Screen Shot 2016-02-18 at 7.27.53 AM

Illicit, black market pistols are commonly available in India for about $10-$15. These pistols show a level of sophistication a bit higher than most. Hand craftsmen have been making semi-autos for as long as they’ve existed, much like Belgian and Spanish semi-autos or those turned out in small Philippine shops . . .

 From newindianexpress.com:

TALCHER: An illegal small arms unit was unearthed here and police seized firearms, including 31 Mauser pistols, 500 live cartridges, gelatin, gun powder, equipment needed for making gun, documents and a list of names and bank accounts. The unit was operating for the last four months.

At least five persons have been arrested in this connection. One of the arrested is a juvenile.

Acting on a tip off, a raid was conducted last night on the unit, operating from a rented house at Champasi here, and arms comprising revolvers and pistols were seized. Police then cracked down on the house of the owner of the illegal unit Tukuna Swain (40) at Paikasahi. Tukuna, however, managed to escape.

Many unsophisticated and ignorant civilian disarmament fans think that firearms will gradually be confiscated and disappear in their gun control dystopias. But when they see the reality of these small clandestine shops, the reality occasionally dawns on them. The gun control laws in India, for example, are severe. Guns, ammunition, tools, parts, components are all under tight legislative control. The result: a thriving black market in clandestine guns, mostly handmade.

Powder is scavenged from ammunition purchased or stolen on the black market. Shotgun and rifle cartridges are converted to handgun ammunition. They make use of relatively crude tools compared to an ordinary American hobbyist shop.

Consider what the shop featured in the linked article could have turned out with a Harbor Freight drill press, a $500 mini-lathe/milling machine and access to a 3D printer or small CNC machine. Then there are the many billions of rounds of ammunition stored in attics, basements, and garages. Remember too that 100 years is a resonable shelf life for modern ammo.

Many years ago, my father, a trained machinist, oversaw a shop full of women making munitions during WWII. He told me that revolvers would be very simple things to make with minimal machine tools. Simple sub-machine guns, even easier.

These are things every American voter should be aware of. The more you know the truth about guns, the less you’ll believe the lies and disinformation spread by gun control advocates.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch

210 Responses to Black Market Pistol Factory in India Reveals The Truth About Guns

    • As much as I love ‘Firefly’ and ‘Serenity’, people always seem to forget that…

      “He killed me Mal. Killed me with a sword. How weird is that?”

      The ‘Parliament operative’ killed dozens of people to ‘stop the signal’. Mal eventually got it out, but do you remember what happened after the Parliament was proven to have killed millions on that (now) empty planet alone?

      Not a god-damned thing. They’re power ‘was weakened’ but they weren’t thrown out, tried, or some insurrection happened. The signal means sweet FA, if there is no one who will act when they hear it.

      As Mal said (which is far more important in my mind), “A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running; I aim to misbehave.”

        • Vera requires O2 to fire in the vacuum of space. She’s just fine planetside. How often do you need to fire in space anyhow?????

        • One of those errors that just happen when you make TV, and don’t know guns well. Whedon is light years better than Abrams, but even Joss screws the pooch at times.

          “Vera” was obviously a cartridge fired rifle, and as such, the whole space suit thing really didn’t need to happen – other than for Jayne and Reynolds ‘natch.

          Unless they got very sloppy loading those rounds in the future, there’s still air in that shell, regardless of the vacuum around them. It’ll be there for at least hours, that I’ve tested anyway.

          I’ve taken rounds, put them in the water down to about 100 feet, left them there for hours, pulled them back out. Despite the fact that the external pressure was about 3 atmospheres, they didn’t leak, and all went “bang” when cycled through the guns.

          I’ve also taken rounds, placed them in a vacuum chamber, sucked it down to about 0.1pa (just about as close to space as is readily available to me) and there was 14.7ish PSI inside the rounds trying to leak out. Left there for for an hour (all the chamber time we could sneak in). Pulled out and fired 10 minutes later. Validated they didn’t leak by removing projectiles on controls which were loaded with marshmallows (you know if vacuum hits them).

          Long and the short of it, Vera should have been fine without a suit.

        • The O2 required for a gun to shoot in chemically bonded inside the gunpowder and priming compound. Just like solid and liquid fuel rockets which also can burn in space. Vera is fine.

        • I would have imagined that an AR style direct gas impingement system wouldn’t function reliably in a vacuum. You wouldn’t need oxygen per se just atmospheric pressure.

      • As Mal said (which is far more important in my mind), “A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people…better. I do not hold to that. So no more running; I aim to misbehave.”

        Exactly. And on the regular.

      • And you wrote this, Dean:

        “Powder is scavenged from ammunition purchased or stolen on the black market.”

        Scavenge, Hell.

        Make your own Black Powder. Start by collecting urine…

  1. So, because guns cannot be entirely eliminated from the face of the earth, nothing should be done at all in an attempt to make the US any safer from mass shootings? I believe that the pro-gun, conservative, constitutionalists routinely blast their enemies for objecting to right-wing political moves that cannot be 100% successful. The left and the right always meet, eventually. The gored ox syndrome.

    So, what else should society decide is not worth doing because it will not be 100% effective? Auto safety? Food safety? Hospital safety? Name your favorite….

        • Word for word. The exact same reply that lower case matt, a proud racist, gave when he was challenged as a troll.

          He did at least lie and claim to be a gun owner.

        • I will do my best to not lie and claim to be a gun owner. I am not a racists; I treat everyone as if they were a Texas Aggie.

        • You certainly did, jackass. And that’s unless you have a magic wand that can make all guns in America disappear or can pass a law that melts metal, you will never be able to stop mass shootings. They aren’t an actual problem. More people get killed on a weekend in Chicago than most mass shootings. Nobody gives a crap about them because they are poor people. 11k people die a year from firearms, including negligent discharges. in a country with 300 million people in it, that’s statistically insignificant. Even if every shooting involved a n individual shooter, that would still mean less than .01% of gun owners kill people. And studies have show its mostly criminal shooting at other criminals. So handcuffing the 99.999% of us who haven’t done anything is stupid and wrong. Criminals don’t follow laws. MOLON LABE

        • Please note that it is your side that believes the criminal element cannot be eliminated, or that the guns of the criminal element cannot be confiscated. Other than that, you are making my point for removing guns from the society.

          BTW, if I didn’t care about the needless bloodshed in places like the poor neighborhoods in Chicago, I would not be supporting expanding gun safety efforts beyond what we have today. The pro-gun safety side is culpable for not doing more to put down the gangs and others who terrorize neighborhoods and shoot innocents; we should focus more attention there. The pro-gun recklessness side is culpable for the same deaths because the pro-gun recklessness side wants nothing to do with sending police into the “war zones” to round-up people with illegal guns, wants nothing to do with any measures that might save a few lives every weekend.

        • What you missed, Troll (I am no longer going to sully the 2A by attaching it to any reply to you), is precisely the point – the singer was wandering around, smiling, happy-go-lucky, and not actually saying anything intelligible.

        • Good. Thanks for the explanation. The video did not show on the first comment you made. Went back to look for it, and still cannot get it to run.

          “Trolls” present too difficult a challenge to your thinking?

    • The Argument of course is not that it won’t be 100% effective, nice straw man. The argument is that it will be counterproductive.

      The Argument is that the sheep are afraid of the Wolf… so they ask for the Sheep dog to have his teeth removed to make them feel safer from the wolf.

      • Glad you asked.

        The biggest push-back I get about gun safety is that guns cannot be eliminated entirely, 100% from society. Thus, any attempt to remove guns from the US is futile, because there will always be guns. Thus, if gun removal cannot be perfect, it is not worth trying.

        Another tack is the claim that “disarming” the public (equating being armed to guns only) makes the criminal more likely to do harm. So let’s look at that a moment (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources)?:
        – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
        – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
        – increase in gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
        – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

        So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

        Why the need for all the guns?

        • Since the 1970s, structure fires in the US have been cut in half, as well as civilian deaths from fires. During the same time, population grew by 150 million or so. Why do we need fire extinguishers and smoke detectors? Because there is still a risk. I own a gun (my first of a growing collection,) because I realized that my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, was my responsibility, and not the state’s.

        • Yes !

          With gun crime down, gun sales up, there is still a risk, still a need for hyper vigilance in removing as many opportunities for accidental death by gunfire as possible; even if only 500 lives a year.

          Thank you for your supporting statements.

        • “Need” is subjective and non-falsifiable. To base government regulation on “need” is to submit that the government knows all, decides all, controls all.

          I reject all those arguments as false. Governments are fallible, corruptible, irrational, and often do evil things, just as people do. Governments are made up of people and must be restrained. The best way that has been found is through checks and balances in a federal system that divides power and pits government entities against one another.

          Suggesting that government ascertain individual “need” as a means of undercutting Constitutional rights, is to undermine the entire rule of law.

        • Interesting summary.

          All law, all law is based on “need”. There is no universal, unassailable, immutable, cosmic law from which every other law is directly derived. If there were, we would only need consult the oracle (or the tablets?) to settle matters. Law is an outgrowth of the political process, and the political process can change law.

          As noted in a different response, “need” is at the core of the second amendment; the “need” to be able to overthrow an oppressive government. “Need” is encapsulated in “necessary” in the wording of the second amendment. The sovereign people of this nation have the ability to determine the “need” to overthrow an oppressive government has passed, and will not come again in the future. At that point, a proper majority of the citizens of the states can approve/ratify repeal of the second amendment, or a modification of the amendment such as to virtually eliminate private ownership of guns.

          To your point, yes, via the will of the people, the government can determine what you “need”.

        • It isn’t a question of need. It’s a question of freedom. If we only get to have the things someone else believes we need, aren’t we simply the property of those who control popular opinion?

        • You already are under the control of popular opinion. Every constraint on any constitutional rights is or was a result of popular opinion resulting in new law. If owning a gun is the last of the constitutional rights you have liberty to exercise, you are already lost. Owning a gun does not overcome popular law, it does not cause a government supported by a majority vote to fear you can put a stop to popular opinion by participating in armed revolt. In this country, if the majority of the voting populace wants to do away with all legally held firearms, the majority can make that happen. If the majority of the voting populace wants to completely abolish the constitution, they can do that (amend the document sufficiently, and the effect can be complete neutralization). When the majority of the voting populace decides it is more beneficial to disarm law-abiding citizens, and more acceptable to simply endure a permanent criminal element, then popular opinion can manifest in changes to the constitution to allow that. At that point, all the law-abiding gun owners (a favorite theme of gun owners) will either remain law-abiding, or become part of the criminal element. It doesn’t need to come to that.

        • You’re right it doesn’t have to come to that, but it will so long as people advocate the oppression of their fellow man.

        • Imposing safety measures in not “oppression”, unless on believes they are superior to all others, immune from societal norms.

        • The measures you propose are oppressive.

          They are dependant upon the concept that one can responsible only if they do *blank* that is a facist concept.

        • It would be “oppressive” if there were no way to meet the requirement. Otherwise, meet the (fictional) requirements, and you are good to go. Why is it oppressive that one demonstrate capability to properly handle a firearm, but one is allowed freedom to own and use the firearm after?

        • They are oppressive because your desired results can be achieved through multiple avenues. It is pure hubris to claim that anyone avenue is superior to another.

          It is especially oppressive given that your desired result can be achieved without writing a single new piece of legislation.

        • I ran out of coffee about an hour ago so fog settled in, but I think your reply might be really interesting. Could you elaborate a bit?

        • Say a gun is discharged but no property is damaged, no body is injured… Do you care?
          The correct answer is No.

          If an only if there are no bad consequences to the discharge you should not care that the discharge occured.

          Now, say there is a bad consequence.
          Your window gets broken: Property Damage suit, small claims.
          Your propane tank is pierced and house burns down: Property Damage suit, felony level.
          Your child is killed: Manslaughter or maybe even Murder 2
          You are injured: medical expenses and pain & suffering suit.

          Every possible bad consequence of a discharge is already illegal.

          And if there is no bad consequence, you don’t care about the discharge, so why do you want to criminalize the actions that may or may not result in a discharge that may or may not have a bad consequence?

          If the fact that a gun has been discharged (regardless of the result of said discharge) bothers you, you are the problem.

          So you say the legal punishments are not a deterrent to “negligent” behavior, ok the solution is to increase the severity of said punishments and makes sure the public is aware of the severity.

        • We agree about everything. The point where we might diverge is in prevention. I do not want to be the victim in any of the injury scenarios you noted. I do not want you to be the victim. What measures can we take to reduce further the number of NDs each year, especially the number of NDs that kill and injure? I recommended mandatory (free) initial and ongoing training and certification as one step. It is puzzling that people would not undergo a potentially life-threatening surgery without some assurance the surgeon is qualified, the assurance is necessary because the surgery is not an enumerated “right” under the constitution. The indifferent acceptance of untrained strangers walking around with deadly instruments in their pockets, because it is a “right”, is baffling.

        • Actually not baffling at all. Like myself may of the cringe at the mere concept of outside imposed “prevention” of practical any kind but especially of what could be used against them. We have merely weighed the two sides ajd have deemed the risk of the untrained being armed to be less onerous than our public servants dictating to us what we may and may not do in the privacy of our home.

          I believe it is not government’s or society’s job to prevent crime (extenuating circumstances aside) however it is their job to punish crime so harshly that no one would even consider becoming the next criminal.

        • Do we not have acceptable laws, rules or regulations that prevent us from conducting certain activities in our homes? Can’t run a restaurant in your home without license. Can’t put certain things on/in your house without permit, or maybe not at all. And there are many other areas where we are not totally free to do as we please, all in the name of safety or public preventing adverse impact to our neighbors or others in society.

        • None of those laws come into effect until after or just as another individual becomes affected.

          Building permits are not so you can do the work, it’s so you can later sell the house.

          If you don’t sell the food, you can feed people out of your kitchen all day long no questions asked.

          Laws that limit behavior that doesn’t affect anyone are unneeded.

        • Laws that regulate how one with a gun affects another human are quite necessary, prudent and workable.

    • Disarming the law abiding does not make them safer from the homicidal. You have 2 choices: either the criminals have guns or the criminals and the law abiding have guns. You can stick your head in the sand over this but I would imagine after the Paris attacks that it is getting pretty hard at this point.

      • You underestimate the ability of someone heavily invested in an illusion to acknowledge reality.

        I think of modern liberals as being so afraid of a bad outcome that they opt for a worse one and tie themselves into intellectual knots trying to justify their choice.

        • And another one rides the bus:

          let’s look at that a moment (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources)?:
          – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
          – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
          – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
          – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
          – increase in gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
          – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

          So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

          Why the need for all the guns?

        • How bout we turn that one around. If crime as a whole is down despite record gun sales, why the need for gun restrictions? More guns does not necessarily equal less crime, but since guns are up and crime is down then by definition more guns cannot equal more crime. So why try to deprive people of guns when there is absolutely no evidence it will help (and at least some evidence it will make things worse)?

          Gun ownership in this country is a right. I don’t have to prove a need to exercise a right.. you have to prove a need to restrict it. So far your case is wanting.

        • Because there is value (life) in trying to eliminate all causes of unnecessary gun-related deaths????

      • Let’s look at that a moment (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources):
        – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
        – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
        – increase in gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
        – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

        So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

        Why the need for all the guns?

    • “nothing should be done at all in an attempt to make the US any safer from mass shootings?”

      Are you actually serious with this? Firearms are the most regulated thing in the consumer market, and with that we still see “mass shootings”, mostly in places where such regulations are the strictest.

      The point is that the legal firearm owner is just that, legal. We should encourage law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights, learn more about firearms, become responsible owners and protectors of their own safe spaces.

      CCW holders are the most law abiding, responsible and safest of all! This is a good thing. More guns is good, fewer criminals is what we should be trying to accomplish. Making guns difficult to get does nothing to reduce the number of criminals, this should be obvious to any thinking person who takes the time and has the intellectual integrity to look at the facts.

      Your post does not look like the thoughts of someone who is using reason and logic, all you are doing is throwing out the same old anti-gun talking points. You are using the opposite of reason and logic, you are simply spouting off memorized bullet-point lists of the standard anti-gun rhetoric, making no real argument with no justification, no evidence and no point other than ‘we want to take your guns’.

      This is the best you can do?

      • Borrowed from myself:

        let’s look at that a moment (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources)?:
        – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
        – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
        – increase in gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
        – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

        So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

        Why the need for all the guns?

        • Why all the reposts? Because Bloomburg or Soros pays Trolls to infiltrate and disrupt websites they disagree with, and they are paid per post.

        • Because the same list of facts addresses so many of the challenging statements pointed my direction.

          Maybe I misapprehended the situation. It appears that there is an agreement among several commenters that if they say the same thing from different screen names, their comments become more forceful, more persuasive. Therefore, I am merely laying-out pro-gun facts, over and over in response.

          Or maybe people just tire of having their own facts pushed back across the table as rejection of their slogans.

    • 2Asux,

      There are three primary reasons why people reject gun control:
      (1) Gun control will never actually achieve any significant reduction in violent crime. Violent criminals will smuggle, steal, and make firearms in prolific numbers … and will also use alternate weapons like swords, clubs, and knives to rape, pillage, and plunder at will.
      (2) Government has no legitimate authority to tell the Good People of our nation what personal property they may or may not own. Whether that personal property is a car, a vase, or a firearm is irrelevant.
      (3) The Good People of the United States have an unalienable right to defend themselves from attackers, period. Government has no legitimate authority to hamper anyone’s self-defense strategy. Government has no legitimate authority to literally tie someone’s hands behind their back and force them to face attackers without full use of their bodily arms. And government has no legitimate authority to figuratively tie someone’s hands behind their back and force them to face attackers without full use of firearms.

      These are facts. All the whining and hand-wringing in the world will not change these facts. And that is why people of the gun will never give up their firearms.

      • Very well said…The old adage ” outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns ” points out that that would make normally law abiding citizens outlaws.
        The United States has the largest non military …. military in the world. It started with the Minute Men.
        Does this give us the right to act irresponsibly??? Absolutely not and non criminal gun owners don’t at least intentionally.
        Speaking with law enforcement in my area…..they fully support “good guys” (and gals) carrying open or concealed.

        • Again:

          These are facts (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources):
          – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
          – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
          – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
          – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
          – increased gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
          – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

          So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

          Why the need for all the guns?

      • These are facts (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources):
        – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
        – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
        – increase in gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
        – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

        So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

        Why the need for all the guns?

        • If you don’t “need” guns to protect yourselves and others, and you cannot fend off evil government with small arms, and only a minuscule number of gun owners actually hunt, why the need for all the guns? The second amendment was not about owning guns just for the hell of it. Read. The founders had specific “needs” they were addressing, the premier “need” being retention of the means to throw-off an oppressive government. That is why the word “necessary” is in the second amendment.

        • That’s a question that has no “need” of an answer. My civil rights “need” no explanation. I have a right to vote, to speak freely and have no “need” to explain myself.

        • But the second amendment is based entirely on “need” (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…. note, the word “necessary” is defined as “need”:
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need
          Merriam‑Webster
          Simple Definition of need. : a situation in which someone or something must do or have something. : something that a person must have : something that is needed in order to live or succeed or be happy.

          The thing that is denoted by the word “necessary” is the need of the population to overthrow an oppressive government, nothing more, nothing less. Once the citizens of the country determine the “need” to overthrow a government is not likely to arise, the “need” of a well regulated militia evaporates, making the second amendment moot, subject to repeal or severe modification. Then your “right” to have guns is subject to the political process, and whatever that process allows regarding gun ownership.

        • You’re a windy troll. But, again, I have no “need” to explain my rights. I simply have them and exercise them. If that upsets you…..who cares.

        • It “upsets me” because you embody the attitudes and characteristics of a reckless and potentially negligent gun owner. Because people such as yourself are the kind of “good guy with a gun” who ends up shooting through walls and killing a neighbor. Because I care that you seem to have no concern over the threat you represent to people who only want to live their lives in peace.

          It is your cavalier attitude toward others that will eventually result in our victory establishing reasonable constraints on gun possession.

        • 2Asux, I do commend you. You have really gone to a new level – of quality and quantity.

          Are you in hospital for months, or are you someone with a work terminal and a severe paucity of work to accompany it?

          I lift a virtual Scotch to you, regardless. Either way, dedication to the craft.

          The rest of you guys, think really hard, and read between the lines.

    • Cars are not regulated in the way that people like you think guns should be. I can go and buy any big tank SUV or high-powered sports car I want without any justification to the government. The license I get is reciprocal with all other states and is Shall Issue, meaning I do not have to provide a special reason why they should give it to me.

    • 2Asux,

      So, because guns cannot be entirely eliminated from the face of the earth, nothing should be done at all in an attempt to make the US any safer from mass shootings?

      Yes, something should be done. And Good People like myself are already doing it: we are armed when we go out in public and truly have the ability to stop a spree killer immediately. Why do gun-grabbers endeavor to prevent Good People from being able to immediately stop a spree killer?

      • Think about it…..if there are no guns, the spree-killer doesn’t need killing, right?

        Interestingly, if I say we need “Obamacare'” to improve healthcare in the nation, you say, “It won’t be 100% effective. It won’t cover X,Y,Z. It is not perfect, and too costly, not worth doing.” If you say, “We need better firearms training, or in-school firearms education, or armed teachers, or armed preachers.” And I say, “That cannot/will not be 100% effective.” You become agitated because I will not accept a solution that is not 100% effective. Yet, you think it unreasonable/unfair that I point out the hypocrisy.

        By making it harder and harder to get guns easily, we can cut down on spree killings. Do you realize that back when gun ownership was a whole lot less in this country, we had almost zero spree-killings?

        • You mean that time when Americans could order guns thru the mail? Buy guns with no background check or waiting period? Buy guns at yard sales and hardware stores? Done all of these in my youth.

        • Yes, there was that time, long long ago in a society that is long gone. Bear in mind that the era you speak of did not boast the ratio of guns to populace present today. And in those days you long for, the number of deaths by gunfire was way less than today. Less guns/less “gun violence”. Correlation. More guns today, more gun violence. Correlation. No, more guns today correlated with less crime today does not morph into causation. What was it then, that was different about those times long long ago?

        • Do you realize that when you could order any gun by mail in this country there were less spree killings?
          Note: I should feed the troll, but what the heck.

        • Wrong. There were actually almost no spree-killings. In those days, there were fewer guns per capita than today. More guns, more spree killings?

          Troll?

          Are you really saying out here in front of God and everyone that when your precious prejudices are challenged that the challenger must, and can only be, a troll?

        • I don’t know how you can make any claims as to percentages of gun ownership from those days, 2asux. Guns were being sold thru the mail and at hardware stores and sears, etc. And keeping track of those sales was not done by the .gov.

          I lived in farm country then and everybody had a gun. When I moved to town most of my peers, kids all, had rifles and shotguns and quite a few owned pistols.

          Your claim of percentages of gun ownership ring as false as the new age gun grabbers claim that gun ownership is dying in this country.

          But thanks for supporting gun rights. You do realise, smart as you are, that everytime you post a comment here and get replies to said comment that those numbers are used to tell pols that we have great support in America for less gun control, right?

        • The alleged number of gun owners and guns in circulation today is no more accurate. Most of it was guess work, is guesswork. But it is difficult to believe no one on the pro-gun side has looked at the alleged numbers of guns today, and not researched the growth pattern over time. It is highly doubtful the ratio today is less than “back then”, or the same. Even in the dark ages (pre-1970) news outlets would have been in a flap if 33% of the population owned guns. If the number of guns owned by private citizens is accepted at 100 million, that estimate had to have a starting point. If gun ownership is growing, at some point in the past, the number of guns had to be lower than 100 million. You cannot have a situation where gun ownership is growing, but stays static over time (the per capita rate may remain the same if gun sales and legal gun ownership grow at the same rate over time), but someone established a starting point for calculating gun ownership, and it wasn’t 100 million.

      • Why would the news outlets have been in a flap? Guns were every where and in use daily. I saw them in classrooms for demonstrations. In truck windows at school parking lots. I walked thru town with an exposed shot or rifle many times because I was too young to drive and I was heading for a hunt.

        The real question you should ask yourself, not that a troll gets all that introspective, is what changed the news outlets?

        • You did not see that in the major population centers. Even in the days of the wild west, the majority of the populace did not own or carry guns (else there would have been no need of the Earps and their contemporaries).

        • Again. You’re not making a valid point. What people in population cities or rural areas do has no bearing on the exercise of our rights. In the days of the Earps the SCOTUS had not yet determined that 2a was an individual right.

          And again, you have no way of knowing how many people in those populations centers hador carried guns.

          You keep belaboring invalid points as if they were gospel. You begin to lose what little credibility you had.

        • Up until McDonald and Heller, SCOTUS had not ruled it a limited individual right. Point being, when there was low gun ownership rates, there were low incidents of mass shootings in public venues.

          Relying on your “rights” is a fragile defense. When your uncaring insistence on having your deadly toys and hobbies finally outrages enough people, the SC will rule in such a way as to pretty much make private gun ownership illegal. Or, there will be sufficient majorities in 3/4s of the states to repeal all or most of the second amendment. Hard-headedness, insensitivity and bluster do not make a compelling political case. Time is on our side. Once we settle immigration to be a natural and civil right of every citizen on earth, the wave will be massive and unstoppable. You can join in crafting the future, or be flattened by it.

    • ‘The left and the right always meet, eventually.’ – That’s such a tired and wildly incorrect cliche. The notion that Hitler and Stalin were somehow opposites is laughable. It was the National SOCIALIST Workers Party. The left and the right were both socialist. But it keeps getting repeated by ignoramuses who been taught to parrot the line so they can accuse the American right of being just as bad as Hitler. The American right is the Constitution and it is the complete opposite of socialism. The two sides never meet.

      • Nonsense. Despite its name, the NAZI party was rabidly anti-communist and anti-socialist, arresting all the members of such parties it could find (many of whom, conveniently, were Jews).

        • You really need to go reread some history. As much difference between the two as between the Crips and the Bloods; Hells Angels and the Bandidos; Delta Delta Delta and Kappa Delta

        • The NAZI were very socialist. They were a mainstream leftist party in their day. Leftist tend to be very territorial, and always fighting one another, much like Muslims. The history of the left is one of schisms and ideological argument over relative trifles, such as with many other religions.

          The big question for political leftists is: Who will be in charge of the State? That is where all the power and money is, so much blood is shed in contesting who wins.

          HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
          http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html

        • Once you look at the policies put into practice by the Nazis and Soviets on the Eastern Front in close detail, few differences between both monsters remain. In the Baltics and Eastern Poland, the Red Army killed off entire villages or sent them to Siberia, their populations replaced by Russians freshly brought from the big cities by rail. This was Hitler’s Lebensraum policy verbatim, just swap out Jews for anyone not Russian who so much as walks funny as the targeted populace. When the Germans arrived and captured Ukrainian farms, they divvied out supplies to peasants at first. Eventually Hitler ordered said farms to be “nationalized,” a practice not unlike Stalin’s collectivization efforts of the early 30’s that ended up starving scores of Ukrainians to death in the Holodomor. Sympathy for the Germans among local populations promptly shrank post-1941.

          Another hilarious comparison American progressives love to make is of Nazism to modern Evangelicalism or Christianity in general. While Hitler didn’t turn churches into pig pens as Stalin did, there was still a very strong anti-religious bent in Nazi party politics. Baldur von Schirach, architect of the Hitler Youth, made absolutely sure that young boys were mercilessly bullied into joining, and then persuaded to defy their parents and stop going to church as their time in the organization grew. “We (the state) are your church and family now,” were oft-spoken words by group leaders, and the young ones were constantly encouraged to snitch on their parents, neighbors, and the local clergy if they suspected anti-Nazi activity. How is this any different than Soviet snitch culture?

          They were no fans of American capitalism, either. Didn’t matter if you “owned” Heinrich’s corner drug store or the Krupp Steel firm. If you defied the state and its production quotas openly enough, you would be fired (or worse) and a card-carrying Nazi would be given your office. Pretty sure that’s not how the American private-sector works. And last but not least, let’s not forget that after the July ’44 assassination plot, Hitler plugged his own version of the Soviet commissar into most Wehrmacht units to enforce the party line. This isn’t surprising when one remembers that many Reichswehr officers (especially the generals), the wealthy conservative land-owning Germans, thought the Sturmabteilung were a pack of radical freaks. That’s precisely why Ernst Röhm was assassinated, because his rhetoric was too revolutionary, and he had to go if Hitler were to gain the trust and cooperation of the Reichswehr/proto-Wehrmacht elite.

          TL;DR, American progressives only cry “Nazi = Republican” as a smokescreen. Why do you think domestic policies of mass-murder by communist countries are never taught in high school history classes, but every little detail of the Nazi expansionist terror machine is? To hide the crimes of the Marxist tyrannies they worship, while simultaneously creating false parallels to further beat up the American right/libertarians with.

        • Not all progressives are ignorant of politics, history and literature.

          Stalin was promoting a socialist cause. Hitler was promoting a socialist cause. Both were murderous thugs; Stalin was better at it. The war between the two was not pro/anti communist, it was a turf war. You might say it was a gang war, like the Mafia families. Hitler and the Nazis considered the slavic peoples (Russians and all the other ethnic groups in the Soviet Union to be Untermensch (sub-human). The Nazis considered themselves superior race of humans with a destiny to rule the world (and all the Untermensch). Stalin and the Communists saw themselves as a new ruling class destined to bring an end to the rule of privileged rank. Both needed conquest to shore-up their legitimacy.

          Wanting to raise the standards of living in the entire nation or world does not make one a communist. Wanting to provide for the safety of the society does not make one an authoritarian.

        • The Nazis were anti anyone who challenged their rule, period. They were true socialists. You are describing essentially sunni vs. shia as regards Nazis and other socialists. Nazis were not “right wing”.

      • Prize to the first one to bring Hitler into the conversation !

        Extremism left and right do connect. Both have a rigid dogma, both rely ultimately on coercion, both hunt their own, both rely on the concept of an imminent enemy threat, both need the other to justify existence, and on it goes….

        I find it fascinating that people somehow do not see Stalin and Hitler as the same. Both created vast, efficient killing machines turned inward on undesirables, for the same reasons. In the end, Stalin was more efficient at killing.

        • So you’re comparing George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to Hitler and Stalin? This is the far right and the far left (as pertaining to American politics). I just don’t see how they meet. Name a far right murderous tyrant . You can’t. There has never been one.

        • You misunderstand politics of the 18th century. The founders were leftists. That is, they were supporters of the liberty of individuals, and rejected the divine right of kings. They were liberals in the classic sense of the word (the word as understood in the 18th century. Simply put, conservatives supported conserving/retaining the primacy of monarchy/government. Liberals were supporting liberating the individual from be subjects of king and government. Were they extremists? Only in the sense they were finally determined that reason and negotiation were futile. They tried working within the system with their ideas. But even the founders were not 100% revolutionaries. Many of the big name founders were convinced a monarchy or strong central government was best, just not the monarch or government of England.

          The names you mentioned could not be equated with Stalin or Hitler because the founders did not have power to corrupt them, nor were they hopelessly corrupt people in themselves. But they were certainly considered extremists by the crown and parliament.

        • I think you completely misunderstand the founding of our country. It’s not that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. didn’t have the power to be corrupted with. The really revolutionary concept was to create a government that was limited in power. This was a radical idea at the time and they were extremists. They led a violent revolution against the crown.

          American politics are somewhat backwards when it comes to nomenclature. The right, or conservative side is the side that favors tradition and the left is the side of radical change. Since our country was founded out of the ideas of classical liberalism that became the right. In Europe the right was the side loyal to the crown and the left became the communists. However, the communists were the ultimate statists (as were the Nazis). George III could have never even imagined exerting the kind of state control over the daily activities of his subjects that Staliin or Hitler achieved.

          So the notion that the left and the right meet at the extremes only works if what you consider left and right are both committed statists. But there is no difference in political philosophy between one statist and another. The only argument is who controls the state. If you take the classical liberal (libertarian) philosophy to it’s extreme you end up with the USA circa 1791. It’s not a circle, it’s a very straight line. The ends don’t meet.

        • Read closer your history. The founders were not all of one mind about limited government. There were those for strong central government (even an American aristocracy), and those who distrusted strong governments. The constitution is not a monolithic document, it is a compromise of great proportions. It was not a document that simply stated universally accepted truths that were simply written down and accepted. Indeed, three members of the Continental Congress refused to sign the final document.

          Jefferson was suspicious that Washington, Adams and Hamilton were of the mind that in general, people needed a strong hand at the top of government. Adams and Jefferson were once close friends, but then experienced a great rift in the late years of Washington’s second term. That rift endured until after Jefferson was out of office. The never reconciled differences between wanting a strong government and wanting a limited central government, but they re-established a letter friendship near the close of their lives.

          Ok, so, that was interesting.

          Yes, eventually the right and left both arrive at a command style government….at the extremes. Call that a single line beginning at the middle and moving to the extreme opposite if you like. But truth is the configuration of each extreme looks very much like the other.

          For a good deal of our history, political winds swirled around the middle ground for both liberals and conservatives. Liberals wanting liberty, conservatives wanting to conserve/keep tradition (rule of kings and/or powerful central government). The labels are indeed reversed today. As today, in 1779, Liberals (Founders) were radicals and conservatives were not. Difference between then and now, the Liberals are more comfortable with an broader government looking out for abuse by the elites of the Conservatives, while the Conservatives are horrified at what they see as the worst nightmare of the Founders, a very centralized society with government intervening in all sorts of things the Conservatives would rather be left to inertia of the individual.

          And that is all so interesting, too.

          The theme of my statements is that when society will not do for itself that which is a moral obligation, government is constituted to step-in and incentiveize the people to do what is right, but which may not be agreeable with recalcitrant individuals. President Obama seemed to sum it up nicely when he was faced with legal hurdles to his healthcare. Regarding whether or not his bill was constitutional, he stated, “We cannot let the law stand in the way of doing what is right.”

        • The only thing circular here is your logic. Statists on one end, classical liberals on the other. Complete opposites.

    • Sure something could be done about mass shootings. Start with abolishing “gun free” zones. Every recent mass shooting happened in one of those places.

      • Creating or abolishing gun free zones does not make soft targets less attractive for the determined. Before there was so much widespread availability of guns, mass-killings at crowded locations was almost unheard of in this country (talking pre-1970). Do you really believe all these killers got their guns on the black market? Do you really believe everyone of them would have gone through the risk to their lives in an attempt to get guns from back alleys? Do you really believe they were each already criminals who would be prohibited from buying guns legally?

        • Pre 68 you could order a gun thru the usps straight to your house. No background check. It’s a stone cold lie that guns are more available now than then.

        • How many owned guns isn’t really the point. But you knew that and you are deliberately talking around the fact that guns were available to all. Which leads me to the conclusion that even when presented with facts you refuse to see. I don’t know if you’re Autistic, I suspect you are.

          But if not, then you’re a for real troll.

        • Trolls are not serious about presenting a point of view. Trolls are like seagulls; they fly in, squawk about the food, crap all over everything, then fly away.

          My goal is not to simply chum the water and watch the entertainment. My goal is to make you uncomfortable in your self-admiration, get you to recognize that maybe you are not in full grasp of how poorly you are perceived outside your narrowing segment of the populace, present an opportunity for you to see yourself as your opponent sees you, and recognize where you are politically weak and gowning weaker.

          Now you have the key to all this.

        • Your explanation is blatantly false. There are more gun owners now than ever before and the number is growing.

          You’re either a troll or Autistic. I’m leaning towards troll. You simply regurgitate half truths, full lies and suspect cherry picked stats.

          Although I find it hilarious that a troll would solemnly entone that he’s just trying to get us to see how others percieve us.

          Oh, the irony. 🙂

        • You are making my case on multiple levels.

          Yes, gun ownership is growing. So are the number of mass-shootings, drive-by shootings, inner-city and gang-related shootings. Contrasted to 60 or so years ago, there were fewer guns, fewer gun owners, and almost no mass-shootings, anywhere.

          And you have provided a perfect example of how ignorance reveals itself to provide an inexhaustible source of support for common sense gun regulation. We only need to cut and paste things such as you wrote into our social media. Keeps us energized and convinced we are inexorably winning.

          As for showing you how you look to the public, I want this to be a fair fight, so I give you a
          heads-up notice of where you stand. You can never say, “Nobody told me”.

        • Don’t bother warning me. Growing population of gun owners means growing political power. You and your kind have been coming for our guns all my life and we keep getting more guns and more freedom to carry and use them.

          Inside of 10 years constitutional carry will be the law of the land.

          Cut and paste all you want. Your side has been playing dirty and losing ground for decades now. I wouldn’t want you to change your losing strategy.

        • The rate of gun sales should not be confused with a growth in gun owners. Since there is regrettably no accurate gun registry, it is impossible to know the breakdown between sales growth and growth in owners. When 2/3ds of the nation do not own guns (your estimates are 100 million gun owners), that places gun owners in the minority. I suspect that many of you own two or more guns, maybe most of you. And you run off to buy another gun when the political wind gets chilly. That is not growth in gun owners.

          Right now, the NRA and maybe NSSF are the only two pro-gun political groups with clout. And they represent less than 10 million people, all of whom may not be eligible to vote. While there may be a noticeable number of gun owners who will jettison any other political consideration to vote for a candidate who will do likewise (and there are paltry few politicians willing to stake entire careers on protecting gun owners from even the smallest of gun rights infringement). Gun owners are not monolithic. As in any political association, there are a few absolutists, and they usually are overrun by the rest of the group. So there are 20 million gun owners willing to not vote for any candidate who is not pure on gun rights. Yet a goodly number of those wouldn’t vote anyway; too busy. I’m afraid you need a bit more information about the art of vote counting.

        • jwm, I’ve seen your posts, I know you are capable of being thoughtful. Go back and reread 2A’s post about 4 back or whatever. Let that sink in, intellectually. Don’t react emotionally.

          I don’t know when or where you went to school. But in my day (early ’80s) at the schools I attended, teachers would often toss out hypotheticals and play ‘devil’s advocate’. It was up to you to defend your position, or to indict theirs as the case may be.

          Doesn’t mean they believe any of it.

      • 16v, regardless of his motives he’s still a troll. Studies have shown that trolling is a sign of mental illness. Do we really want him setting the tone for this site?

        • The tone is set. This is not a forum restricted to the thoughtful evaluation of differing opinions regarding sensible gun safety measures. Outside actual gear reviews, the tone of the sight is spiteful, hateful, thick-headed, intolerant, irrational, irresponsible, self-destroying. All the things those promoting sensible gun safety measures love to believe, written down, right here.

        • jwm, I get that people see him as a troll, and I guess in some sense, he is.

          Personally I see him as a ‘white hat’ hacker – one who does it for the good guys. YMMV, and hey, I really do understand your position. I would just offer this…

          Here’s a guy who has way more time (than me anyway) on his hands. He chooses to use some of that time to be a friendly adversary, to remind us to be able to actually answer the arguments posited by the other side. To pretend to believe them, to craft the arguments, to keep the conversation in play. This is actual work, and he does it. Ultimately ,for the good of those who own guns.

          I’ve never engaged him, because I instinctively knew what he was doing in his first post. I’m amazed at the people who don’t ‘get it’. Should he ‘set the tone’ for the site? He’s a voice, an idea. One that, just like real anti-gun activists, should make you put on the thinking cap and react logically with facts. Keep calm and remain armed, and whatnot.

          Do we really want an echo chamber of merely our own agreement, or do we really have a forum where even the antis can be argued with, especially as he’s really one of us?

        • @jwm. @16v

          16v – Thank you.

          jwm – I did/do not set a “tone”. Look at the general nature of commentary when 2A rights are on the table: belligerent, crude, nasty, cursing, personal attacks, name-calling. That is the “tone” of the blog. It happens even when people argue about gear, guns and calibres.

          I do not know what “trolling” is popularly described as. If challenging thinking, mind-sets, assumptions and prejudices is “trolling”, then it is a curious viewpoint on life. If the assertion (without references) that “trolling” (whatever that is) has been “…shown as a sign of mental illness”, then our entire education system is completely failed. If you think a former combat pilot with three advanced degrees, success in high tech business, and a one-time adjunct college professor, then “mental illness” has progressed beyond any reasonable description and into fantasy.

          Please note that as opposed to those who “set the tone”, my commentary does not impugn, denigrate, abuse, threaten, use foul language, or presume every person other than me is a complete and irredeemable idiot. Gun control and gun safety are matters of the highest order because lives can be shattered through reckless and irresponsible gun handling. Additionally, gun rights are not something that will simply fade from the political scene. The challenge is to find a way to present a pro-gun appeal to those who (according to stats on this blog) represent nearly 50% of the poll respondents. The pressure for more gun control will not abate because pro-gun people essentially say, “I got my gun, I don’t need no stinkin’ rules; screw you.” If an opposing opinion sets people into a frenzy of incoherence, what does that say about the community?

          To borrow from 16v, do you really want only an echo chamber of merely your own words?

          Cheers, guys

        • A troll is someone who seeks to aggravate others for the sake of aggravating them.

          Do we want an echo chamber? On a gun centric blog yeah we kinda are looking for one. Or at least I am. The antis get lots of them why can’t we have one or two?

          You may not intend to impune but that is the result. When I become emotional it is only because I feel personally attacked.

        • A personal attack would look like others on this blog: name-calling, belligerence, belittling you personally, taunting, and a whole host of other ill-mannered antics. Pressing a position, or argument, repetitively challenging statements, reminding one of inconsistencies, those are not personal attacks. They are spirited give-and-take.

          Why would anyone need an echo chamber? Does not a desire to hear ones thoughts repeated and reflected back indicate a bit of unease with those thoughts? A wanting of validation when insecure? From most of what we exchanged, I would not expect that of you.

          Representing the gun safety/gun control side of things, I often get responses that fine-tune my thinking, sometimes alter conclusions, and find some on this blog to have in-depth understanding of gun issues. The danger for either of us is that we begin to believe that because we want to believe, we do not need to look at what is really happening around us.

          Be slow to anger; be taken seriously.

        • When i react emotionally it is because i have been atracked, whether or not you intended to attack is irrelevant.

          I am glad that my charade at being normal is convincing. Truth be told i am damaged goods and have the psychology report to prove it.

          Frankly I’m utterly baffled about how anyone could fail to grasp the meaning of the Constitution. How any voter would call for any rule that even remotely begins to countermant its intentions. I do however understand the appaling eagerness of the legislators to subvert the Constitution, nut what i don’t get is how once the voters have become aware of those dalliances said legislators are not immediately tried for treason. There should be a penalty for authoring a law that gets struck down as unconstitutional.

        • Just so I know how better to proceed, are you saying that any disagreement with you, especially about hardened opinions, will always be perceived as an attack?

        • Unfo I’m not that simple.

          What really got me was when you questioned my core personality. I can’t articulate it very well. Think back to the interchange we had wjere i ultimately threatened to kill you. Don’t remember if it was tjat specific thread, but in the thread in question i had announced “Well that’s the end of my emotional control” or words to tjat effect.

        • Ok, looked back at the string. Not seeing anything related to core personality, but it is possible we see the same thing just a bit differently. Guess it is kinda difficult to avoid situations where one is completely safe.

          See you on down the road.

        • That is so very true.
          I tend to dive straight into the deep end, hang the costs.

          I have matured some in my limited time on earth

        • Andrew, I’ve been here since about week 2, and I’d be like him, if I had then time, and inclination.

          Not my style, I’m a straightforward confrontational mf’r, but I appreciate what he does. It’s useful, I wish people would understand that.

    • Look, for the edification of those who will read this, not because I think anything will convince 2ATroll to change his tune: This is really simple – every person has the natural, civil and Constitutionally protecected right to keep and bear arms for personal, family and community defense. And that includes defense against ANYONE who would attempt to take away that right.

      So look into the mirror, Mr. Troll. Should your dreams of gun control ever come true you had best hope that you are living in a very heavily guarded compound because many people will take offense and they will blame you.

      • Let’s get the terms straight. Tolls hit and run. They stir the pot, then leave people in a feeding frenzy of each other. I do not run. I stay with the topic, and do not flinch.

        To repeat from last week, your “sacred” rights are not determined in some sort of cosmic court. They are subject to the legislative process, subject to the will of “we the people”. When sufficient votes exist to alter the constitution, it can or will be done. Then your only recourse is to launch a more powerful political wave, or become a criminal.

        These are the facts (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources):
        – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
        – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
        – increased gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
        – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

        So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe !” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

        Why the need for all the guns?

        • Sorry, my enemy is not allowed to define himself to me, that is for me to determine. My ( and many others here) opinion of who and what constitute a Troll is much more important than yours. Just because you take some measure of enjoyment or entertainment from coming here and pissing off the rest of us and continue to spout your lame anti Second Amendment talking points does not mean your intentions are less Trollish.

          Nor do I allow my enemies to define for me what my natural or “sacred” rights are. Many of them, including the Second Amendment were defined and enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the hope of protecting them from the government and people like you long before either of us was born and by men a whole lot smarter than you think you are.

          And my rights are NOT subject to the democratic process (50% plus one vote), nor arguments of social utility.

        • And everyone of your precious, sacred rights are subject to the political process; rights can be neutralized through legislation (some of you say that already happened).

          Ok, if “Troll” makes you intellectually superior to anyone who dares challenge your fossilized thinking, “Troll” it is. Ambiguity is a refuge for the unthinking. “Words mean what we say they mean when we say them, unless we say different”. Tattoo that on your forehead.

          But, all seriousness aside, why not deal with the challenge instead of reverting to school ground name-calling? If your position is righteous, you should have no trouble defending it without degenerating into slogans and bluster.

    • I have yet to hear any politician seriously propose any measure that would do the least thing to prevent mass shootings. All they manage to think of are things that would stop people already too ethical to engage in mass shootings.

      • How many mass shootings would have been avoided if people on psychotropic drugs because they were a physical threat were designated “prohibited persons”? Or if they had a permanent restraining order? Placing such people on the NICS no buy list might be helpful. “Politicians” have actually put forward legislation to curtail gun ownership, and won. Most recently, we are seeing requirements for placing people on the no buy list based on medical reports. How can such actions be considered ineffective when we cannot know how many events were prevented? Maybe there are as many events prevented as DGUs that go unreported.

    • You wanna make this country safer from mass shootings? Do nothing. By and large, we are a peaceable bunch, we mind our own business.

      But, if you wanna guarantee the greatest mass shooting this side of 1776? Come and take it. I can live with laying out tyrants on my front lawn, can you live with sending them?

      • The “tryants” you want to kill will not announce themselves. They will take you down when and where you least expect it. They will come in the night, heavily armed and determined. They will find you at the store, and arrest you without warning. The ability to effectively resist will be neutralized, you won’t be given a chance.

        And yes, when authorized legal force is necessary I would have no trouble defending those who I sent. You vastly underestimate the will of the majority (non-gun owners), you vastly overrate the ability of the citizenry to come to your aid.

    • I’ll try my hand at this debate.

      Gun control unlike auto safety, drug/food control, etc does not result in a net positive to general public safety.

      The advertised selling point of gun control is to take guns out of the hands of people who will do bad things with them before they have a chance to do those bad things, but not impede those with good intentions.
      (The futility of the exercise itself aside)
      Bad people with bad intentions will carry out their plans regards of what hoops they have to jump through, so any hoops you put into place to deter bad people at best only delay bad people, at worst only prevent good people from defending themselves. (Otherwise good people killing bad people is not a net negative or even a negative in any way to general public safety)

      So until you can actually remove *permanently* *every last* gun, you will have a world where bad people will have guns and good people won’t.

      Second argument.
      Food/drug control is about separating bad food/drugs from good food/drugs. Guns are neither good nor bad, gun control isn’t about separating or classifying guns, but classifying gun owners.

      Auto safety is is about limiting unintentional injury, gun control purports to limit intentional injury. Auto safety measures are just as effective at curbing vehicular homicide as gun control is at curbing gun homicide.

      Third Argument.

      Purely emotional in nature. It is morally reprehensible to contemplate that any one person knows what’s better for another then the individual in question. It is doubly heinous to inflict that external control without the continued consent of the controlled.

      • AAaaaahhhh, great. A rejoinder with some meat on the bone, presented calmly. Thank you for playing.

        To get right to it –

        “Gun control unlike auto safety, drug/food control, etc does not result in a net positive to general public safety.”
        – – Certainly an attractive proposition, but I have not seen any data to support this. “More guns equals less crime” is merely correlation, with no direct proof/disproof of causation (pro-gun advocates already admit this). You are using a bit of an emotional argument, which is generally lacking on the pro-gun side, preferring “hard facts”. Emotional appeal is good, not persuasive, but good. If increased regulation prevents a single mass shooting, is that not a net benefit (at least to those not killed)? I agree that there is no way to verify that any mass-shooting was prevented by any action. Prevention means nothing happened, so I could claim that it is all the restrictions on guns that prevent even more mass shootings.

        “Bad people with bad intentions will carry out their plans regards of what hoops they have to jump through, so any hoops you put into place to deter bad people at best only delay bad people, at worst only prevent good people from defending themselves.”
        – – First we stop all the “good guys with guns” from becoming instant “bad guys with guns”. If we can do that through mandatory training, wonderful. If we need total confiscation, maybe that is the solution. To quote from Washington’s first annual report to Congress, “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite;…”. I have two thoughts here: the statement is a call for mandatory training; the statement undercuts the pro-gun mantra about an undisciplined populace being the equivalent of the “well regulated militia” identified in the second amendment. Mandatory, continuing firearms training will go a long way toward preventing the negligence that robs innocent people of their health or life. A disciplined corps of armed citizens is entirely missing from society today. Once we have “good guys” sorted from the acknowledged “bad guys”, we can work on how to further reduce the number of criminals roaming the streets. Actually….we can do both at the same time.

        “Food/drug control is about separating bad food/drugs from good food/drugs. Guns are neither good nor bad, gun control isn’t about separating or classifying guns, but classifying gun owners.”
        – classifying bad/good drugs is designed to keep the public safe, whether they want it or not (there is not universal agreement that the government should be making health decisions for the public; let the market dictate). Classifying drugs simply results in identifying for the public that a manufactured item is dangerous and should be avoided. Classifying the ability of gun owners to safely handle a firearm simply results in identifying for the public those gun owners who might be dangerous (because they are reckless and undisciplined), and should not be allowed free flow through the populace.

        “Purely emotional in nature. It is morally reprehensible to contemplate that any one person knows what’s better for another then the individual in question. It is doubly heinous to inflict that external control without the continued consent of the controlled.”
        – – you are describing anarchy. Any organized society makes rules for “the good of the whole”, even when (maybe especially when) many do not want any rules. The “…continued consent of the controlled” means those who oppose rules, but are in the power minority. If the objectors are not conformed, you have chaos and never-ending warfare. In our country, that “warfare” may not even include armed rebellion, but does include those objectors who seek through political means to become the majority so as to make the rules. Then the new power structure gets to deal with the objectors.

        • “Certainly an attractive proposition, but I have not seen any data to support this. “ Oh no, that’s not how this game is played. No citing research, no referring to data, logical arguments only.

          “If increased regulation prevents a single mass shooting, is that not a net benefit (at least to those not killed)?” Put simply, No. Now let me explain the difference between a net benefit and a singular benefit. Your hypothetical describes a singular benefit, and it is indeed a singular benefit. To calculate a net benefit you must take into account the whole system, all of the singular benefits and all of the singular drawbacks. The singular benefits must be greater in value than the singular drawbacks. When calculating a net benefit to society as a whole it must be done from an unaffected party’s perspective.

          So if regulation that prevents one mass shooting also prevented a dozen individuals from defending their lives from random separate muggings, then No it would not be a net benefit.

          “Prevention means nothing happened, so I could claim that it is all the restrictions on guns that prevent even more mass shootings. “ and I could conversely claim that the downward trend in violent crime indicates that there was nothing to prevent in the first place. Neither of our claims can be supported by pure logic, therefore they aren’t worth a tinker’s dam.

          “First we stop all the “good guys with guns” from becoming instant “bad guys with guns”.” Sorry no. Good guys are good guys because they aren’t bad guys. Either party can masquerade as the opponent but they are who they are, who they have always been. A good guy cannot become a bad guy, anymore than a bad guy can become a good guy. The downside of those terms is we have no way to definitively identify who is who, we can only identify who they pretend to be. Any good guy that seems to turn into a bad guy was never a good guy, we just had no idea. Hence the folly of trying to identify them ahead of time.

          “If we can do that through mandatory training, wonderful.” Well you can’t turn a bad guy in to a good guy, if you could the manner of training you allude to would not change a bad guy into a good guy.

          Side note: Anything that is mandated must be provided by the mandator to the mandatee at absolutely no cost to the mandatee. If that condition is not met I personally will oppose any mandate on that principle alone.

          “To quote from Washington’s first annual report to Congress, “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite;…”. I have two thoughts here: the statement is a call for mandatory training; the statement undercuts the pro-gun mantra about an undisciplined populace being the equivalent of the “well regulated militia” identified in the second amendment.” 1. that quote does not indicate training of any kind to me, merely the circulation of detailed reading material. 2. You are mistaken on that mantra. We do not equate an undisciplined populace to a “smoothly functioning civilian paramilitary group.” “ A well regulated (smoothly functioning) militia (civilian paramilitary group), being necessary to the security (not safety) of a free state, the right of the people (undisciplined populace) to keep (purchase & own) and bear ( have on their person or easily at hand) arms (that covers everything but suppressors), shall not be infringed (limited, regulated, or controlled by prior approval).

          “Mandatory, continuing firearms training will go a long way toward preventing the negligence that robs innocent people of their health or life.” While that is a true statement, injury or death by unintentional gun fire is statistically low enough that by comparison to other risks to general health & safety, and while competing for a finite amount of funding the training you speak of would cost more than the results would be worth.

          “A disciplined corps of armed citizens is entirely missing from society today. Once we have “good guys” sorted from the acknowledged “bad guys”, we can work on how to further reduce the number of criminals roaming the streets.” 1. Conditionally I agree, we do need disciplined armed citizens, however disciplined does not equate to enlisted. 2. Per my early argument that is impossible to begin with. 3. Reducing the number of criminals roaming the streets is not difficult. Short term: shoot them dead. Long term: Fix the economic environments that grow them in the first place.

          “– classifying bad/good drugs is designed to keep the public safe, whether they want it or not (there is not universal agreement that the government should be making health decisions for the public; let the market dictate). Classifying drugs simply results in identifying for the public that a manufactured item is dangerous and should be avoided. Classifying the ability of gun owners to safely handle a firearm simply results in identifying for the public those gun owners who might be dangerous (because they are reckless and undisciplined), and should not be allowed free flow through the populace.” 1. You kinda lost me at the beginning there, sounds like you aren’t actually contradicting my statement. 2. Per my earlier argument, you can’t tell the good from the bad until afterwards. As for disallowing free flow, that’s the entire point of prison. Therefore if they are not in prison you should assume they are a good guy, and if you can’t assume that why aren’t they in prison?

          “you are describing anarchy. Any organized society makes rules for “the good of the whole”, even when (maybe especially when) many do not want any rules.” No I am not. There are rules that provide recourse for injury (criminalizing theft, etc) and there are rules which only limit choice (mag bans, soda portion ordinances, etc). Only the first set is required to prevent anarchy, I was speaking exclusively of the second set.

          “The “…continued consent of the controlled” means those who oppose rules, but are in the power minority. If the objectors are not conformed, you have chaos and never-ending warfare. In our country, that “warfare” may not even include armed rebellion, but does include those objectors who seek through political means to become the majority so as to make the rules. Then the new power structure gets to deal with the objectors.” Frankly I have no idea where you were going with this. All I can say is “welcome to reality, that manner of bloodless warfare is exactly what the founders wanted.”

        • Nice.

          Ok, let’s abandon facts. Logic dictates that a statement with no factual basis is illogical on its face. Using the ground rule of no data support, my statement is, “Any action that curtails the ability of a gun owner to negligently injure or kill innocent people is a net positive because being dead is a negative.

          A group of singular net benefits (individuals not being dead by accident) becomes a net benefit to the larger populace because those people who were not killed continue to provide goods, services, love, example, mother/fatherhood, educated minds, etc.John Dunne settled the idea that individuals are disconnected from the whole; all are affected.

          Stipulating that if there are 501 DGU deaths that do not result in a negligent death, then saving 500 lives who didn’t die of negligence is a net one for DGUs. Unfortunately, we have no way to know if any set of DGUs could have been similarly resolved using weapons other than a gun. Put into perspective, if the number of lives saved by the compounding of auto safety measures do not reduce the auto deaths, all the safety features are a net loss, and a waste of time and money.

          I can claim that all the restrictions on gun ownership are responsible for preventing crime because in this discussion, there is no need to address fact, only opinion. Reference point one, there can be no logic if opinion is the only relevant factor.

          How many of the people committing mass-shootings in this country were acknowledged criminals prior to the shootings? A person who is law-abiding one minute, and non law-abiding the next is a “good guy with a gun” how became “a bad guy with a gun in an instant”. Because we cannot accurately identify all these potential flips in advance, prudence indicates we take reasonable precautions to reduce the populace of potential “filps”. Or would you prefer to maintain the idea that “a good guy with a gun” who recklessly, negligently kills another is still “a good guy with a gun”? I think the majority of this country would not consider the killer “a good guy” of any kind.

          Mandatory training would be directed at making a serious effort at forestalling, if not preventing, “a good guy with a gun” from becoming “a good guy with a gun who unfortunately was reckless, irresponsible, and undisciplined, so he ended-up killing an innocent person”. I have no problem with the general society paying for mandatory gun competency training and certification; it makes sense. But since licensing automobile drivers is a mandate, training and licensing should also be on the public dime. And, going logically further, any mandated training and certification of any skill that is perceived as a public safety or other benefit to society should be funded by the public treasury.

          Nope, an undisciplined populace cannot be part of a “well regulated militia”. In the early days, the militia was not a gang of gun owners. The militia was para-military and, effective or not, were trained and drilled in weapons and tactics.

          Presuming all gun owners are trained, disciplined, knowledgeable, safe flies in the face of self-evident day-to-day life. Nothing about exercising a “right” transforms people from self-absorbed into self-aware. People can be a danger to others (negligence, irresponsible, uncaring) without first committing a crime. I don’t think gun safety supporters have proposed that all people suspected of being capable of making bad decisions be jailed. Adequate training in any field does not make the trainee less capable.

          Your statement that about the continued consent of the controlled implies that those who do not consent to be controlled are not bound by those controls. That once any individual or group of the “controlled” refuse to consent/comply, the control being exercised is illegitimate and not enforceable. That condition is anarchy and chaos.

          Good stuff, thanks.

        • I will make my rebuttal exceding simple.

          I do not care about you.
          I do not care if you live or die.
          I do not care what you value.

          From a different denate you stated no one is morally superior to any other, therefore you do not have the moral standing to claim that your purposed solutions are even worth discussing.

        • Very good. Now take your advice and ignore us and we will get down to the business of ignoring you.

        • As I read it, 2Asux is saying that your first reply indicated someone he could have a productive conversation with, but as things unfolded, especially your last couple of comments, revealed that you proved no different from all the others who are offended at being questioned about your core image of yourself. Which is the more confusing because you two then proceeded to have a civil discourse on “oppressive” measures.

        • I suffer from low self esteem and poor emotional control. I tend to lash out when my core values are impuned.

          Ironically i have a highly developed ability to compartmentalize.

        • Questioning opinions and principles is not the same as impugning. If we are not challenged, we do not learn.

    • If you make things people need and/or want hard enough to get they won’t go away, your actions will make incentive for people to patronize, and invest in a growing black market. A black market can be every bit as expansive and sophisticated as a legal market. But you know what? You can’t regulate your black market AT ALL. So keep making it harder for benevolent gun owners to get and own guns legally, you are just creating incentive for a completely unregulated black market to flourish. Same thing happened with drugs. What you’ll do next is put patrons of that back market in jail for victimless crimes, you’ll fill up the jail system with people who never did and never would intend to hurt anyone, and then you’ll have to pay for it all and the problem will continue to grow, not go away.

      • Are you saying that all those millions of the most law-abiding citizens (gun owners) would intentionally become criminals? That would be admitting gun owners are not so law-abiding after all; they are just a law away from becoming “bad guys with a gun”.

        • I cite the Eddie Murphy, Dan Akroyd movie Trading Places (not sure of title).
          The basic premise is that anyone pushed far enough will commit any crime.
          Take all guns away without removing or negating all of the reasons to own them and yes people will own guns regardless of the law.

          What you don’t seem to get is “good guys” don’t have to follow the laws of man to be “good guys”
          “Bad guys” often follow the law, that doesn’t make them a good guy.

          Law abiding is irrelevant to the Good guy/Bad guy equation. It only indicates which one they pretend to be.

        • I can’t tell, have we reached an accord?

          Ok here’s another little concept that will irk you.

          “Innocent until proven guilty” that doesn’t just apply to the court room, it applies to meeting strangers on the sidewalk.

    • So, because guns cannot be entirely eliminated from the face of the earth, nothing should be done at all in an attempt to make the US any safer from mass shootings?

      My freedom is worth more to me than my life. Let that soak in for a bit. Safety and freedom lie on the same axis. If you want to take action to make your life safer – feel free to do so. However, there will be conflict if you desire to take actions that take freedom from me in order to make what you perceive as your life safer.

  2. I can see how a basement workshop could turn out pretty much all firearm components with relative ease. Having said that, I have not come up with any simple way to make handgun and rifle magazines. Does anyone have any idea how a basement workshop “gunsmith” would make metal handgun or rifle magazines? Magazine sidewalls often have complex profiles and I don’t know how a basement workshop would create something like that.

    Large manufacturers could have extrusion or complex sheet-metal presses and welding operations. The home basement workshop … not so much. Anyone? Bueller?

    • DG may or may not weigh in on this, and is far more qualified than I, that said, I’ve made some things..

      The small bends and depressions in the sides of the mag are about strength and as a loading assist (guiding and positioning). Some of them can be left out – structural compromise – but as an expedient…

      One would essentially be fabbing a rectangular box, add lips on the top, and inserting a follower and spring from the bottom, which is then sealed. It’s varies widely is degree of difficulty, but it is hardly impossible – if you can make a gun…

      • DrewN,

        I don’t think you can just tack weld them. I think you would need a continuous weld the entire length of the magazine … and running a continuous weld bead along sheet metal is difficult to say the least. And that weld bead would have to be super thin to avoid interfering with the handgun or rifle frame.

        Am I mistaken? Your thoughts?

        • Drew is basically right, except as a home-build you wouldn’t (likely) have a stamp.

          But you don’t need more than tack welds (several) and being too big is irrelevant – you grind them back when you’re done.

        • Cut from sheet, form in press brake, TIG weld. It’s not like the magazine mfgrs have unicorns that shit them out. 😉 Look close, you can see how they do it.

          IMHO, hardest thing to make is good rifled, rifle barrel. Still it can be done in a home shop (maybe not a good rifle barrel but serviceable maybe) and the info is out there.

        • Wouldn’t need to be a continuous weld. Commercial made mags are sure but a few tac welds or even spot welding would work fine. Mags are not something that needs to be high strength, you could make them out of glued plastic sheets if you needed to.
          A home builder could make a small jig to press metal boxes pretty easily. Something like what we use to press out AK flats would make great magazine boxes.

      • Wow, thank you Mr. 308!

        That illustrates an easy way to make magazines with simple (flat) face geomoetries. I don’t see any way to avoid welding the back face of the magazine. I suppose if your tabs overlapped on the back face, then a few spot welds would be perfectly fine and would not require the long, continuous weld that the fabricator demonstrated in this video. Another advantage to overlapping and spot welding the tabs on the back face: their precise length extending above the forming die would not be important.

        • The British built cheap, stamped machine guns (Sten) during WW2. How did they do that? Can it be done today, in a simple machine shop, or garage workbench? Thinking there is no need to reinvent the wheel (gun). Unless you want something you would like to have because it looks good.

    • 3D printing has already been used to make magazine bodies and followers for AR-15 clones and Glocks.

      I expect 3D printers to become a fixture in the clandestine manufacture of semi-auto and auto firearm magazines in the future.

    • “Does anyone have any idea how a basement workshop “gunsmith” would make metal handgun or rifle magazines?”

      Dyspeptic has said that he is currently writing a book he plans to sell for $5 to do *exactly* that, in addition, to make the entire firearm itself.

      Personally, I think he’s selling himself too cheap. He ought to charge at least $10, if not more…

  3. Hedge clippers? upper right…. wow. Sad thing is this guys a criminal in India, here he would be a custom firearms maker and live on easy street. Think about it, how much would a handmade firearm sell for here? With the proper tooling what wonders could this guy build?

  4. Trying to stamp out 15th century technology is like herding cats. The only reason the drug cartels haven’t set up their own factories is because the legitimately produced weapons are easy enough to get. If you could round up every firearm in America it would take about a week for the illicit factories to pop up.

  5. Interesting article. I’m no mechanic or gunmaker but isn’t a shotgun essentially just a 10th century Chinese firetube? And tack welded on the cheap(Savage 320 varieties and similar SG’s)? And isn’t a WW2 “greasegun” sub machine gun easily accomplished in a typical low tech machine shop? As if making things “illegaler” means they disappear(how’s that war on drugs coming along?)

    • The Sten gun was designed to be made in garage workshops on the fly and the cheap. England had lost a lot of gear and was facing an invasion from the Germans.

      The m3 was made by the folks at gm that made headlights for cars before the war started. I can’t imagine it would be any harder than a Sten to make in a clandestine work shop.

  6. He thinks 20 million people are just going to give up their guns? Even if 1% of those people decided to start breaking shit this country would go Yugoslavia so fast it would make his little socialist head spin. Immigration won’t mean a damn thing when those immigrants are fleeing back towards their homeland to get away from the guys with rifles wrecking shit.

    Gotta also take into account that the vast majority of gun owners just spent a decade fighting an insurgency and know exactly what works and what hits the enemy the hardest.

    He conveniently forgets that a bunch of goat farmers have defeated two of the world’s greatest super powers with 50 year old small arms, improvised explosives, and 60 point IQs.

    This is a fight the left doesn’t want and can’t win even if they tried.

    Best case scenario is that this country peacefully balkanizes over the next few decades. Let the Socialists take the coastal states and have their Utopia. Flyover will do just fine without them.

    • Gotta get better at reading history. The revolutionary army that defeated the British did so using THE SAME TYPE AND CATEGORY WEAPON USED BY THE BRITISH. You do not have that capability. Without it, thankfully, any uprising could be terminated in short order.

      About all those combat veterans you hope will save you: how many own guns, how many used guns, how many are really rabid supporters of guns for everyone, how organized are they, how effective a fighting force can they be???? The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens (according to pro-gun advocates). Do you think they will turn into non law-abiding citizens over a single issue? If you guys were going to rebel, it should have been done already. To repeat, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy. Where were the legions of armed constitutionalists? The amount of so-called government overreach that would have set off the Revolution has long passed (according complaints from your side). Where is the armed resistance?

      • 2A, you’ve claimed to read history.

        Insurgents win far more often than lose, especially when on their home turf.

        The military bases will be very un-pleasant places to live with no electricity.

        Be kinda tough to eat, as well, since trucks won’t be able to deliver food. The insurgents will take care of that.

        Do you really believe American troops will happily fire on their fellow citizens? You’re going to need to import UN troops to take care of that distasteful deed.

        (Read your history on where The Chinese got their troops to quash Tienanmen Square)

        🙂

        • Insurgents win wars because the opposing force is unable, unwilling to do what it takes; total annihilation. The British put down the Malay insurrection by being smarter, better organized, more brutal than the insurgents. The commander of that operation was heralded for awhile, but then public opinion changed and demanded nicer tactics and operations to but down rebellion. Even the British, back in the day, realized the necessity of utterly destroying the rebels, their land, their families and every vestige of support. The cost simply wasn’t worth the blood and treasure. But you drastically underestimate the willingness of this government to do the necessary here, even when not motivated to wipe-out foreign enemies.

  7. I NEED a gun to protect myself from homophobes. At least that’s the reason I started carrying. I carry a gun everywhere, every time, because I cannot predict others behavior. Someone does not need a gun to harm me, especially a group. Anything can be used as a weapon against me, however I cannot use just anything to take on a small group or even most single persons; For that a pistol is the best weapon because a taser is only good for one person, as are most “non-lethal” weapons. Even if you take away all guns, every single one, someone could still attack me for what I have, or who I am, and they could seriously harm or even kill me and I carry to lower my chances of being a victim. So I NEED one just in case. When crime is at zero percent then I will no longer need to carry to protect myself from crime.

    • How many non-lethal weapons are commercially available to you?
      How many non-gun lethal weapons are available to you?
      How many non-weapon means are available to you?

      And you still need a gun? The right to be armed does not start and end with a gun.

      • You really are a cantankerous fart. Good guys like Spencer here killing bad guys in self defense is a very good thing, not a bad thing. In the interest of improving the world we must always encourage the active removal of negative elements from the population.

        • Ridding the world of “bad guys” is a common sense goal. But are you promoting the notion that armed self-defense is restricted to only guns? Are you promoting the notion that armed defense entails the pro-active, forceful elimination of “bad guys”? It would be helpful to weighing your reply by knowing precisely who the “bad guys” are.

        • 1. No, but you don’t get to say it doesn’t.
          2. No, but that shouldn’t be excluded either.
          3. “Bad Guys” are anyone currently engaged in activities that have been universally deemed detrimental to society. (Rape, murder, bank robbery, grand theft.) They revert to neutral status after the completion of said criminal act.

  8. How many non-lethal weapons get the point across that I will not be your victim as fast as a firearm?
    What about the handicapped? Those who can’t swing a bat for lack of strength, or the wheelchair bound who can’t get in a position to stab their attacker? A firearm gives them the ability to counter an attack better than anything else weather the attacker is armed with a gun, a knife, a 2×4 or even just overpowererment through sheer strength and determination.
    Members of the trans community rarely get physically attacked by a single oppressor. That taser under her skirt can only take out one, and only that one momentarily. Since it lacks the superior intimidation of an actual gun it is not likely to drive away attackers on presentation alone. Since it lacks the bang and the flash of a gun it is not likely to cause alarm, nor attract attention of passerby to assist and drive away attackers. Since the attackers can then carry on, they are even more likely to attack harder having been provided by use of the non lethal weapon.
    The risks do not outweigh how much safer I feel to carry a gun. As long as I do my part and you do yours guns are as safe as anything. And protecting my own life is something I put at the upmost importance.

    • No question the gun has advantages in certain circumstances. But non-lethal methods have almost zero chance to create unintended death and destruction (yes, in the hands of “bad guys”, even non-lethal weapons can be misused). Non-lethal weapons do not apparently spark a black market that is itself a place for danger. To borrow from others on this blog, “there will always be….(pick your exception)”. We can’t decide that failure to remove the entirety of criminal activity means undisciplined gun ownership is therefore preferred, than use the same “there will always be…” argument to belittle non-lethal self-defense.

      The problems of physical mis-match between attacker and victim is not being looked at closely on the pro gun-safety side. Generally, we recommend not resisting and aggravating the attacker. Our skirts are not completely clean.

      • I know I’m at the extreme, but i actively prefer the attacker end up dead rather than simply deterred.

        As contradictory as it may seem I don’t want to be The Punisher, but will not hesitate to kill if backed into a corner.

        • The entire array of lethal weapons that are not firearms are effective, plentiful, an safer for bystanders than firearms. Think about the underlying premise of the four gun rules. What are they to accomplish, if not the protection of innocent bystanders. Without firearms, the need for the four rules evaporates.

  9. I need a gun because I might be an bronze medal ex marine who ignored a group of black teenagers when they asked me if black lives matter. So that when they decide to pull a gun and decide to attack me, I can fight back instead of using my marine trained hand to hand combat skills and still get beat half to death
    I need a gun because I might have an abusive ex boyfriend who breaks into my house and kills me and my son before my policeman dad can make the ten minute drive over.
    I need a gun because I may be a legally blind man who is targeted for his disability. Some criminal decided to attack me and take what’s mine. Despite me being unable to drive for lack of sight, I can still see the gun put to my face, and I can still see the attacker. I can still fight back.
    I need a gun because I might be sitting at a café when a maniac comes in swinging a machete.
    I need a gun because I sitting in my black church when a racist psychopath comes in and sits through a lovely service with nothing but hospitality but he still decides to shoot me and my church members.
    I need a gun because I may be sitting on campus when a maniac starts stabbing people on the lawn of my gun free zone campus.
    If you think we having considered the risk and weighed the consequences then you’re wrong. If you think we’re at fault for all the gun violence and crime then you’re wrong. If you think we don’t value our lives enough to protect it ourselves, then you’re so wrong that it doesn’t even make since. Some of us don’t keep guns just to hunt, or to compete, or to be a citizen militia, we just keep guns to protect ourselves and what’s ours, and to do that, we NEED guns.

    • The thrust here seems to be that due to the infinitesimal likelihood that a person may be attacked, 100 million people need guns. If I grant you have a point, you must grant that I have a legitimate argument that because of the infinitesimal likelihood I may be killed or injured by an undisciplined gun owner, we need to seriously look at reasonable constraints that can make us safer from negligent gun owners.

      • Well I suppose we could make being negligent with a firearm a crimanal offense. Maybe that would stop a few? Whacha think?
        Look, I’m not against mandatory training to carry, and safe storage laws. But training is few and far between in (I dare say most) rural areas, where carry of a firearm is most prevelant. It is also expensive. I don’t use that as an excuse, I’m merely saying that for some who aren’t going to carry as often, it doesn’t fit their ideology. I think that if it did become mandatory to get training to CARRY then the training would have to be more available and economic, and that would drop some of the more negligent from carrying a weapon. I am not saying that someone should have to have training to buy a gun. I also am not saying that just because someone doesn’t have training makes them a negligent gun owner, but training never hurts anything more than the wallet and pride when you think you can’t benefit from it.
        Also with mandatory storage laws I do believe that you should be able to store those weapons how you choose. Loaded or unloaded, behind a lock or just hidden. The only exception should be the one you carry and the one you keep by the bed (also preferably locked or hidden). I do not think guns should be just left out Willy nilly on counter tops and book cases. However I do believe that this falls under natural common sense. And enforcing it would be impossible without breaking privacy laws. But the law is the law, enforced or not; followed or not.
        As far as I can tell I have at least mostly answered your question as to why I need a gun. And you seem to be more concerned with the negligent gun owners than illegal gun owners and users so maybe I have answered it in full.
        If I have not then I would be glad to continue this conversation. Provided we remain civilized. I am however tired of scrolling down this awfully long list of comments so if you would like to carry on then you can email me @ spencerivey101@gmail.com. As long as you don’t spam me that it. I’ll even let you txt me to explain your side of the story if you want. Provided you know that your story or arguments will not keep me from using the best of whatever means are necessary to protect myself on a day to day basis.

        • I appreciate the conversation. We may be agreeing that there are some useful steps that can improve gun safety, without outright banning. We agree there are some troublesome details that can be worked-out.

          And it all was done in a civilized manner.

          Take care.

        • I appreciate the conversation. We may be agreeing that there are some useful steps that can improve gun safety, without outright banning. We agree there are some troublesome details that can be worked-out.

          And it all was done in a civilized manner.

      • Also I would like to know what group you file under the “untrained, undisciplined gun owners”? Is it all civilian gun owners? Or just the ones who haven’t taken classes? At what point does one become disciplined and civilized? Is it the point where he’s voluntarily taken a class? The point where he can shoot well? Does he even have to be able to shoot as long as he knows the law? What about those who learned to shoot from their fathers? Does their fathers instruction count as training?
        Are the police who train only once or maybe twice a year, by shooting 50 rounds into a static target at close distance while at a static position with extremely reasonable time limits and little stress because they can always retake the test next week, are they trained? I know their disciplined because they passed criminal justice class. I am in no way bashing police, I’m just saying that most carryers who enjoy shooting practice and train more than most police are required to. Who would you trust to shoot a hostage taker who holds your child’s hand in his hand, a gun on their temple, the guy who gets paid to shoot a hundred rounds a year and doesn’t even like guns, or the guy who shoots a hundred rounds a week because he wants to get better and shooting guns is just his hobby? What kind of training and discipline do you recommend? Surely you wouldn’t make it so rigorous that no one in your mind can even touch a gun?
        I’m not touched up on my military techniques, having never been myself but they receive training and discipline with weapons. Is that enough for them to own and carry a gun when they return home? (Providing they don’t suffer from any combat borne mental illness). From what I can tell, handgun training is not as stringent as rifle training. Should they still be able to conceal their handgun, or only carry a rifle around? (Something I also do not strongly support, but to each his own.) Like I said, I don’t know much about military training and discipline, but maybe you do? And could tell me how it fits into your philosophy.
        What about armed body guards for the rich, famous, and powerful? How strict should their training be? After all they are protecting some of the most influential people who would agree with you about the second amendment and want to disarm everyone but their guards. You can claim that were it not for guns in America they wouldn’t need armed guards, but even in the strictest of countries government officials are still protected by a firearm.
        I’m just asking a question, similar to how you asked me why I need a gun. So how much training and discipline do I need before I become a trained and disciplined gun owner?

        PS. Tasers are illegal to carry in my state by the way. Forgot to mention that earlier. A gun is not. So there is one less “non lethal weapon commercially available to me”. Like I said, the law is the law.

        • Doing things out of order….

          All non-lethal weapons should be legal, everywhere. I haven’t seen anyone on the gun-safety side pushing for banning Tasers (but I have not read everything ever published on the subject). There may be some suspicion on the part of law enforcement that somehow Tasers in the hands of the public pose a threat to law enforcement. Tasers can be misused, but not from a long distance, and whoever heard of an attacker missing their victim and hitting some bystander yards away? I would certainly not oppose any legislation that made Tasers legal everywhere.

          Who would be considered qualified, what would it take?
          – – Initial training and refresher (3-5 years) – –
          – Recognized handgun safety course (pick you favorites)
          – Demonstration to certified instructor that the owner can safely operate the gun (rifle/pistol); break it down, load and unload, shoot within a 10 inch circle at 15 feet (or something), or longer for rifles
          – Demonstrate knowledge of safe transport and home storage (because people should know what safe storage is, whether or not storage is mandatory)
          – Maybe a proficiency course in treating gunshot wounds ?

          For law enforcement, the same as above, plus:
          – Live fire proficiency/qualification every 6 months (500 rounds, multiple target types/distances, every weapon available to the department, or authorized to be used)
          – Demonstrate annually, the ability to de-escalate a visible weapon situation
          – Demonstrate annually, knowledge of all firearms laws and regulations in their jurisdiction, especially use of deadly force
          – Demonstrate annually, knowledge and proficiency of how to read and properly interpret incident calls, including how to read, verify and respond to information related to locations where incidents have been reported.

          For personal security:
          – Same standards as law enforcement

          For armed security (companies, schools, event venues, etc)
          – Same standards as law enforcement

          For current military:
          – Same as civilian
          – Personal weapons allowed on base

          Did I get it all?

  10. I do think that the Justice system should be harder on actual firearm crime. Giving the guy a lesser sentence to know who he bought the gun for does nothing when the trail ends a few guys later with more shortened sentences and no concrete answers or proof. Meanwhile people who actually use a gun in defense are being torn apart in court as if being a criminal is becoming mainstream and making all the laws now. And yes it has stayed civilized and I thank you for that. These conversations rarely seem to go that way online, especially with to people who do not see eye to eye on opposite sides of the fence.
    Also, do you live in America, and can I ask if you do, where? Gun friendly neighborhood? Or decidedly not?

    • Dealing with laws related to use of a gun is something that should be looked at closely. My stance on this issue is related solely to improving gun safety.

      I do not live in a gun friendly location. A slingshot is considered a firearm. Any object capable of projecting an object is considered a firearm (which could include a spoon if you damage someone’s eye launching a cherry from your ice cream treat I suppose). But though we are not gun friendly, guns are not particularly scarce (grandfathered and new). Some of the laws border on ridiculous (spoon-launched cherry) and actually get in the way of improving firearm safety. The populace is about 50-50 pro/anti gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *