights by being scared of Mr. "Joe blow gun nut" as a guy open carrying isn't the guy you gotta worry about unless you're wanting to mess with him. But hey I understand having children around of course.

Asking about their feelings towards the shooter's second ammendment rights is ludicrous, the shooter is clearly beyond exercising his second ammendment rights when he goes nuts and it is irrelevant. The shooter could've been perfectly sane if he acquired his firearm legally and snapped, or he got the weapon illegally, or he got past the checks and regulations as unreliable as they are. It's not about the weapon or the second ammendment it's about the shooter's psychology and the overall situation. If there was no second ammendment the guy could've still bought a gun illegally, he could've used many other means. The flipside is that the victims' also have that right to defend themselves, and because of gun free zones and restrictions maybe they're not allowed to have the means to defend themselves from such attack, but most of them wouldn't want to, their heads are in the sand.

Do I like all of this, do I blame victims?? Hell no, I wish we never had to worry about this nonsense going on but guess what it happens here and much, MUCH worse things happen around the world (a lot caused by our government's actions too) and we act like we're somehow immune to this.

I said it because you're surely set on the second ammendment not applying to "most civilians" as you call them. Hate to start anything personal but you're the one offended and disappointed in anyone not agreeing with your opinion on this sensitive matter and if you're willing to just write off a fundamental right then I have a problem with that too. I would show respect to your family whom served in WW2 but anything beyond really it is my opinion that being a tool for corporate foreign policy is nothing to be proud of and if anything is part of this overall problem of violence.

You don't think that maybe if your rights to freedom of speech and what not were not backed up by the second ammendment that there would be no attempts to seriously restrict them will all the extremist Republicans and Democrats that would love to do such a thing? Armed citizens are what they are intended to be - self-defense, community defense, a check to big instrusive government, and they definitely play a role in total overreaching powers that those in power would love to project. Of course this may just be my opinion, just like you have your opinion and we can agree to disagree which is what freedom is all about.

Obviously I agree that there should be universal background checks, documented transfers and that the original OP is correct that the whole heroic gunslinger thing is a sham. But all in all if you believe in hardcore gun control you aren't against guns because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need the police's guns to take away other's guns. You just believe only the government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous....) should have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. Then you not only leave the door open for criminals and terrorists to continue killing people, but you also open the door to repeat the genocides of history even if you think this is currently impossible.

Wow. You're response is...interesting. To say the least. I do t want to 'mess ' with anyone. But I can't speak for anyone else. And having a gun on them just seems to make some folks even more belligerent than usual.

A person's views on the second amendment is ' irrelevant'? Also interesting.

And you clearly don't 'hate to start anything personal', as you already have. Im a tool of corporate foreign policy? As was my father, Nam era? I disagree, but as you made clear , we are all welcome to our opinions. Even if they are disrespectful.

I don't agree to disagree. I think you and your ilk are wrong. I agree to that.

This is my final comment on this thread. And further evidence for why I post so rarely in public forums. Have a good one, bro.