You are now claiming that the sound suppressor actually increases the volume of a firearm when it is discharged? Now the burden of proof is on yourself to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that firearms being regulated to the same degree as firearms, will most certainly put the lives of students at greater risk than they are presently. The argument was presented by yourself, therefore it is your obligation to prove such as being the case. If you wish to discuss ethics with regard to the lives of students attending facilities of learning, let us discuss the continual catch and release approach to dealing with all manner of criminal individuals, including those that deal in illicit substances towards minors as customers. How is it ethical to ever allow these individuals to remain free in society, where they can do the most harm through their mere presence?
Then if such is indeed the truth, it logically means one of two things. First, either criminals are able to acquire sound suppressors without having to comply with NFA regulations, thus meaning the regulations serve no point in existing. Or two, criminals have no problem meeting NFA regulations that cover sound suppressors, thus making them useless and devoid of a reason to justify their continued existence. Either the regulations are being bypassed, or they are inadequate. In either case, there is apparently no legal justification in them continuing to exist.
Your argument is made up, you even stated so at the beginning. But your setting is a school, and obviously in that regard you don't know what you are talking about, so your imaginary argument loses credibility.
it's still supposition that "more people would be victimized." Even if they are used in crimes on occasion, that doesn't mean more people are or would be victimized by the use of suppressors. People are definitely victimized by the state preventing their use. But you don't care about them because it doesn't confirm your moral outrage.
Your whole premise is that someone might not recognize a shot as being a shot. For left-wing gun banners like yourself that may be true...For those of us that have careers in firearms and are avid shooters, we won't make that mistake. You have no argument to refute. Just more left-wing talking points. Go to a range and be around them, because right now you are just proving your ignorance.
Really because I went back and read your earlier post, I didn't see any link to a news article about a suppressor being used in a crime, just supposition, not proof.
I'm not a "left-wing gun banner". Of course, you'd like to categorize me as such because it makes you feel better about being unable to beat me in a debate. Just answer me this one question: What is the lowest decibel level at which you could recognize a gunshot as being a gunshot?
If I said that it was a typo. I was responding to the NRA's proposed legislation. The burden of proof is on those trying to change the status quo especially when they are trying to fix something that isn't broken.
so what kind of gun banner are you? you are on record as wanting to ban guns. and on what topic of gun issues have you ever beaten anyone in a debate? seriously? I have yet to see that happen. quoting a hack who is a paid parrot for the Joyce Foundation (Saul Cornell) is pretty much a dead giveaway that you do not understand constitutional theory concerning guns
I don't think confiscating all guns is politically realistic. My focus is on interventions that would place a minimal burden on gun owners and make America a safer place for all.
Like I said, let's not try to fix what isn't broken. Let's not take the risk of more people being victimized. Cry me river. Having to fill out a form is not what I would call being victimized.
minimal burdens based on the perspective of someone who hates gun owners' politics? Making America safer for violent criminals? minimal burden does not include 1) waiting to obtain a gun you seek to buy 2) registration 3) any ban on any firearm or firearm accessory that civilian police have access to 4) any restriction on how many guns you may buy or own 5) any requirement of "training" or testing in order to own a gun. I however, have no issues with states requiring some minimal level of shooting competence for someone to carry a concealed weapon
wrong-that is like saying the burden was on black citizens to change the status quo of the Jim Crow laws that were unconstitutional and passed due to bigoted reasoning. there was no proper reasons for passing the 1934 NFA-especially as it pertains to suppressors.
having to pay 200 dollars and wait 12 months to buy something that isn't even a firearm is-especially since you can buy a shotgun that can discharge 200 lethal projectiles in under 3 seconds with no waiting period and no tax stamp remind me where the federal government PROPERLY gained any power to regulate suppressors-especially if one is made in Ohio and bought and used in Ohio
I have read a lot of gun rights people be very pro gun safety training. Is this opinion that gun training should not be encouraged / legislated upon the general feeling for most gun rights people?
I think someone should be well educated on candidates' positions before you vote. I think people should read proposed laws or constitutional amendments and actually understand them before voting on them. I think people ought to understand the costs of raising a child before knocking someone up. But we cannot force people to do any of that. And while I have HUNDREDS of hours of formal training in firearms use (and shoot no shoot) and 3 years of law school and 33 years as a licensed attorney including 24 years with the DOJ and 5 or so other years as a local prosecutor, I cannot support a law that makes exercise of a constitutional right subject to training requirements. However, I spend at least a 100 hours a year teaching people how to shoot-and its usually often Pro-bono because it only helps my side if we increase the number of well trained gun owners in the population. at the local target range-where I am in attendance 2-5 times a week, the staff often asks me to help novice shooters who need help. and I gladly do so.
The best suppressors on the market lower a shot from an AR10 .308 to average of 135 decibels...and it is easily identified at 1000 yards, that's more than a half mile for you math challenged people. And there is no debate to win or lose, you have no experience and are only repeating talking points. I'm trying to educate you but liberal no longer means open-minded. It means you think you are right and everyone else is stupid.
A pdf download is not a link...I did some research of my own, BATF states thatin the last 30 years an average of 44 instances per year where a suppressed firearm is used in crime. Thee are currently almost 3 million suppressors in civilian hands, that is less than .003%. Tell me how many peope were shot this weekend in Chicago or Detroit? Much more than 44.
You cannot demonstrate that the matter is not already broken, with firearm suppressors being regulated by the national firearms act, when there was no legitimate reason for them to be included in the first place. Beyond such, you have presented citations that prove one of two things. First, either criminals are able to acquire firearm suppressors without having to comply with NFA regulations, thus meaning the regulations serve no point in existing. Or two, criminals have no problem meeting NFA regulations that cover firearm suppressors, thus making them useless and devoid of a reason to justify their continued existence. Either the regulations are being bypassed, or they are inadequate. In either case, there is apparently no legal justification in them continuing to exist.
Has any of what has been read by yourself, suggested support for safety training to be made mandatory, with legal firearms ownership being made contingent upon receiving said training? It is opposed being made into a mandatory requirement because such serves no legitimate purpose. Beyond such, if procurement of adequate training was made a mandatory condition for legally owning a firearm, there would be nothing to stop the requirements being made physically impossible to comply with, thus resulting in a defacto prohibition on firearms ownership. Something similar was implemented in the district of columbia nearly forty years ago. And it took nearly forty years before the courts finally overturned the move, and ruled it unconstitutional. There is no reason to believe the same approach would not be tried again.
Perhaps not the mandatory side of things. But if you are very pro gun training, would making it mandatory (and that law change alone, not going further down the path as you have suggested may happen) be worse or better for the lives of gun owners and those around them?
