NW Pew Pew and BS

Because the California AWB has been sooooooo effective at reducing gun crime…

It’s all virtue signaling so politicians can say they did something without actually fixing anything.

The ‘94 federal AWB sure didn’t stop columbine.

 

Truth!
plus, we ignore that an AR style rifle isn’t an offensive tool, it is a tool for survival and defense. It’s already illegal to murder people, take firearms to school, or threaten people with them. It’s criminals who don’t care about laws(like the new one in Wa) that are murdering people.
I know this is a typical NRA response, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Making laws won’t stop murderers from murdering. If it did, then we already would have solved it with existing laws.

 

Anyone interested in a Ballistic Advantage 18in .223 Wylde Stainless fluted barrel for their last minute panic build? Brand new in the packaging, I bought it thinking I was going to replace one on a current rifle but changed my mind. I paid $200 for it so I'd just hope to get my money back

 

there is a PNW Hunting thread here https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/pnw-hunting-thread.622420/

So far it's been ok to discuss freedom in this thread. Would be cool to not attract attention of the mods.

 

I think the mods on a truck forum would probably be okay with mature gun discussion

 

The 2nd isn't about Hunting and this law will do nothing to stop people from dying.

 

*I will never attack somebody's character in here. This seems to be a fine discussion as long as we treat each other like we met over beers at a bar.

We can agree that the current system is not effective at least, right? So where do we go logically? I find myself trying to find some balance between responsible ownership, constitutional rights, and human lives. More guns certainly isn't the answer, as proven over and over again. So, if thats not the answer, what is? There are a ton of "talking points" brought up already, but what does your common sense say? It's easy to deflect to other reasons, if you're trying to protect your view point. Rather than blinding defending ownership of guns, why not focus on regulation, education, mental health services, etc?

I think its still relevant to look at cars. If cars kill thousands (they do) and the government wanted to get rid of all cars, we'd freak out.(not a great example because entire industries are built on people mobility) However, we'd fight to keep them, with systems and processes that can help decrease the amount of death. This has created safer (and more expensive) cars. Registration, insurance, drivers ed, improved safety within the cars, government regulation of the auto industry, etc. I can almost copy and past that last sentence and apply it to firearms and that would be okay, wouldn't it? Is that too far "left?" Why can't we put our money towards and intensive system for guns?

Sorry, I don't buy the "but the criminals don't care about laws" argument. You're basically arguing that we shouldn't have a single law on the books.





EDIT: I think we're all Tacoma lovers, gun lovers, and hanging with friends and family lovers. We're not solving anything in this thread, so maybe we just go back to regular programming?

 

I agree, we won’t change anyone’s mind here. But I would like to know. You say you want change, which clearly there are more evil acts happening now then 30 years ago.
But at the same token, your not willing to engage in any suggestions that have been posted, you think a constitution can just be updated to fit the society we now live in and you think criminals follow laws. So how is any change suppose to happen when that is your premise for life?
Also, let’s not forget driving is a privilege not a right. The constitution is rights afforded to the people of the United States of America.

 

You also mention the automotive industry being heavily regulated and licensed but act as if the firearms and manufacturing industry isn’t. The firearms industry and sellers; all aspects of it are one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US.
Unfortunately, that aspect is just ignored and groups of people pretend it’s the Wild West for gun sales.

let’s not forget Washington’s gun rights either:
Article 1, Section 24 of Washington’s Constitution states: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired“

 

https://youtu.be/8VK83Oggmyw

Breaks it down even more.

 

The majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones as they are considered "soft" targets with minimal chance of any resistance and are purposely targeted for these horrific acts. So logically, you make sure that these soft targets are no longer soft targets. Remove the gun free zone, allow either an armed resource officer or allow teachers/employees to take training to carry and protect. I'm not saying having heavily armed guards at every school but I am saying make the most vulnerable be a less desirable target. Even the thought of someone being armed in each school will deter the majority of these cowards.

I'd like to see an example of having well trained armed people has an opposite effect of keeping people safe. Are you saying that having actual trained police officers/body guards protecting someone causes more death? You can't discount having citizens who actually train with their firearms being capable in protecting the vulnerable. There are few instances where a trained citizen stopped a potential mass shooter by carrying in a gun free zone.

I think both sides want to prevent mass shootings. Both sides just have different ways to get to the same result. The problem with this type of regulation is that is 100% one sided and negatively impacts lawful gun owners. As mentioned earlier, there has been an increase in these types of shootings over the last 30 years. I personally believe it's a combination of mental illness, prescribed drugs which negatively impacts brain function and education on how to properly identify others with mental illnesses. Also there is a stigma surrounding mental illness and the connotations of what that means in society. Lastly, I also believe it's culture. Culture has changed over the last few decades and with the advent of social media, narcissisms is very prevalent. This is part of the reason these sick individuals target individuals to get the most attention.

Regulation is an easy way to get votes. Plain and simple. The people who write these laws don't care about saving lives. We need to look deeper into the causes. These legislators don't want us to really look at ourselves as a society and take accountability on what we can change as citizens. The sad reality is that these people fell through the cracks of society to the point where their only way out is to hurt others. It's always easier to rely on the govt (state or federal) to try and solve our problems but it's not the way.

Another issue with these gun laws especially WA AWB, is that it's not rooted in any actual facts or studies. It's the same "feel good", "We have to do something" mentality to show their voting base why they should continue to vote for them. The right thing isn't always the easiest or the quickest.

The problem with this analogy is that you are talking about a privilege, not an actual right. You do have a right to protect yourself from someone who is going to do you harm or a government trying to take a god given right away. the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to defend ourselves, it affirms it. The gun is just the most effective tool to protect us. There is already an intensive system for guns but the issue is that it's not being enforced (if you fail a background check there is no follow up). This isn't a one fit solution. It's very nuanced but we need to approach it logically vs focusing on low hanging fruit.

The premise of "but the criminals don't care about laws" isn't that there shouldn't be any laws. It speaks to the fact that all these new laws don't address the actual issues. It doesn't address gang or domestic violence. It doesn't address the fact that most of firearms death are caused by handguns. What it does is prevent law abiding citizens from being able to exercise their right to bear arms. To use your analogy, if drunk drivers are killing more people with cars, your first thought shouldn't be lets get rid of all cars that go over a certain speed or look fast. It should be let's find out how to identify the drunk drivers, find out why they are drinking to excess and prevent them from getting behind the wheel. The goal shouldn't be punish the masses for the sins of the few.

 

@token3495 Thank you for so clearly articulating those points.

 

Very well said!

On the note of gun free zones I was a student at Virginia Tech when the shooting happened. That asshole killed 32 people with a Walther P22, Glock 19, and a backpack full of low capacity 10 round magazines. No “assault weapons” or “high capacity” magazines involved.

The student body’s response was a not a push to ban/restrict guns. We demanded to allow concealed carry on campus. There were dozens of permit holders in the building at the time of the shooting. In protest everyone wore empty holsters to class for 2 weeks.

 

Never knew that

 

They don’t like to mention it because it doesn’t further the “assault weapons” are evil, blame the guns not the people narrative.

 

Totally my thoughts as I read your post.

 

Yaaaa. I can't speak what I want to, but thanks for keeping this civil. Crazy how people these days can actually have a debate with out getting heated.

 

#adulting

 

What's that?

*slowly regretting my username that I made at 20....

 

@tcBob can we make him 20somethingwidataco?