Owatonnan says guns are not the problem - Owatonna MN: Letters

  • Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Owatonnan says guns are not the problem

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:00 pm | Updated: 1:28 pm, Thu Feb 14, 2013.

To the editor:

I agree that lawmakers need to talk about firearms. First, they must know the difference between assault rifles and sporting rifles. Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons and have been banned for civilian use since the 1986 Firearms Owner’s Protection Act. Sporting rifles are semi-automatic. The look does not define function.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

© 2014 Southernminn.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Thank you for reading 15 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 15 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 507-333-3111. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

72 comments:

  • trapper 4 posted at 8:29 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    trapper 4 Posts: 7

    Good link to look at.

    http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 7:40 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Well if that’s all true, then it should be very easy to make that minuscule number of people obtaining guns without background checks to obtain background checks.

    The fact is however it is not true. No one seriously believes that a father willing a gun to his son makes the son go through a background check, that doesn’t even pass the smell test. Who believes that a person selling a gun at a garage sale makes the buyer go through a background check? As far as that goes one would have to be pretty stupid to sell a gun at garage sale prices.

    Unless you just fell off the hay wagon you know that the problem at gun shows is not with licensed dealers, who run background checks,. But rather with hobby or private sellers who rent a booth at gun shows and do not run back ground checks as proven by many undercover investigations by 20/20, 60 minutes etc. and several you-tube videos of those investigations.

    Trapper4 says “However, it does not explicitly say that these transactions did not go through an FFL or background check.” as if that failure lends some sort of credibility to his argument. Then goes on to say “Even firearms from family members, friends or acquaintances may still be required to go through an FFL depending on state law” To which I say “you did not (explicitly) say that they did go through a background check so I’m going to assume they did not. See trapper, playing with figures and words works both ways.

     
  • trapper 4 posted at 6:28 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    trapper 4 Posts: 7

    Myth: 40% of firearms are sold without background checks.


    This myth came from this 1997 study of a small sample of 251 interviews. 60% percent of the respondents in the study purchased their firearms through a retail store or pawn shop, which must be FFLs or licensed firearms dealers that conduct background checks. The assumption is that the remaining 40% did not go through an FFL and background checks.

    This number runs into problems though, as the study explains that 3% were obtained through the mail, 4% from a gun show or flea market, 17% from a family member, 12% from a friend or acquaintance, and 4% other. However, it does not explicitly say that these transactions did not go through an FFL or background check.

    The study concedes, for example, that the 3% who obtained a firearm in the mail probably went through an FFL dealer. Retailers at gun shows and flea markets who are FFL's are still required to run background checks as normal. Even firearms from family members, friends or acquaintances may still be required to go through an FFL depending on state law. One can see that the 40% number quickly falls apart.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 6:22 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89


    There is a lot of misinformation out there about gun control, gun rights, self defense, “assault weapons,” and the like. This article is intended to briefly set the record straight:

    Myth #1: Gun control stops criminals from having guns.

    Fact: Gun control laws do not keep guns out of criminals’ hands.
    Gun control laws don’t stop criminals from having guns, any more than the laws against murder stop criminals from committing that crime. A criminal who wants a gun will get a gun, whether they smuggle it in to the country, steal it, or buy it on the black market. The rampant gun related crime in cities such as Chicago and District of Columbia show that handgun bans and other strict gun control laws do not stop criminals from having guns, but instead only disarm the law abiding citizens.

    Myth #2: Guns are ineffective for self defense.

    Fact: Guns are the most effective means of self defense yet devised by human kind.
    A gun is able to effectively stop an attacker at a safe distance, before that attacker can injure or kill the law abiding citizen. A gun can be used by a small woman to stop a large man from attacking her, or by an elderly grandma to fend off a home invader. No other tool of self defense is as reliable, effective, and easy to use. Indeed I have seen people fire a gun for the first time, and consistently hit the target on their very first few shots. it is true that gun owners should seek training and practice to gain maximum proficiency with their firearm of choice, however this training is easily acquired at one’s local gun store or range.

    Myth #3: Gun ownership is not an constitutional right.

    Fact: The Supreme Court of the United States has conclusively declared gun ownership for self defense to be an individual right.
    In the D.C. v. Heller case, the United States Supreme Court made clear that gun ownership for self defense is a right of law abiding, non mentally ill, Americans. This right is independent of service in the military or militia. This ruling is in keeping with the text of the constitution, and the intent of this country’s founders.

    Myth #4: Guns are not needed since the police can be called.

    Fact: The police simply cannot get there quickly enough, or at all in some situations.
    Even for citizens that live right next door to the police station, the police can’t respond quickly enough. That is because it takes less time for a criminal, who is already entering the home, to kill or seriously harm a home owner than it takes for the police to get to the home and stop the criminal. Natural disasters or civil unrest can also stretch a police department’s resources to the breaking point, leaving citizens with no option but self defense.

    Myth #5: Only violent and uneducated people want to own guns.

    Fact: Gun ownership is a right that between one third and one half of all Americans exercise.
    This author is a well educated and peaceful gun owner, as are a great many gun owners. Law abiding citizens own guns for a variety of reasons, ranging from self defense to target shooting. Indeed it is the mark of an intelligent and peace loving person to make themselves ready and able to defend their home against criminals, while hoping that they never need to act in self defense.

    Myth #6:A home owner is 43 times more likely to be killed by their own gun than to kill an intruder.

    Fact: 65 lives are protected for every 2 lives lost.
    The long since discredited myth that gun ownership is more dangerous than beneficial was started by a Mr. Kellermann, in his flawed study “Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home.” There were numerous flaws in the study, including the fact that it only counted deaths, which are not a measure of self defense, any more than the number of suspected criminals shot dead by the police is a measure of police effectiveness. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the 2.5 million self defense uses each year don’t result in a shot being fired at all, meaning that this “study” totally ignored most self defense gun uses. The proper statistic is that 65 lives are protected for every 2 lives lost, which means that gun ownership is overwhelmingly safe and beneficial, both to the individual and to society. See Dr. Suter’s paper “Guns in the Medical Literature – A Failure of Peer Review.” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. Published March 1994.

    Myth #7: Banning so called “assault weapons” will stop crime, since these guns are especially dangerous.

    Fact: The ban on so called “assault weapons” only pointlessly targets safety and cosmetic features of these ordinary guns.
    So-called “assault weapons” are no more dangerous than any other gun, and are used by criminals in well under 1% of crimes. A gun is defined as an assault weapon if it has certain cosmetic and safety features, and the presence of these features does not in any way make the gun more dangerous or useful to criminals. Bans on “assault weapons” are merely a way of eroding gun rights and further complicating gun laws, making it difficult for law abiding citizens to know and obey the law. It is also important to note that the so called “assault weapons” are NOT fully automatic machine guns, which have been very tightly regulated by the federal government since before World War II.


    Related Articles:•Facts About the “Gun Lobby”
    •“Fables, Myths & Other Tall Tales about GUN LAWS, CRIME and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS”
    •Facts about Recoil, and Guns for People who are Sensitive to Recoil
    •Britain Needs Gun Rights – BritainNeedsGuns.co.uk
    •Gun Rights Fit in With Liberal Ideals
    •District of Columbia v. Heller – Supreme Court Declares Gun Ownership an Individual Right!
    •Chicago’s Handgun Ban Challenged In Court
    •A Response To Chicago Mayor Daley’s Recent Anti-Gun Arguments
    •The Injustice of Handgun Bans – citizens prosecuted for defending themselves
    •Fact: Criminals use “Assault Weapons” in less than 1% of All Gun Crimes
    •The History Of Oak Park’s Handgun Ban – It’s all because of one shooting in Chicago
    •“Gun Violence” Protests: Who is Protesting What, and Why?
    •Brady Campaign’s Gun Control Rankings
    •An Open Letter to the Victims of “Gun Violence”
    •The “Minimum Needs” Gun Control Tactic

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 5:11 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
    Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.
    By Dave Gilson on Thu. January 31, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

    By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

    Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
    Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.


    Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey

    Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
    Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.


    Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
    Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
    • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
    • In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

    Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
    Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
    • Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

    Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
    Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
    • For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
    • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
    • In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

    Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
    Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
    • In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
    • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

    Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
    Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
    • A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
    • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

    Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
    Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

    United States Japan
    Per capita spending
    on video games $44 $55
    Civilian firearms
    per 100 people 88 0.6
    Gun homicides
    in 2008 11,030 11
    Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime

    Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
    Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
    • About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
    • Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

    Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
    Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
    • Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
    • An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
    • 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
    • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

     
  • Sparo73 posted at 4:39 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    Sparo73 Posts: 1134

    Anyone of those if shot would kill an intruder, or more.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 4:12 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Hey, if Joe Biden gets his way we will be left with double-barreled shotguns. What is the firing rate of a two-triggered side-by-side? Opps too fast. better knock that down to a single shot .410.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 9:04 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Shamu, I have seen that misleading video several times. And quite frankly I getting sick and tired of others acting as if I need some “insight” into the difference between a full and semi automatic rifle. I spent nine years and four days in the army and three tours in Vietnam. Believe me, I know exactly what the difference is.

    In virtually all my comments I have tried to refer to “assault style weapons” rather than “assault weapons” . The problem is that way too many people who scour my comments DO NOT read my comments. I’m very careful in my writing and try my best to use the correct word in the correct place. For some it doesn’t matter.

    I’m the one who brought up the practice of “bump fire and slide stock” BECAUSE bump fire and slide stock make a semi-automatic assault style weapon “tantamount” to a full automatic assault rifle. Bringing the bump fire and slide stock issue to light is what is driving the gun enablers off the wall because it defeats their argument and they know it. They also understand that when the general public sees a semi-auto bump fired they are watching a “virtually” full-automatic rifle being fired. Therefore, their “cosmetic” argument is null and void, they then run to their back-up position which is “well bump fire is inaccurate” , which is BS. Hundreds of videos prove it, but even if it were inaccurate, accuracy is retained with a shoulder fired slide stock.

    Every argument put forth by gun enablers have been discredited over and over. But some never get the message, they arrive late to the issue and raise yesterdays arguments as if they just thought of them and/or fail basic English. The words “tantamount and virtually” seem to be major stumbling blocks for some people.

    Richard Olson
    Fergus Falls

     
  • shamu posted at 8:15 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.

    shamu Posts: 132

    www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

    Richard please watch this video and it may give you some new insight. It may not hurt for Sparo and those that are so firm in their beliefs to take the time to watch also.

     
  • trapper 4 posted at 3:54 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.

    trapper 4 Posts: 7

    On Tuesday, apparently Joe Biden said that Americans don't need semi-automatic weapons to protect their homes because a couple of blasts from a shotgun would scare off intruders.

    I agree, shotgun blasts would scare anyone, but here we have a genreal statement that could be interpreted as, all semi-automatics regardless of cartridge capacity, looks etc...should be banned. What if those two blasts come from a semi-auto.

    I think it may be fair to say that many people simply do not like a certain look of some guns, make it black, attach a flashlight, hook-up a black sling and perhaps swap out the origninal stock with a postol grip and you transform an average looking gung into something scary.

    All would probably agree, you can take a Ruger model 10/22 and buy enough accessories to make it look like something a member of Delta Force would be proud to carry.

    Some have made the argument that if Bushmasters and the many many variations made by numerous manufacturers are banned from civilians, they should be banned from police and military also. I'll let others wage war on that idea.

    Now apparently several firearms makers have stated they will no longer sell their assault weapons to NYPD or any agency with in NY state. I have not looked into that yet to see if is true so do forgive me if this proves to be merely rumour.


     
  • Jon Munch posted at 3:00 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    I can't find you in the phone book, but would be more than happy to send you the picture. One black rifle capable of holding more than 10 rounds that can be rapidly fired.

     
  • Sparo73 posted at 7:34 am on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.

    Sparo73 Posts: 1134

    Munchy - That's just what I expected. All talk! Guess my military experience won't come into play today.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 2:28 am on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Hi Sparo,

    No, I was thinking of a couple of possibilities, take a picture and blow it up and then carefully coloring it with a sharpie marker, or since I worry too much about keeping the walnut in nice condition, buying a used pump with black synthetic stock and forearm.

    Yeah, the price of gas really bites into the budget!!

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 2:13 am on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    I looked through this thread, but did not see where you mentioned it, but you mention it here and thank you for that and for saving me the frustration.

    I have absolutely no objection to NICS checks for anyone purchasing a firearm-it only makes sense! I currently do not own a handgun, nothing I own has a clip so whatever is or is not implemented really does not affect me as far as what I own. But, do I have the right to tell others what they should not own?

    I do not know what firearms you own and frankly, it's none of my business, but some would object to you and I having guns period or perhaps object to the types we own. Had Adam's mother had her firearms in a gun safe with her being the only one knowing the combination, access would have been denied. If CT firearms laws are like Minnesota's he could not have legally bought a handgun or a bushmaster had he tried to go to a store.

    As you well know clips, regardless of capacity are changed very quickly. I think, and I could be wrong, Adam Lanza could have used a short-barreled Remington 870 pump with buckshot and ended up with the same horrible result.

    A criminal won't pass a NICS check. If we need to have a NICS check booth at gunshows to prevent a potential sale of a gun to a criminal, that's fine with me.

     
  • sportsman posted at 11:51 pm on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.

    sportsman Posts: 64

    Mr. Olson
    I did not miss you comment at 8:08 Monday morning I read it and thought just maybe you might want to see first hand what the SLIDE STOCK you keep bringing up was really like. But I guess you want to go by the internet you-tube videos because we all know they can't put anything on the internet that is not true. I do not need to watch a video on you-tube to know what a slide stock fire's like I have fired an AR15 with one. I thought you might want to learn something but I guess not because you already know everything about guns with out even shooting one with the method you and only you keep bringing up!! If it makes you feel like a big person to attack and call me names that's fine don't bother me in the least after all I have been called names by a BETTER CLASS of citizens than you. Also you are the one who asked what my offer was after you read my post and I answered your question so maybe you should also read other peoples posts. I feel sorry for you for the fact that you have to resort to calling anyone that does not agree with you names and can not be open to a grown up conversation that's just sad.[sad] I think you are the one that needs to grow up and act like a man!

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 12:57 pm on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Well said Special ED,

    Balance, reason as well as civility go a long way. As far as accessories such as the bump fire stock; well let's face it, you add enough aftermarket accessories to a flower painted VW bus and it could be more dangerous than a 69 GTO Judge.

     
  • Special Ed posted at 10:07 am on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.

    Special Ed Posts: 784

    Richard, after watching your video link, I admit I'm surprised. VERY surprised. I think that the demonstrator's 25 years of experience with full auto weapons comes into play but also think that it wouldn't take too long for an average shooter to develop proper fire control. Not surprisingly, the barrel hops around a lot more with the higher caliber cartridges (.223's) as opposed to the .22LR and seemed to pull low likely due to him over correcting on counterbalance but at 15 yards all were torso hits and any one of them would have downed a target.
    Any caliber weapon is going to cause damage as the incidents at issue have all been 'soft' targets and not a well armed/equipped opposing force. One well placed round is going to take out even the best protected individual.
    I think trapper4 has a point in that simply banning the stocks would be the best remedy for this aspect of the discussion.
    We need to address this issue from numerous angles to achieve a balanced and responsible solution. I would prefer solutions that both protect citizens from mayhem and also from undue restrictions of ownership.
    No one wants to see more deaths, particularly if there is a reasonable means of avoiding them. No one wants to see other people's rights restricted or eliminated. The answer is located between these two extremes and the fundamental process of a democracy is to give serious consideration to both sides of the issue to arrive at a workable and effective solution that is prudent as well as responsible.
    In essence, the most protection for citizens with the least infringement on rights. I think it's possible no matter how discouraging and polarized some of the discussions may appear.

     
  • trapper 4 posted at 8:37 am on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.

    trapper 4 Posts: 7

    It would probably be easier to ban the stock and a lot less controversial. It does not change the internal mechanics of the gun's receiver.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 8:33 am on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Here is a good demo from youtube conducted by a CA police officer. The title is called Educate Yourself - Semi-Automatic Firearms vs. Fully Automatic Firearms just in case the link does not work.


    www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=wnBAyOAiUIM

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 11:22 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Hey Sportsman, If I were to drive to Faribault, how would I find you? Since you lack the courage to comment under your own name, what do I do just drive around until I see someone bouncing off the walls of buildings?

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 11:17 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Sportsman, I answered your question at 8:08 am Monday morning. The fact that you missed it is not surprising knowing your reluctance to let facts interfere with the running of your mouth and is demonstrated once again in your stubborn refusal to watch my linked video.

    I’m not going to explain once again what I’ve said regarding bump fire rate of fire and full auto rate of fire.
    What good would it do? Because you don’t understand what ”tantamount” means you keep running your ignorant mouth inferring they are the same or that I’ve said slide stock and/or bump fire makes a semi auto into a full auto.

    As to your offer to come to Faribault so you can demonstrate in person what you failed to comprehend by reading…..yeah sure, that’s going to happen. I’m going to drive all the way to Faribault to talk to the village idiot on the off chance that he is smarter in person that his written comments show him to be. Get real!

    Sportsman, if you would just read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote, you wouldn’t appear so foolish. You sound like a petulant sixteen year old teenage boy whose prom date stood him up for another girl.
    Had you bothered to read anything you would know that I’ve never said any sort of assist made a semi-auto into a full-auto, nor have I ever said an AR-15 is a full automatic weapon. Those fact are written down by me, all you had to do was to read. But instead of reading you prefer to get all hysterical like some old maid and go bouncing off one wall to the other demanding answers to questions previously answered.

    I’m willing to bet that if you argued with yourself you would lose. I may just drive to Faribault to see that. On second thought I wouldn’t, it doesn’t sound as if it would be all that rare.

     
  • sportsman posted at 9:38 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    sportsman Posts: 64

    trapper 4
    I will check it out.

     
  • sportsman posted at 9:36 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    sportsman Posts: 64

    Mr. Olson my offer was in my post on Sun Feb 17 at 11:44 Pm. Also I do not need to watch your you tube video I have shot a gun with a slide stock I personally do not own one it is a waste of time and not worth owning but if you would like to try one out so you can see first hand my buddy would let me borrow it any time.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 7:04 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Here is a video for those who doubt or question the accuracy and or speed of a “bump fire slide stock” on a semi automatic rifle verses a full automatic rifle. The supposed issue of a “waste of ammo” is also addressed……

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=wnBAyOAiUIM

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 11:49 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Hi Trapper4,

    I think that is part of the issue - where the line gets drawn. Like I said before. The Brady Bill, signed in 1993 was initiated following the attempt on President Reagan. The weapon was a small revolver. Now if I remeber right, initially the focus was getting rid of "Saturday Night Specials" small very short-barreled handguns of all types. But included, was additional items such as black semi-auto rifles, and a ban on any clip capable of holding ten rounds, no flash hiders etc... Now whether or not this next event was tied to the Brady Bill or not I do not know but it was not long before Olin Mfg was required to pull the Black Talon line of ammunition because they were called "cop Killer bullets.

    I do know that there are bolt action rifes in common calibers that only police and the military can buy, because they are apparently too accurate for civillians.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 10:52 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Enlighten me Sportsman. What was your offer?

     
  • trapper 4 posted at 10:14 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    trapper 4 Posts: 7

    Sportsman,

    Ever here of the battle of Athens, TN it is an interesting case from history. I think you'll like it!

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 7:36 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    I am all for upping the punishment for violent offenders of any kind. Lets face there is no shortage of work that needs to be done and if we have to pay for them to be incarcerated why not put them to work.

     
  • itsmeuc posted at 2:08 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    itsmeuc Posts: 620

    Jon, the ATF does have an acting director--Todd-Jones, you are right. The problem is he already has a full-time job-- currently serving as the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota. Congress would not confirm Obama's first choice. The NRA didn't approve of him. I would say Mr. Jones has little time if any to enforce current gun laws on the books. I would agree with you on tougher penalties for those committing a violent gun crime with harsher penalties--up to and including the wearing of pink underwear. That is what they are trying to do in the state of Illinois. Chicago has tough gun laws, but state statutes allow violent offenders of gun crimes short of murder to walk too easily.

     
  • sportsman posted at 11:50 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    sportsman Posts: 64

    Well Mr Olson I knew you would not take me up on my offer just keep watching your you tube videos for your facts. I do not ever remember saying I was ever against background checks to by guns all of my guns are registerd and are 100% legal. My point how is taking guns away from the lawful person is going to take them out of the criminals hands? Answer is it won't if they want them they will get them no matter what you think ban so-called assault weapons remove them all they will just use something else. You do not want to own one simple do not buy one but do not push your opinion on me or try to take away my rights to protect me or my family that is where we have a problem.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 10:30 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Anyone who doesn’t think Jon Munch is not a internet troll should go to the thread “Right to bear arms is example of amazing foresight” where at 1:28 pm on Friday February 15th 2013 John munch wrote….

    “Well written Dennis! Yeah, they do not teach history anymore and most prbably have to sratch their head to know what Kent State was about. But, as my dad used to say we were very close to becoming a police state.”………


    Then on Monday February 18th (three (3) days later) at 7:21 pm Jon Munch writes…..

    “Also, as far as your remark about my daddy telling me about Kent State, that was something he often told my mother and that she repeated to me, You see Mr. Olson, I never had the opportunity to be told anything by my biological father because his helicopter was shot down in 1971 and I was two years old.”…….

    The Kent State Massacre happened on May 4th, 1970

    Draw your own conclusions.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 9:32 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Bill Clinton was a white democrat president and I believe it was he who signed the Brady Bill in 1993. We learbned to live with it didn't we. Color of skin really does not matter and we do have laws that restrict who may purchase a firearm. It is also a fact that any sales person can deny a sale even if the buyer passes a background check. Back when I worked retail I denied a sale because the person appeard very nrevous and agitated. I am all for background checks, it weeds out the few felons who try to buy a gun legally.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 9:13 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    I think the BATF does have an acting director at least as of 2011-Todd Jones. But in all seriousness, I am all for enforcing the laws already on the books and I am especially in favor of penalty reform. How about every criminal prosecuted for a violent crime with a gun is condemned to life repairing bridges and roads for free while wearing pink underwear and a shirt that reads "I am an Idiot."

     
  • trapper 4 posted at 9:03 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    trapper 4 Posts: 7

    Sorry to get in on the excitement a bit late. I 've been to busy with home projects. I am just guessing here, but I would say a lot of the fear of many gun owners may revolve around lack of clear intentions.

    We have fully automatic rifles used by law enforcement and our military and civilian/ altered versions that are semi-automatic. Now I am not an expert on the bump fire subject so I will stay out of that one. But, is it plausible to say that what the gun control advocates unintentionally communicating is a ban on all semi-automatics firearms period whether or not they resemble firearms used by military and police?

    I I wouldn't classify Mr. Munch's pheasant gun as an assault weapon.

    But what if a ban on all semi-auto's did happen, then what do you do if a pump shotgun becomes the popular weapon of mass shootings? Do we eliminate those as well?

    I think perhaps some of the fear may come from this and wonderng where do we stop.

    I will agree with Mr. Munch that I do not remember school shootings happening when I was a kid, or if they did, they were not glorified on the news. I too wonder what is wrong with our society that it has become so crime ridden. I don't consider myself to be an enabler because I believe in the second amendment or a criminal because I own firearms. I don't think that, as Mr. Munch has said, that law abiding gun owners have a problem with criminal background checks either. Criminals don't bother with it. But, had Adam Lanza's mother put trigger locks on all of her legally owned firearms, perhaps we would not be having this discussion.

    Peace to you all.

    To be sure it is a complex issue with no easy solutions

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 8:53 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    The comparison between Abortion and second amendment gun rights is on point because the very same court that ruled on gun rights in “Heller” also ruled on abortion rights in “Roe v Wade”.

    Both are legal practices in the United States according to the Supreme Court. Yet abortion rights are chipped away by the hour by so-called small government conservatives with restriction after restriction. But after the election of a black president the second amendment suddenly became “absolute” and can not be restricted in any way.

    A conservative gun enabler will scream like a chicken if you even think about, thinking about, perhaps, maybe, possibly, considering some small policy changes regarding guns. But he can’t keep his grubby chubby little paws off women’s health care, especially her own body and her reproductive rights. They won’t be satisfied until American women are treated like women in some Muslim Nations. And they can shove their religion down the throats of all clear thinking Americans.

    What do you think the conservatives would say if an American woman strapped a Colt Python on her hip as she fought her way through the Christian thugs surrounding planned parenthood. I bet they would consider some gun restrictions before her appointment was over, and have it passed in congress before noon the next day.

     
  • itsmeuc posted at 8:00 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    itsmeuc Posts: 620

    With all due respect, it is hard to tell the difference between your sarcasm, and serious posts....I've had my fill of wigged out neo-cons here--so much for me trying to take your position seriously....c ya.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 7:33 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    I know, it’s the only way the Jon Munch thinks he can have the last word. He only moves in after everyone else moves out.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 7:29 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    That's right we all have the right to life. No mater how big or how small.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 7:28 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Hey you have to regognize sarcasm when you see it. Perhaps if the government spent less on bailing out poorly run automakers and financial institutions they would have the money to adequately fund the BATF.

     
  • itsmeuc posted at 7:14 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    itsmeuc Posts: 620

    Richard, it appears someone is stalking you and your comments on dead threads. Just an observation.

     
  • itsmeuc posted at 6:58 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    itsmeuc Posts: 620

    Yes, we definitely need more guns to prohibit and stop those "degenerates who steal others guns." Does anyone else see the irony of this line of thinking?

    "Our well established and well enforced gun laws"

    Jon Munch, ask your buddies in Congress and in the NRA what they have against allowing the ATF to do it's job, and enforce existing gun laws. A director of the ATF has not been allowed to be confirmed for six years. Through acts of Congress, the ATF has had its budget cut, cannot make unexpected inspections of licensed gun dealers, and has basically been rendered toothless in its ability to try to enforce existing gun laws all at the behest of the NRA.

     
  • itsmeuc posted at 6:37 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    itsmeuc Posts: 620

    I have little faith that any meaningful reform legislation will pass. Whatever MAY get through will be diluted to meet the standards of the gun lobby.

    John Boehner (I regularly mispronounce his name and on purpose) does not consider the issue worthy enough as of this writing to give it a vote in the House. Getting the plan through the Senate will be the (relatively) easy part. If the House operates the way it normally has and I suspect it will, the proposals will be shot down faster than you can change magazines on your AR 15. Not to worry gun-lovers. As usual, the Republicans in the House will not offer up their own alternatives to solving the gun issue.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 5:50 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    I think we need the government to strictly regulate parenting. I think you should have to be legally married, have genetic test done, and have yearly psychiatric exams before having children. Then after you do produce a few children. The Department of Human Services must come annually to assess your parenting ability. Maybe then people would not be "raising" degenerates who steal others guns and commit gross infractions of our well established and well enforced gun laws.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 4:51 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    No gun owner I know has any problem with having a criminal background check when purchasing a firearm. I know I don't. And all my firearms are registerd and none were bought at gun shows. Nothing I own has a clip of any kind and well when reality struct comes to confiscate my three round semi-automatic 12 gauge that I use for pheasant hunting...I guess I will be forced to use a pump intead.

    No one has the right to take your life reality check, and I hope you are not equating those who legally own certain firearms with automatically being criminals. But a criminal does not care what gets banned or what laws get passed. Outlawing alchohal way back in the day just created a huge underground market and everyone enjoyed their alchohal anyway. Most of us survived just fine when the Barady Bill came to pass and it did not phase me a bit because nothing I had then or now had a clip. But many people do own semi-automatic rifles with clips and personnally I don't have the right to tell them they can't own such firearms because someone else decides to break all applicable laws with one. Punishing law abiding people because of a criminal's actions is not a solution either. I am sad about the children of Sandy Hook I am more sad about the millions of unborn children that have been legally murdered in this country. But regardless of how I feel on that issue. It is the law and women have that legal right.

     
  • Special Ed posted at 4:15 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Special Ed Posts: 784

    " I dont care who you think you are, you have NO right to take my life, or my loved one's life."
    I presume that you mean through guns?
    Creds? CPIM, BS, SE LOL (That last is not a cred but an expression of amusement)

     
  • realitytstruck posted at 2:42 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    realitytstruck Posts: 1

    Richard Olson- your comparison between abortion rights and gun rights is so perfect I struggle to find words to thank you for it.

    In my mind, no one has a right to own a semi-automatic gun or large clip. I dont care who you think you are, you have NO right to take my life, or my loved one's life. NONE. Cling to your guns now, because when my generation comes into power, I promise you, we'll be coming for them because of nuts like this.

    Reading this from an outside perspective, and looking at some of the comments i'm sure i'll get an answer quickly, but who puts BA and NREMT in their signature line? I'm gonna start putting all of my credentials on everything to make myself feel important.

    -Signed
    Yours Truly, BS BA BS (I have 3 even though they are pretty much universal), GFI (group fitness organizer) CBT (certified Bank teller)... etc etc etc.

     
  • Special Ed posted at 2:20 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Special Ed Posts: 784

    That's different Richard. Those laws "save the lives of children."
    Good analogy on conservative thinking but not a solution. Thanks for the chuckle, I love the things you come up with.

     
  • Special Ed posted at 2:04 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Special Ed Posts: 784

    I think that productive discourse (not necessarily "cordial") will better serve everyone's purposes. Once outrage has passed, reason needs to take hold and I guess most of what I've read and seen is that it's being handled about as effectively as the marriage amendment proposed by Republicans. It was turned into a God vs. Heathen issue and had nothing whatsoever to do with basic human rights. It was a ploy to draw more people to the polls. I have to believe that this is going to be (and has been) twisted to fit some political agenda as well by both sides.
    You're right about the 'reasoning' of a madman I suppose. They're not exactly known for their diplomatic skills or future planning.
    The perception kids have of guns nowadays has changed dramatically and most kids are not exposed to guns for sport but for 'fun' and power. That HAS to change.
    I see the NRA as the ones who are (pardon the pun) sticking to their guns across the board. Most gun owners I know have no problem with background checks, registering new firearms, eliminating the gun show opening and things like that. But, they are not going to be the type who will actively oppose all of that.
    If you think about it, when we were kids, the guys with guns were pretty tame by todays standards and the good guys almost always won. Even if they didn't, the message was that standing for 'good' and getting killed for the effort was a better alternative to standing for 'bad' and getting killed.
    Even an atheist would have to admit that there is some practical value in conservative values and a certain level of naivete while growing up. Kids are exposed to too much, too soon and have too few role models teaching them about right, wrong and the value of human life.
    That plays an enormous part in this discussion (long term) along with general mental health issues.
    In the meantime, we need to lock up the guns better and make sure we know who has access to them. That's not unreasonable.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 1:51 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    What if gun rights were regulated like abortion rights? Here’s a list of just some of the hoops you’d have to jump through before you could own a gun:

    Only one store in the entire state would sell guns. (See: Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming for states with only one abortion provider.)

    You’d have to fill out an enormous personal background check including intrusive personal information that has nothing to do with your ability to own or use a gun. Then you’d have to wait at least 72 hours and come back to the store. (Remember, it’s the only one in the state. You better hope you don’t live on the other side of Wyoming.)

    Upon your return, you’d have to sit through intensive mandatory counseling. Your counselor, regardless of his personal beliefs, would have to tell you that gun ownership is actually a bad idea, and that it would negatively effect your mental health to own a gun. (This, despite there being no scientific evidence to support the claim.)

    Next, you’d sit through a gruesome movie showing the actual aftermath of domestic gun crimes. You’d see people with half a head. You’d see dead children in their beds. You’d see the bloody aftermath of a school shooting. You’d be shown statistic after statistic warning you that you’d be contributing to this morally degenerate sanctioning of murder.

    If you lived in Virginia, you’d have to come back (again) for an invasive and uncomfortable fMRI (which costs around $300 out of your pocket) to ensure your honesty in answering all the background check information and your intentions to use your gun responsibly. (This was as close as I could get to the invasive transvaginal procedure included in the recently passed Virginia bill

    Oh… and if you were married, your spouse might have to sign off on your gun ownership.

     
  • shamu posted at 1:10 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    shamu Posts: 132

    Not to agree with Richard, as i am a gun owner my self, but we need to have some honest dicourse because this government has chosen to use any news of any sort to beat up gun owners. They don't need the real truth as the media only reports what they deem what they think we need to know. In reality something needs to be done and it isn't banning any particular gun because someone gave it a name. Lets all quit the name calling and find a solution we can all live with.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 12:26 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Bump fire and slide stocks are not used for their accuracy or lack of it. However there are plenty of videos on You-tube attesting to the fact that either assist can be very accurate. (even the very first time)

    Be that as it may… the reason for bump fire and slide stock assist is the increased ability to put more projectiles out of the end of the barrel in as little time as possible. The more lead one can spray the less accuracy is required.

    I’ve never been a mass shooter/killer, but I suspect that a person intent on killing a bunch of people then killing one’s self isn’t in the least bit concerned with the cost involved in wasting ammunition. (just a hunch) Nor is he concerned with carrying a few extra pounds for the last few minutes of his life.

    You guys can bemoan the lack of cordial debate on this issue all you want. I submit that when men, women and children are being murdered by the use of easily available guns and have been so for decades and one side says they will never ever agree to any restrictions what-so-ever because their right is “absolute”. While the other side has reasonably asked for reasonable restriction and gotten no where for decades, the time for cordial discussions is long since over. Just ask the parents of those children murdered in Sandy hook if they think a cordial discussion is what’s called for at this late date. How many more children will be shoot to death while one side asks for reasonable restriction and the other side says NO! ABSOLUTLY NOT!

     
  • Sparo73 posted at 11:24 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Sparo73 Posts: 1134

    Jon M - Have you been doing any painting lately? I could use a little bump in cash. I'm a little low for the month.

     
  • Special Ed posted at 11:15 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Special Ed Posts: 784

    I am sort of in agreement with you on a few key points.
    I think that too much is made of bump fire because of accuracy issues too.
    I agree that we need to close open avenues for people to purchase weapons on the open market without background checks or registration. I believe that both of those will close off a lot of the flow of guns to unstable people. I like your suggestion about holding owners responsible for the security of their guns. I've said that myself and it's nice to see someone else considering that aspect of control.
    I hope your comments about tactical planning were just for illustration! [wink]
    As for your assessment of the discourse, I could not agree with you more. Too much time and energy is wasted on witty remarks, sarcasm and vitriol by people (on both sides) who have gotten side tracked by ideologies rather than solutions.
    No one wants to see more mayhem and death but no one seems terribly interested in actually discussing solutions. Facts are great but no matter where you get your 'facts' they all seem to be in question.
    However, the fact is that people have access to guns with no means of tracking the sale or verifying the eligibility of the purchaser (much less the seller).
    The fact is that unfit people are accessing weapons and using them to kill multiple people.
    The fact is mental illness plays a MAJOR role in these endeavors.
    The fact is societal standards of conduct have deteriorated to the point where news of these events is on par with the weather forecast for many Americans.
    The fact is that both sides are going to have to reach some sort of compromise on how to handle this and it will have to involve changes in numerous areas, NOT just gun control and NOT just mental illness and NOT just physical building security.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 11:06 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    I wonder how many times I have to say this for it to sink into the skulls of some people more intent on jumping to unwarranted conclusions than reading what has already been printed.

    Jon Munch, some time ago I recommended that you read what was written before you arrived late. Had you taken my advise you would already know that I own three firearms and you could also have read what I wrote about the “inherent” right of self protection. Which is stronger that any second amendment right. But you didn’t, therefore you whine about issues that are not even at issue except in your head.

    Mai Lai is another example. Who is arguing with you about Mai Lai? You are arguing with yourself and so far it appears you lost.

    Lastly, who else but a criminals best friend would make it easy for a criminal to buy a gun without a background check or identification? Who but a criminals best friend would argue that a criminal has the right to buy any weapon and large capacity magazines. Which helps the criminal kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. You may claim no responsibility to ease your conscience but you Jon Munch are an enabler, a gun enabler. That makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

     
  • whitecollar posted at 10:10 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    whitecollar Posts: 620

    I have checked out 'bump fire' and 'slide fire' through various venues and reached the following conclusions and part of these conclusions are based on what I would be looking at if my goal was to become a successful mass murderer:
    Bump fire is not something that I would opt for. It wastes ammunition through diminished accuracy which would require me to carry more weight.
    It requires a learning curve and a lot of practice to improve accuracy.
    Slide fire stocks require that you push forward with your offhand (an extremely unnatural act for a marksman) again requiring a lot of practice and resulting in diminished accuracy.
    Full auto would be preferable to the previous methods of rapid fire but it still does not do anything but decrease accuracy and time on target.
    If the point of these heinous acts is to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time, then accuracy is critical.
    As for damage on impact, if I were a victim, I would much prefer to be hit with a round from an AK-47 than your typical hunting rifle. The kinetic energy from a 7.62mm (AK-47) is substantially less than that from a typical .30-30, .308 or .30-06 round. Same with a 5.56mm (M16/AR15) round. It is less lethal than your typical hunting round.
    So, if I were completely nuts but somewhat intelligent, I would use a gun chambered for a hunting round, a ten round magazine and semi-auto.
    CS gas and homemade hand grenades would be a part of the process. The more confusion, chaos and variety of methods I could bring into play, the more opportunity for damage I would have.
    These are just my opinions backed up by my own experience and knowledge of guns.
    Having said that, I do not believe that an 'assault weapons' ban is going to accomplish much. I do believe that we need to immediately discuss and arrive at a consensus on controlling guns but only to the extent that people may legally own them but must be held fully accountable for their security. I hate the idea closing the gun show "loophole" but not because I want undocumented kooks running around buying guns but because, on a gut level, I hate the fact that it's necessary. That loophole must be closed no matter how I 'feel' about it.
    That and providing severe penalties to those who are irresponsible and do not secure their weapons will produce the most immediate results.
    I will never support taking guns away from people or modifying their rights to own them. Just like the pit bull discussions when dog fights come up, it's not the dog, it's the owner. That's how I feel about guns.
    I am not a fan of government 'solutions' because they are always more political than practical and it will not be limited to guns. Like the Patriot Act, it will evolve into something much larger and we will forfeit even more rights, legal protections and freedoms as a result. God only knows what liberties our government has taken in their interpretation and application of the Patriot Act (the very name is designed to imply voting against it would be unpatriotic) Again, my opinion. I do believe that responsible gun owners and those wishing for more safeguards for our society can find common ground and arrive at a reasonable consensus on how to deal with it but I have yet to see a respectful and well reasoned discussion on it. So, what is the greater threat here?
    Guns? Or our lack of ability to maintain a civil discussion on guns?
    That's my other conclusion:
    This will not be remedied in a fair and impartial manner because everyone is focused on b*&^@ slapping each other instead of seriously considering possible solutions.
    I have my passions too. There are things that are hot button issues for me but I try to avoid commenting when I am all worked up about something because any comments I make are going to be less about the issue and more about my emotional reaction.
    When a discussion devolves to that level (in particular the political name calling and partisan insults) there's really nothing left to discuss. The subject has been lost.
    I'm confident in my opinions in this post but am also mindful of the fact that evidence or facts may be brought into the thread that will give me cause to rethink some of my conclusions, opinions and beliefs.
    It's not just a matter how many is enough before I'm willing to turn over my rights and admit that our country is out of control, whether or not I like kids or guns, am liberal or conservative.
    Many issues in this country and the resultant laws have been 'resolved' by government stepping in at the behest of the loudest group's desires. That's where things like social host ordinances, tobacco taxes, seat belt laws, immigration saturation, tax disparities, wasteful school spending and a host of other emotion based decisions were made.
    I don't want this one made on emotion or political agendas.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 9:15 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Well Richard, As far as I remember my histrionics, Mai Lai did occur and at least 500 men women and children were murdered by Army troops with military issued weapons/assault rifles and our govenrment was famous for lying about their war time activites. You should be lobbying to prevent the military from having such weapons and insisting that our military be used to defend our freedoms and not being the world policeman.

    No I don't, think I could be classified as a criminal's best friend. I am kind of thinking that if some prozac laden lunatic comes into my house to harm me or my family, he is going to learn something real fast. I believe in guns and I believe in God and he'll be meeting both real quick.

    Now as for you, I would not to force you to own a gun. I am not sure I would even recommend you ever do so. However, I believe that if a criminal breaks into your house that you are free to:

    A. Adhere to strict non-violence and let the creep murder you and yours with no resistance at all and hope CNN will use you as a poster child for more gun control.

    B. Agressively defend your home and loved ones with the kitchen appliance of your choice and be a guest on Rachel Ray.

    C. Use a firearm of your choice and have a decent chance to save you & your loved ones from potential harm and save the tax payers a lot of money keeping the creep in our foster care prison system. However, you will be labeled as a gun enabler, firearm freak, and a childish, God-believing, non-progressive conserative piece of societal trash that the rest of us unfortunately have to listen to.

    D. You could just shoot of your mouth which is probably the most dangerous thing you have and not have to worry about all the labels.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 8:08 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Well Sportsman, just like the gun enabler you are, you will cling to any straw to excuse the illegal use of firearms. I can’t prove that mass killers used bump fire methods to kill all those people you value less than your hobby and you can’t prove they did not.

    At the end of the day it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that assault rifles can be bump fired and the difference in rate of fire is infinitesimal. Therefore, the rate of fire for a bump fire assault rifle is tantamount to the rate for a full automatic assault rifle.

    First I have an arrogant Jon Munch attempting to teach me about Vietnam and now you’re going to teach me about bump firing an AR-15. Each are laughable for the pompous arrogance displayed by amateurs and wanabees.

    Sportsman, you and others like Jon Munch are the criminals best friend. You place the ease and convenience of your hobby above the lives of children and adults murdered by criminals who’s pathway to crime was made easier by gun enablers like your self. The actions of gun enablers enable criminal to get hold of firearms without background checks and then to kill as many people as quickly as possible because gun enablers refuse to be reasonable adults. I do wish however that Jon Munch were the National spokesperson for gun enablers. His histrionics and childish denial and avoidance of fact and points of contention make him the ideal candidate to speak for gun enablers. His ignorance of history is out weighed only by his sense of self-importance and ability to ignore facts placed before him. (to say nothing about his utter lack of basic reading comprehension skills)

    At least David Gross has the ability to form coherent thoughts and then reduce them to written form. You two, however bounce from discredited talking point to outdated irrational opinion the village idiot would refuse to utter for fear of embarrassment.

    None of this matters anymore, you gun enablers are dinosaurs, your time has passed. Made quicker by consistent refusal to come to the table with reasonable proposals. Now your side will be forced to accept what you can get. If not now, within a year or so, and all owing to your intransigence and heartless arrogance.

    Richard Olson
    Fergus Falls

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 5:41 am on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Thanks Sportsman. Tragedies are just that regardless of what method or what tool. While I personally do not own a semi-automatic black rifle, I do not have the right to tell others that they should not because it happened to be the tool of choice for a criminal. The media makes a 5.56 mm rifle sound like it is a .470 nitro express. What would Bloomberg call my friend's Browning .338 semi-auto elk rifle and where is that hard black and white line between what people use for hunting and what some want to call an assault weapon. As far as I know they did not call my Grandfather's M-1 Garand an assault weapon it was a semi-automatic 8 round plain old rifle and because it was semi-automatic, they took more time to hit what they were aiming at during WWII.

    History has accurately showed us through the Vietnam experience several things.

    First, fully automatic military issued weapons waste a tremendous amount of ammo, but they do a great job trimming the foliage.

    Second even soldiers who are "authorized" to have and use such weapons commit crimes with them, remember Mai Lai? Guess their C/O could not enforce the rules for those fellows.

    Third, our government will lie to your face and stop at nothing to do so. No, we are not bombing North Vietnam. No, we are not involved in Laos or Cambodia. Yes we are winning this war and are committed to our friend in South Vietnam.

    Now, it's no we do not want to take away your second amendment rights. Well lets look at what has happend to our first amendment rights, lets face it you say the wrong thing and you could be charged with a terroristic threat.

    If gun control was such a high priority for Obama, funny how he waited until he had his second term in the bag before tackling that one. He does not care what he does now because, thankfully he won't get a third term. The least he could do is produce some real tears the next time he pretends to be sad.

     
  • sportsman posted at 11:44 pm on Sun, Feb 17, 2013.

    sportsman Posts: 64

    Well MR Olson just like the good liberal you are you can't let a tragedy go to waste. I see you are back to your "bump firing method" there has been no proof that any weapon in any of the shootings was "bump fired"! I do not believe you would know the difference if it jumped up and bit you in the nose. Have you ever fired a weapon with your bump fire method? If not you do not even know what you are talking about but if you ever want to know what it is like come on down to Faribault and I will show you that it does not make it a fully automatic like you seem to want to make it out to be. An AR 15 is no more than a semi-auto rifle no matter what you say or believe not an assault weapon if anything because I also use mine for self defense that really makes it an anti-assault weapon!! Also Mr. Munch you wrote a good letter no what Mr. Olson and the other anti-gunners think!

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 4:58 pm on Sun, Feb 17, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Intersting article. I do find it interesting how state and federal officials (professionals) could get such simple facts at a major crime scene so messed up as to confuse four handguns in the school and a rifle in the trunk to two handguns and one bushmaster found in the school and then one shotgun in the trunk and two handguns and one bushmaster in the school. The report that four handguns were used to shoot the children and not a rifle to only the rifle and not the handguns. What a clusterbomb. And I am supposed to believe these people?

    They sound like polititians during an election year!

    I am still not sure why the Medical Exmner sounded like he was drunk and laughing during his interview or why Emilie Parker's dad was laughing just before his statement to the press. Bottom line, I don't think we will ever know the full truth.

    I was not around when JFK was shot. I know that the Warren Commission did a "intensive and factual investigation" and that many believe their findings to be correct. I have always found it amazing that an absolute nothing like Oswald could fire three shots from a junky, poorly made bolt-action (non-assault rifle) in less than 7 seconds on a moving target and make three hits including a headshot from a considerable distance. I also find it amazing how a head, shot from behind, can move violently to the back and to the left . I am not into conspiracies, but I do find it interesting. I do not believe we will ever know the full truth on that one either. Why did they not ban military bolt action rifle back then, aren't military style guns assault weapons?

     
  • Sparo73 posted at 2:57 pm on Sat, Feb 16, 2013.

    Sparo73 Posts: 1134

    Jon M - "If I spray paint it black and present a picture to the liberals I am quite certain they will call it an assault weapon and want that banned also."

    Let's see if you want to put your money where your mouth is - care to make a wager on that?

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 12:33 am on Sat, Feb 16, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Just saying that I watched an NBC news cast saying that handguns were used and not a rifle and no Ted Nugent was not the anchor. I typically do not follow Ted Nugent. I don't typically follow Ted. If NBC got that wrong I apologize on their behalf-cause that never happens. What if he had used a pump shot gun. The result is the same, dead is dead-would you like to ban thase also?

    I hope you never have to go to any ER. I also hope that someday you will have enough time to thoroghly learn the difference between initials and credentials.

    In the meantime, just so your mind is at ease. I do not own a handgun or a semi-automatice rifle, but I do have a lever-action that I can shoot just as fast. If I spray paint it black and present a picture to the liberals I am quite certain they will call it an assault weapon and want that banned also.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 8:55 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Ted Nugent Revives False Report To Deny An Assault Weapon Was Used In Sandy Hook Massacre

    By Media Matters

    National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent relied on a false and outdated report frequently promoted by conspiracy theorists to claim that no assault weapons were used in the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut authorities have stated that all of the Newtown victims were shot with a Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapon, with some victims receiving up to 11 gunshot wounds.
    In a February 13 column for birther website WND, Nugent wrote, "No so-called assault weapon was used in the grisly murders of the children and teachers in Newton," and instead suggested that four handguns were used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. CNN recently promoted Nugent as having a "very firm grasp of the facts" about gun violence. 

    Nugent said…Newsflash for he the sheeple Redcoat Piers: No so-called assault weapon was used in the grisly murders of the children and teachers in Newton, Conn. NBC has reported the butcher used four handguns, and though we can all agree that anything reported by the networks and so much of the media should be disbelieved out of hand, even if the Bushmaster modern sporting rifle were used in the demonic slaughter of innocents, semi-automatics are not "assault weapons." Period. 

    Lt. J. Paul Vance, who is the spokesperson for the Connecticut State Police, has addressed rumors that the Newtown shooter had used handguns and not an assault rifle, stating, "It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters":

    Vance said:…Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that has been a focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.
    All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.
    "It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.
    Multiple Second Amendment and gun-owner websites have attempted to cast doubt on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza. 

    Indeed, the NBC News segment Nugent cited has been used to stoke such conspiracies.  
    Nugent's argument that firearms like the Bushmaster "are not 'assault weapons'" is also false. Before the gun industry attempted to rebrand assault weapons as "modern sporting rifles" in 2009, gun manufacturers, firearms enthusiasts and advocates for an assault weapons ban all used the term "assault weapon" to specifically refer to military-style semi-automatic rifles, like the one used in the Newtown massacre.

    In his column, Nugent also claimed, "The AR-15 has more in common with a common .22 semi-automatic squirrel rifle than a military assault weapon." This statement is highly misleading as the AR-15 was directly derived from the military standard issue M16 rifle. As one 1985 advertisement for a Colt AR-15 put it, "The AR-15A2 Sporter II is the civilian version of the battle proven and recently improved U.S. military M-16A1." Furthermore, while the .223 caliber ammunition commonly used in AR-15 rifles and the 5.56mm ammunition used by M16 rifle are quite similar, the ammunition used by a .22 caliber hunting rifle is quite different and has a much lower velocity and penetrating ability. 

    From Media Matters, February 14th, 2013

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 5:21 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Jon Munch,

    What I mean about re-inventing the wheel is that because you’ve come late to this debate you’ve missed the counters to every point you belatedly make. There are four or five other articles on these pages that deal with gun safety. Go back and truly read them, then you won’t have to ask repetitious questions. Or make silly comments about fully automatic rifles when “bump firing” negates any internal differences. And while you’re at it go back and read your own citation before you mischaracterize the results.

    Lastly if your last comment is what you took away from my comment at 1:45 pm, then I hope I’m never near an emergency room when you’re on duty. I get the impression I would have to explain a broken leg about 7 or 8 times before you’d grasp the situation.

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 3:57 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    A study on the highly effective Brady Bill. Enjoy.http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 3:48 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    True assault weapons are machine guns read on and enjoy. By the way, RN, BA and NRETM are credentials not initials.

    The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 2:39 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    Yes Richard,

    Well the government tried to ban alchohal and well we do love our beer and all its benefits so that did not work. We still have our tobacco, the benefits of which eat up billions of healthcare dollars. We outlawed cocaine and meth. hows that working for you.

    What makes you think any criminal will obey any law-isn't that the point! I am the one who puts my information on the 4473 form-you do know what that is right? It is I who gets a criminal background check etc...

    Right, you don't care what gun was used, but was Adam Lanza's mom is bad because she legally owned the guns she did?

    All law abiding gun owners are bad Richard? All law abiding gun owners should be further restricted and essentiallly punished because of one person's psychiatric case kid Richard? Shall we further adopt punishment for the majority because of the misdeeds of the minority Richard?

    We already have a ban on true assult weapons RIchard. We already banned hi-capacity clips once-it made no difference on crime-why because criminals will always find a way to get or make what I cannot legally buy. Why don't you contact our representatives and talk to them about reinvention of wheels-please!

    Since I have been on the streets as an EMT and since I do provide health care as a nurse and since I am a law abidding gun owner, I would say I have a lot more diversified perspectinve than tha average for what that is worth to you.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 1:42 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Once again lets reinvent the wheel for Jon Munch. Washington D.C., New York and Chicago are
    not the safest place to live in America. Who claimed the were? Although those towns have strict gun control laws the surrounding communities don’t, thus guns migrate from one place to another. That doesn’t make gun control wrong or ineffective, it is a solid case to improve gun control nation wide.

    Your comment about the Brady Bill is just childish. I suppose we should only enact laws the criminals agree to obey.

    Cherry picking the weapons used by Adam Lanza does not negate the majority of weapons used in the majority of mass shootings. It is instructive to note however that the weapons used by Adam Lanza were procured legally by someone the NRA would refer to as a “good person with a gun”.

    I’m glad you chose to include your comment about alcohol. Because it proves the point that although alcohol is a problem, it is not banned. No one from the government is bursting into anyone’s home to take their beer.
    But because alcohol is a problem it is highly regulated, you must show ID to buy it and it has an age requirement. The same or similar regulations could be applied to fire arms. Regulations will not stop all crime committed with firearms but it will reduce the crime committed with those weapons which are banned. Which is exactly what the previous assault style weapons ban proved beyond a doubt. (so much so that gun enablers try to fog the results by pointing to TOTAL violence figures rather than violence involving banned guns.)

    As to your initials put them where you want. This is not a debate about emergency room protocol, if it were your initials might carry more weight. What is it about your field of endeavor that makes it’s adherents feel compelled to advertise their occupation. I have a cousin who is an MD and he married another MD. When we get a Christmas card from them they sign it, Doctors John and Jane Doe. His handkerchiefs are embroidered with his initials preceded by “Dr.”. Get over yourself, everybody else has.

    Richard Olson
    Fergus Falls

     
  • Jon Munch posted at 12:40 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Jon Munch Posts: 89

    So, Washington D.C., New York and Chicago are the safest places to live in America because they have strict gun control? The Brady Bill had tremendous impact on crime because criminals had more laws to obey. NBC News lied and Adam Lanza really did use his mom's rifle on those children? Why have we not banned alcohal since I have seen more of that problem in the ER and on ambulance calls than shootings? Oh that's right alcohal is not a problem, it is those foolish families driving infront of them.

    I'll leave my insignificant credentials off just to appease you.

     
  • Soitgoes posted at 9:24 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.

    Soitgoes Posts: 578

    Go away.

     
  • Richard Olson posted at 9:11 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.

    Richard Olson Posts: 388

    Each and every point this author tries to make has been disproved time after time, over and over. Why do we have to re-invent the wheel every week for those who can’t keep up?

    No guns aren’t the problem, the problem is all those adults and children who foolishly keep standing in the way of all those bullets!

    And one more thing, having some initials after your name doesn’t make your comment true. It just makes you look pretentious.


    Richard Olson
    Fergus Falls

     
  • alleycat posted at 7:27 pm on Thu, Feb 14, 2013.

    alleycat Posts: 180

    What mush.

     

Follow us on Facebook

Online poll

Loading…