12-29-2018, 04:01 AM
grayfox Wrote:Your statement concerning his gun-free zone comment presents an over-assumption/false choice. You do not have to assume that "...most people would carry guns..." You only need to assume, or grant, that more people would be carrying than do now, and that there is more probability that someone or ones would have been present to fire back at those assaults, thus likely deterring or reducing casualties. In fact, you only need to observe that massacres certainly seem to be perpetrated in "gun-free"zones... therefore with fewer of those zones there would likely be less mass-shootings. OTOH, admittedly, if there were indeed still as many GF zones under the "more people carry scenario", then the # of carrying citizens might not help as much. Even Dodge City in the old west was, at times, entirely a GF zone (if some history is to be believed)... which (in fairness) may have helped, or maybe not. Even so, allowing more carry can be a rational attempt to reduce massacres in public.
I don't see how such a comment from Montana is emotional as it can be shown to have a fairly rational basis as I explained.
To be fair, let's not over-assume or offer up over-stated strawmen counters.
The Ruby ridge, M60 or Apache issues, I will leave to y'all to discuss.
GF:
I do not agree with the notion of 'Gun Free Zones' in the least. They invite crime in my opinion. However, I doubt eliminating them would result in more people carrying guns. It is an assumption and no one has any way of proving it one way or the other.
Ruby Ridge was a crime committed by the government. Not because they wanted to arrest that guy but because they used excessive force and in my opinion committed murder. I seriously doubt it would have ended any better if that guy had a MG or two on his property. In fact, logic says it would have ended way worse. But I am speculating based on a society that is allowed to buy any weapon of their choice aside from nukes, and the way that LEA would probably have to respond under such conditions.
I wonder what our country would be like today if the NFA had never been enacted. There are only two things that I am sure of. First, our society would be very different than it is now. Not sure if it would be better or worse but it would be different. Second, I would own a bunch of sub-machineguns.
One thing about the bump stock and Vegas thing. Lets say that none of the weapons he had with bump stocks were used in the act of terror and murders he committed. The reality of today indicates that we as gun owners would be handed two choices. First we could accept that bump stocks be banned and keep our semi automatic rifles. Or the rifles would be banned and we could keep the bump stocks. Lesser of two evils? Slippery Slope? Doesn't matter what you call it, given the political and social condition of our country right now, those are probably the choices we would be handed.
LR55