Posted on 01/20/2011 10:52:40 AM PST by JohnRLott
Just 24 hours after the shooting in Tucson, politicians were calling for more gun control. And the drumbeat has continued.
On Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for using the information supplied on people's applications to join the military to determine whether they will be banned from buying guns. Sens.Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., promised a new push for renewing at least part of the federal assault weapons ban. The previous week had been filled with calls for everything from gun show regulations to a thousand-foot gun-free zone around politicians.
But while the emotional reaction to a mass shooting is understandable, the fact is that some of the proposals would at best only make people feel better and at worst make them less safe.
Schumer's proposal, for example, would try to pick up criminal activities included in military applications for which there are no criminal convictions. But the military has a good reason to maintain confidentiality when it interviews new recruits: It wants to get the most honest answers it can. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at aolnews.com ...
Well, I know someone who's about due for retirement.
You da man!
It’s hard to understate the effect your hard data analysis has had on maintaining and improving our Second Amendment rights.
Thank you sir!
(hard to overstate)
I think a law such as proposed by Representative King and Senator Lautenberg, provides us with teachable moment. I believe the unaddressed problem here has to do with inflammatory rhetoric. For just one example consider that in Fairfax County Virginia guns appear to live passive lives. However, as soon as they cross the Potomac River and enter the Anacostia area of Washington D.C., they become psychopaths when hearing rules associated with rigid gun control legislation.
We need to take a lead from the Obama administration, which has excised such phrases as “unlawful enemy combatant” and “war on terror” from any discussion surrounding the events of 9/11 and thereafter. Guns need to understand we are not at war with them. If we approach them with an open mind and without preconditions, then we can arrive at lasting détente.
Using this more embracing, benevolent approach to interacting with guns; legislation should consider ways to make guns feel welcome. Representative King and Senator Lautenberg should propose that individuals with a concealed carry permit, who attend an event at which a Congress person or federal judge appears, must be not more than 1,000 feet from the individual. In this way guns would not feel offended, and would be unlikely to react violently.
Hey Rep. King!
How about a Good Samaritan law for CCW holders:
If you are licensed to carry and attend a political rally, you are required to be armed and at least within one hundred feet of the candidate or officeholder, and are bound by law to respond with deadly force in the event of an active shooter incident as happened in Tucson.
A Good Samaritan law for CCW holders. I like that.
Thanks for all your hard work and for posting your information here. There’s hardly any gun enthusiasts here at all. :-)
The problem is no one has really examined the psychology underlying the Gun Control movement. Your book was excellent, however those who seek gun control can no more be swayed by facts and rational analysis than the fox can be swayed to not chase the rabbit. Even your level of intellectual analysis will not sway the Liberal, if they think they can get away with imposing their control over others.
Gun Control is merely one more arena in which the Anticompetitive evolutionary psychology seeks to control free competition. The key is not to seek to drive everyone away from emotion, and towards factual analysis, but to embrace the emotional style of argument, and use it to humiliate Liberals over their cowardly, selfish motives, which run contrary to the psychological urges of our species. In that fashion, one can cow Liberalism, much as Reagan did, leading the Liberal to abandon public association with their ideology.
Click my nick, and check my profile.
I see Sen. Schumer has as much respect for the right of "due process", protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as he as for the right to keep and bear arms.
Which is to say, none.
Thanks. I forgot to include relief from liability.
Good Samaritan laws typically require doctors who happen upon an accident scene to stop and render assistance, and further state that all persons who give assistance are immune from lawsuits afterward.
The same logic can apply to CCW Samaritans.
Home reading bookmark.
Concerning that line, I regularly sent Spam in packages to a family friend who lead a Marine sniper team in Ramadi. They had a great laugh and dipped their bullets in the grease. I don't know if they had a rumor to that effect spread about the area.
Cool!
BTW, there’s a handloader who processes lard into something hard like plastic, then tips JHPs with it.
Keeps Omar & Achmed from ever seeing paradise, that’s for sure (it’s in the Koran & hadiths).
Pork products: muzzie kryptonite.
;^)
Hey FReepers! Check this out:
The book is: More Guns, Less Crime, by the very, very well spoken and talented Professor John Lott. Excellent book and post. Love to hear you on C2CAM.
Thanks.
I dissagree...The liability to the permit holder would be prohibitive...Besides...Permit holders ARE NOT Law Enforcement...
You or I would not be beholden to use deadly force unless the law in that state covers the defense of a third party, if that third party is “reasonably” determined by the permit holder to be in imminent danger or threat of death or SERIOUS bodily harm by another actor...
Some states have this provision, some do not...So to even pursue a corse of action or solution in this regard at a Federal level would preempt some state laws...
This would just be too big a chunk out of something we do not need to take a bite into...
I do see your point, but the first good rule of a person who is armed for lawful self defensive purposes is to be a good witness...
A lawyer and good friend of mine who happens to also be on the NRA Board of Directors said to me years ago...
“Every bullet that comes out of your gun has a lawyer on it!”
Your responsibility and scope of protection begins with you, more important, your accountability for your actions is where others will try to take on your intentions and everything else under the sun for what you do in situations like this...
In the situation in Tucson, one of the people directly involved in the taking down of the shooter was a permit holder and he was armed at the time...Obviously he made a wise descision to NOT clear leather and go to work on the shooter, instead he was one of the folks who restrained the shooter...After learning about that, I think that was the wisest thing anyone could have done in this situation...His defensive fire very well could have led to more injuries and possible death...I said could, not definitely...
We just will never know until all the brass hits the ground and the smoke clears...
It is a hard call we must make at times, and I never am envious of anyone who actually has to defend themselves or others in taking of a life...
I like happy endings, and it is easy to armchair quarterback these things, but if you go through life as trained and well-versed in the law as anyone else, and you never discharge that carry piece in the defense of your life...
That to me would be a good thing...
I would just prefer to have the government both state and Federal stay out of the mess of this issue...
Actually there was book on the psychology of the person supporting gun control offered on the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, www.jpfo.org . The book spoke of the people who support gun control are projecting their feelings on others. It looks like an interesting read.
Never let someone or thing that threatens you get inside arms length and
never say “I got a gun”. If you feel you need to use deadly force for
heavens sake let the “first sound they hear is the safety clicking off”
and they shouldn’t have time to hear anything after that if you are doing
your job.
‘The average response time of a 911 call is over 3 minutes....the response
time of a .44 magnum is 1400 feet per second.’
Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, is a drill instructor (Thunder Ranch
is a firearms training facility in Arizona ). Here are a few of his
observation on tactics, firearms, self defense and life as we know it in
the civilized world.
“The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win and cheat if
necessary.”
“Don’t forget, incoming fire has the right of way..”
“Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. You may get killed
with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, cause it’s
going to be empty.”
“If you’re not shootin’, you should be loadin’. If you’re not loadin’, you
should be movin’, if you’re not movin’, someone’s gonna cut your head off
and put it on a stick.”
“When you reload in low light encounters, don’t put your flashlight in your
back pocket.. If you light yourself up, you’ll look like an angel or the
tooth fairy... and you’re gonna be one of ‘em pretty soon.”
“Do something. It may be wrong, but do something.”
“Shoot what’s available, as long as it’s available, until something else
becomes available.”
“If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If
you have a gun, what in the hell do you have to be paranoid for.”
“Don’t shoot fast, unless you also shoot good..”
“You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or use any other word you think will work, but
I’ve found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much
the universal language.”
“You have the rest of your life to solve your problems.. How long you live
depends on how well you do it.”
“You cannot save the planet but you may be able to save yourself and your
family.”
“Thunder Ranch will be here as long as you’ll have us or until someone makes
us go away, and either way, it will be exciting.”
More Excellent Gun Wisdom.......
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense..
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important
than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
1. Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just
kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.
4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter
recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him ‘Why do
you carry a 45?’ The Ranger responded, ‘Because they don’t make a 46.’
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on
his wearing his sidearm. ‘Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you
expecting trouble?’ ‘No ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have
brought my rifle.’
8. Beware of the woman who only has one gun, because she probably knows how
to use it very well.
‘The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but
because he loves what is behind him.’ G. K. Chesterton
A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose
both.
“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not...”
- Thomas Jefferson
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.