Rifle type used in school massacre ‘designed to kill multiple enemy combatants at once’

Wildcat Diva · Feb 22, 2018

benenglish said:
There are places in the world where psychiatric evaluation is required prior to owning a gun legally. That might work but it's terribly at odds with the American ideal that the ability to protect ones self, family, community, and country from evil is a basic human right, a right that even people who aren't quite right in the head should continue to have.

(Many thanks to Wildcat Diva in another thread for the education she's been providing me.)

How might we overcome the conflict between those two schools of thought?

I’m glad some comments helped.

There are many reasons why a psych evaluation to preclude gun ownership is worrisome.

Cost is one. Expensive. Who is paying for the evaluation? Are we going to make it to where only people who can afford the evaluation can own a gun? That’s not cool.

Also, a comprehensive mental health evaluation is good for that point in time. Things can change either way over time. Dangerousness isn’t something that stays static. It’s affected by many factors. Also, providing any given diagnosis doesn’t provide a correlation with dangerousness.

I mean, antisocial personality disorder comes to mind, but not everyone with that diagnosis is going to be a dangerous threat to where they need to give up their gun rights.

And who are these experts that we would trust to grant us permission to exercise our rights?

Ugh.

Lunyfringe · Feb 22, 2018

Texan-in-Training said:
Here's one person's idea.
My main concern with the idea is providing absolute safeguards to storage of the property AND preventing any form of inventory becoming "registration". I have mixed emotions regarding this, mostly, how do you prevent politically motivated abuse?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Moreover, how do you prevent abuse by family members... remember, that's the primary reason the mental institutions were closed... abuse by family. Horrible thought, but it happens- I've seen one of my wife's aunts abuse family members (long story), and the path to justice is long and expensive.

Texan-in-Training · Feb 22, 2018

Lunyfringe said:
Moreover, how do you prevent abuse by family members...

You won't get any argument from me on that, Just look at what happens in divorce cases.
Also, at this point, I wouldn't trust anyone with a hint of anti-gun bias to be involved.
But, having said all that, it would be nice if it was every bit as simple as taking a drunk friend's car keys away from them until they could "sleep it off".

benenglish · Feb 23, 2018

Wildcat Diva said:
Cost is one. Expensive. Who is paying for the evaluation? Are we going to make it to where only people who can afford the evaluation can own a gun?

In the countries who have adopted this approach, firearms are toys for the rich. They have no problem paying a psychiatrist to certify them. In the cases where they must use a psychiatrist employed by the state, they still pay. Such systems tend toward corruption but that's a minor inconvenience to the wealthy.

That's why I asked how to ameliorate the tension between a mental eval and the notion that this is a basic human right. I don't see a good answer to that question.

I can, however, see the thought processes that cause such systems to come into existence.

45tex · Feb 23, 2018

The AR15 and M16 grew from one platform. Select fire for Uncle Sam. They were always available to the public but they were stupid expensive. Something around $1200 in 1965 money. Saw a couple of guys in the late '60s show up on public land in California where a lot of people would plink. They pulled out a M16A1 looking gun and proceeded to stop everybody from shooting while we watched in awe. Then LAPD showed up and took them and the gun away in their police car. No handcuffs, just come with us boys.
This does not solve in any way the problem with troubled young men killing school kids. But in the free(er) society of yore guns were less of a mystery. And much fewer folks used them to kill others. Also Charlie Manson lived just up the road from the shooting place at one time. So maybe I was wrong, young, and not really keeping track.

MTA · Feb 23, 2018

Southpaw said:
Your avatar is freaking me out!!!

Had to dump the Terminator Trump so ppl wouldn't talk trash every time I posted. My dream is to get this kid's haircut one day.

Speaking of that, I made it back to Texas last march and I have only seen like 2 or 3 mullets. We need to change that

AustinN4 · Feb 23, 2018

Texan-in-Training said:
Here's one person's idea. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

TheMailMan · Feb 23, 2018

Inspector43 said:
Wow, I never thought I could run in to so many people who have no input other than insults and no thoughts other than the ones they have been conditioned to post. What a bag of hypocrites I have opened. If I had all the answers I wouldn't need this forum. Good Bye.

Yet you're still here and you still can't/won't answer a very basic question.

Let me take a guess. You want all the scary black rifles with the shoulder thing that goes up to be banned. Is that it? Or do you want all magazine fed semi-automatic rifles banned?

You've introduced a term "AR Type Rifle" into the conversation, yet when asked what you mean by that term you get evasive, why is that?

AustinN4 · Feb 23, 2018

Thanks for posting that. In broad terms I like it but fear the weaponization of it for personal or political reasons.

In the last few months we have seen an avalanche of sexual abuse claims which has largely resulted in the loss of a persons job. I am sure many, probably most, are true, and I suspect some are not and have been used to settle a score with someone.

The GVRO described seems to safeguard against that as it seems to require proof and is adjudicated by a supposedly neutral third party (the courts).

I like it if it can be made to work fairly, but I don't believe it will stop all school-related mass violence. But might at least reduce it.

Equally important, however, is our government agencies and police forces doing their jobs, which seems lacking lately.

ZX9RCAM · Feb 23, 2018

dapakattack said:
Well, someone has already provided a solution to all of this. But forum rules keep me from going further into detail.

Also, how many people are killed by drunk-drivers every day? Maybe we should ban alcohol....never mind.

Which forum rule would you be breaking?

DwnRange · Feb 23, 2018

easy rider said:
Not trying to be negative, just trying to take a rational look at things. But let me ask you this: There are good drivers and bad drivers and if all of a sudden more vehicles were used to intentionally kill people, should we then reevaluate everyone who drives and take away licenses of those we deem bad drivers?

duuhhh, and here I thought "driving" was a privilege, not a "RIGHT" - even so, in the vast majority of states there are laws governing bad driving that'll get your driver's license revoked......

Did ya think about what you were typing there, before choosing "that" analogy?

easy rider · Feb 23, 2018

Wasn't trying to split hairs on what is a right and what is a privilege.

Ole Cowboy · Feb 23, 2018

Any perusal of that involved in mass shootings since the year 2000 you will find the warning signs were everywhere from those who observed them, family, friends, work associates, facebook postings, etc. Cruze, well the police came to his home 30+ times, the FBI were notified 2x, he was crazy and EVERYONE knew it. Same goes for the Army Major who killed 13 at Ft Hood, EVERYONE knew he was a radical Muslim, yet NO ONE stopped it.

cycleguy2300 · Feb 23, 2018

Texan-in-Training said:
You won't get any argument from me on that, Just look at what happens in divorce cases.
Also, at this point, I wouldn't trust anyone with a hint of anti-gun bias to be involved.
But, having said all that, it would be nice if it was every bit as simple as taking a drunk friend's car keys away from them until they could "sleep it off".

It is, in fact, just about that easy. It's called a Police Officer's Emergency Detention...

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

AustinN4 · Feb 24, 2018

Lt. Co. Ralph Peters Calls for Ban on Assault Weapons 'Meant to Kill Other Human Beings'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/...lls-ban-weapons-meant-kill-other-human-beings

Claims "no sporting purpose".

easy rider · Feb 24, 2018

Good thing my AR's aren't assault weapons, they never assaulted anyone.

Southpaw · Feb 24, 2018

AustinN4 said:
Lt. Co. Ralph Peters Calls for Ban on Assault Weapons 'Meant to Kill Other Human Beings'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/...lls-ban-weapons-meant-kill-other-human-beings

Claims "no sporting purpose".

Peters wrote an Op-Ed on the topic for The New York Post, explaining that he's a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but

MTA · Feb 24, 2018

AustinN4 said:
Lt. Co. Ralph Peters Calls for Ban on Assault Weapons 'Meant to Kill Other Human Beings'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/...lls-ban-weapons-meant-kill-other-human-beings

Claims "no sporting purpose".

Quote from dick head:
"The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day," he wrote.

I dont think Ben Franklin was worried about keeping a musket for slamming bucks in Pennsylvania when the Constitution was being conceived. Just another clueless cocksucker. I have met so many military officers that have the same retarded opinions.

TheMailMan · Feb 24, 2018

Wow,

Just how does one design a weapon to specifically to kill human beings? Almost every firearm owned has it's roots as a military weapon or has been used as a military weapon.

This Army Orificer most likely spent his career in supply. Now just because he's an Orifice we're supposed to give his opinion great weight.

The Liberals are on record as saying they want to ban/confiscate all weapons in the US. Apparently this Orificer didn't get that memo.

I love how he calls the AR-15 "military grade". The AR-15 isn't MilSpec for the simple reason it's not selective fire. https://loadoutroom.com/thearmsguide/ar-15-isnt-mil-spec-thats-ok/

Nor is an AR-15 an "Assault Rifle" because.....it's not select fire.

I have no idea what an "Assault Weapon" is other than a weapon used in an assault, which none of mine have been, so I guess I'm safe.

easy rider · Feb 24, 2018

The gun grabbers will always find someone to commentate towards their agenda. The military doesn't employ conservatives alone, so it's no wonder they couldn't find one officer to voice their opinion.

Rifle type used in school massacre ‘designed to kill multiple enemy combatants at once’

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

TGT Addict

Well-Known

Well-Known

Just Another Boomer

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Over the Rainbow bridge...

Active Member

Summer Slacker

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Summer Slacker

Forum BSer

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Summer Slacker

Forum statistics