Former FBI Agent on What to Do About Shooting Massacres

That was a good article, fairly well-balanced. Thanks for sharing it!

 

If he didn't point folks to Jesus, it's a waste of time.

 

The article doesn't actually say it, but makes a case for regulating guns just like cars. Everyone's allowed to have a car; but if you use it, you're required to have a license, or face penalties.

Of course, that's what Illinois has tried to do with their FOID requirement; and yet, Chicago and East St. Louis continue to have high homicide rates.

And no, Zaac, the author doesn't mention whether he is a Christian, nor the need for people to look to Jesus as the answer to these problems. I didn't think it was a waste of time; it was well-written, surprisingly so, and had some compelling anectdotes. You might disagree; but I guess we'll never know.

 

Drinking water doesn't point people to Jesus, but go for a few days without it and you will be pointless.

 

Illinois has had their FOID requirement in place since 1968. I think they've had enough time to determine if this type of regulation works.

 

The big difference is there is no right to drive a car as we do for arms.

 

Thought I would hightlight a beneficial aspect of that load of double-speak.

 

Well...now that you do, how does it affect your position? If registration isn't curbing gun crime--and in fact, in some states where they have strict registration, gun crime is high...whereas, in some states where there is little gun control, gun crime is much less than in the states that have greater gun control...well, how can more restrictions be the answer?

Feinstein in California is of the opinion that no US citizens should possess firearms; what's your take on that?

 

In 1968, the most common type of pistol was a revolver. You might have had M1 Garand rifles from WWII; possibly some M14's from Korea/Viet Nam.

Don't have time right now to get into the statistics. Maybe later tonight, or tomorrow.

I believe you're exactly right about population correlation;that needs to be explored more. I believe you're also on the correct path when you ask the question about "laws don't work, don't bother with them?" The answer to that is, "WHY aren't they working?"

I can think of several scenarios where I'd need that kind of firepower. Consider: How did criminals originally get hold of military weapons? By stealing them from military installations, convoy shipments, black market, etc. So when a criminal who actually has an illegal military weapon that not only holds a 30-round magazine, but can also fire on automatic, invades my home - do I really want to face him with a .38 revolver? Or, if Feinstein and company have their way: Face the criminal with a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or golf club?

Something else we should research: Why did police change from .38 revolvers to semi-automatic pistols? When/why did they start carrying military rifles? My hypothesis answer is that they were responding to an increasing threat from stolen, illegal, military weapons being used by criminals. But the research will have to be done to determine if the hypothesis is correct.

BTW: I appreciate the civil discussion. There's been a LOT of uncivility here lately.

 

Don, you might be onto something. Remember the bank robbery in LA several years ago when the criminals wore body armor and had better firearms than the cops? The cops ended up going to a sporting goods store to get better firearms.

 

This makes it sound as if you think the 2nd amendment was written to only protect our right to personal self defense.

 

And I haven't even been here. I really thought it was me.

 

Curtis, isn't there a gun maker up in your area?