The War on Guns

[Ironbear]

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/12/if-yo ... youll-love

A new argument has taken hold among gun control advocates, that gun control could reduce police violence.

However

No law will rid such communities of guns in one step. Disarming such communities, as with disarming any population, would require a significant amount of police force—the very issue that animated police reform advocates in the first place.

Lowering the number of firearms in circulation would require confiscation. It would mean no-knock raids, flashbang grenades, and other techniques popularized by the drug war, and more.

Which would lead to less police violence, greater freedom, more government accountability and transparency, and a more equable egalitarian society! Right? [/snark]

[WRW]

Good article.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

If it's as successful as the "War on..." :
Drugs
Poverty
Terrorist
Communism

YAY! I'm gittin a fully automatic SBR with a Suppressor! FROM THA' GUV'MINT!

[SHMIV]

I note that folks like to float ideas about, and act serious about them, though it's clear that no thought was given about the implications and full consequence of it all.

Some folks really need to partake some serious critical thinking exercises.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

^^^^^^^

There you go.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[scott9050]

https://www.nranews.com/series/commenta ... aign=Video

[MarcSpaz]

Now wait just one damn minute!!! I thought all these "police shooting victims" were all law-abiding and UNARMED citizens?!?!?!? How does disarming people who are already unarmed and outstanding citizens help fight "police violence"?

[OakRidgeStars]

I'm still waiting for the war on big trucks.

[dorminWS]

Don't look like that big a truck to me..

[Reverenddel]

Yeah, but I ain't gonna be hit by it!

Big enough....

What worries me? The coming War in Turkey. All of this is biblical. I thought I had more time. (sigh) Nope. Following right along with Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelations.

[SHMIV]

Pfft. You don't even need a CDL for a truck that size.

Even so, at 65+ mph, a Ford Ranger will kill you just as dead as 80,000 Peterbilt, when hit by one.

Which really helps with a point that I've made multiple times over the years; banning firearms won't reduce violence. Also, if one is deemed to be so bad that they cannot be trusted to possess firearms, how can we trust them to drive, or buy gasoline, or own rope? The first murder on historical record was committed with a rock. Others have committed murder without use of a weapon, at all. I also seem to recall reading about a guy who was killing kids at a preschool, armed with a hammer.

Basically, anyone who is both diabolical and creative, can come up with plenty of ways to kill multiple people, without having to fire a single shot. Hell, you don't even need to be all that clever. Any idiot can figure out how to rent a Uhaul, and drive it into a Walmart.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Snakester]

This proves they will always find a way to kill.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

Any idiot can figure out how to rent a Uhaul, and drive it into a Walmart.

That's why all Walmart's have steel posts filled with concrete at the entrance doors.

[SHMIV]

Truck stops have those concrete filled steel posts, too. I have seen a lot of them bent down to the ground.

I imagine that a good running start will carry you through those posts; especially if you reinforce the front bumper.

You'll damage the truck, of course. But, if you're planning on driving through the Walmart with ill intent, you won't be planning on leaving alive, anyway. At least, you won't be planning on going home anytime in the next 50 years. So, you won't be concerned about the truck.

Those posts are mainly there in case someone isn't paying attention as they drift through the parking lot at 5 or 10 mph in a minivan.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

Truck stops have those concrete filled steel posts, too. I have seen a lot of them bent down to the ground.

I imagine that a good running start will carry you through those posts; especially if you reinforce the front bumper.

You'll damage the truck, of course. But, if you're planning on driving through the Walmart with ill intent, you won't be planning on leaving alive, anyway. At least, you won't be planning on going home anytime in the next 50 years. So, you won't be concerned about the truck.

Those posts are mainly there in case someone isn't paying attention as they drift through the parking lot at 5 or 10 mph in a minivan.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

YUP TO ALL OF THE ABOVE! I've seen a 4x4 skip right over those concrete posts before... Tore it all to hell, but it ain't gonna stop anyone determined.

[MarcSpaz]

My jeep is small enough to good around them. They really only stop/slow a vehicle where the driver isn't paying attention and fails to stop in a timely manner. They don't do anything to stop someone trying to get a vehicle inside the building. Actually, driving through a side wall of the building is pretty easy too. You don't "need" an opening like a door.

[dorminWS]

I agree. Those bollards are basically to keep somebody from accidently breaking the glass. And most modern buildings have either thin metal shells or EFIS over a wooden stud wall. Downright flimsy compared to any vehicle.

[SHMIV]

I was thinking the same thing about those walls; I was hesitant to say anything, though. Don't want to be giving some derelict any ideas, lol.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

WHO YOU TELLING!??!

I swear sometimes it's the BADGUYS trolling our site besides the GUV'MINT to figure things out.

If DHS REALLY wanted to protect us?

They'd hire a buncha rednecks, give them DHS ID's, with "free passes", and tell them, "Take that (expletive) down, and document how".

We'd have this country so tight? It'd be a DRUM!

[SHMIV]

Lol, if the DHS really wanted to protect us, the 2nd Amendment would be read as written.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]