Oregon ballot measure to ban "Assault" Weapons

[stanc]

Stan: Never did I say the solutions have to be agreed to by the Pro Gun and March for Life crowds.

Gene, you said: "Lets see some reasonable solutions."

Most pro-gun folks seem to think that actions like locking up individuals who have been adjudicated mentally defective are "reasonable" solutions.

The March for Life crowd obviously thinks that banning AR's is a "reasonable" solution.

What is considered "reasonable" depends entirely upon how one views the issue.

You are not providing any solutions but are certainly implying that the AR's are the problem.

I never implied that AR's are the problem. I explicitly stated that AR's are part of the problem, a point with which you agreed.

It is undeniable that AR's (and high-cap mags) are what have enabled mass shootings like Las Vegas to be conducted.

If you think they should be banned, say so. If not, lets see your recommendations.

I like military rifles, so I certainly don't want them to be banned. Anyway, at this point in time, with millions of AR's in circulation, I think a ban would only cause more problems than it could conceivably solve.

I have no recommendations to offer, because I can't see any possible solutions likely to be very effective and practical at preventing mass shootings.

[LR1955]

Gene, you said: "Lets see some reasonable solutions."

Most pro-gun folks seem to think that actions like locking up individuals who have been adjudicated mentally defective are "reasonable" solutions.

The March for Life crowd obviously thinks that banning AR's is a "reasonable" solution.

What is considered "reasonable" depends entirely upon how one views the issue.


I never implied that AR's are the problem. I explicitly stated that AR's are part of the problem, a point with which you agreed.

It is undeniable that AR's (and high-cap mags) are what have enabled mass shootings like Las Vegas to be conducted.


I like military rifles, so I certainly don't want them to be banned. Anyway, at this point in time, with millions of AR's in circulation, I think a ban would only cause more problems than it could conceivably solve.

I have no recommendations to offer, because I can't see any possible solutions likely to be very effective and practical at preventing mass shootings.

Why does your response not surprise me or anyone else here? Arguing over word usage once again.

Of course you have no recommendations or ideas. You never do. If you did, you would have to face criticism over your ideas.

Before I said you had every right to voice your opinion. We don't need your opinions about someones choice of words or how they are defined anymore. You have gone from being argumentative to disruptive.

So, stay off of this thread. I won't argue with you over word choice. Let me make it very clear -- stay off of this thread.

LR55

[bj139]

I just saw this.

https://scontent.fphl2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v...e=5B2B0B11

[98Z]

I just saw this.

https://scontent.fphl2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v...e=5B2B0B11

I liked the one on the "98% of all mass shootings happened in Gun Free Zones." I was trying to get that point across earlier. ARs and standard capacity magazines have been around for many decades. Gun Free Zones were established by law in 1990. So, it's not ARs and standard capacity magazines that have been the primary reason for all the deaths in these shootings - it's Gun Free Zones that are the attractive target.

[LR1955]

I liked the one on the "98% of all mass shootings happened in Gun Free Zones." I was trying to get that point across earlier. ARs and standard capacity magazines have been around for many decades. Gun Free Zones were established by law in 1990. So, it's not ARs and standard capacity magazines that have been the primary reason for all the deaths in these shootings - it's Gun Free Zones that are the attractive target.

98Z:

I really doubt that schools with signs saying 'gun free zone' attracts people bent on mass killings. I don't think they care. It is apparent that this guy thought the students in that high school somehow did him wrong so he targeted them. Hell, his brother was arrested today on the same school grounds. He just walked (skate boarded) onto the property without anyone apparently even caring.

I do think that signs saying 'gun free' this or that are stupid and even suicidal. Inflicted on us by a bunch of liberals who think if they show a psychopathic murderer that they are unarmed, that he will relent and leave them alone. It is like these leftist city councils in places like Seattle proclaiming they are Nuclear Free Zones and by doing so believe an enemy won't target their city with a megaton or two.

Saying that a 'gun free zone' sign is more likely to attract a psycho bent on murdering as many people as possible may have some bearing on the matter but probably not very much. This particular guy would have done the same thing no matter what a sign said. And I bet he knew that there was an armed police officer at the school. The guy who did not 'Protect and Serve'.

I still contend that no matter what you or I know and believe, the fact is that psycho's intent on killing as many people as possible are using semi automatic firearms to do so. Way more than their car, bombs, knifes, and even the coveted machete. If we as the owners of these firearms do not understand this as being the tool in vogue by these guys, we will lose. No 'fence sitter' is willing to think that a gun free zone sign had anything to do with this Cruz guy murdering those students.

A much better approach would be the things that Bjorn has outlined earlier in this thread. And then there is always what Stan said. That bans on these weapons would mean massive civil disobedience as these gun owners will not hand over their semi automatic rifles, carbines, or 'high capacity' magazines.

LR55

[grayfox]

I guess what I would like to see are real ways we can initiate a counter offensive, I for one do not like to just react and defend, I would like to know what or which groups have concrete strategies to, how can I put it politely, go on offense. I belong to NRA and am willing to support lawsuits, it would be great to see how we could put them on defense and force them to react and to defend everywhere...
Maybe put up some BIG signs alongside city limit signs that say "attention gangs and criminals, drug dealers and murderers - this is a city that will not resist you they will shelter and hide you from law enforcement - feel free to make this city your home!!!!!"
"O yeah, criminal earnings are tax free, too!!!!!!!"

"Democrats are in charge, this means you can plunder and pillage and be protected while doing it!!!"
"No feds - they are not welcome to come in here, so says the Mayor!!!"

If someone takes those signs down, just put one back up, take pictures of it and post it to lots of internet places...
I don't know, that's a thought!!!

[BjornF16]

this is why "compromise" is not an option:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...take-mile/

During Saturday’s student march for gun control, Parkland shooting survivor Delany Tarr made clear that she and other gun controllers plan to parlay a bump stock ban into numerous other gun controls.

Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”

Tarr’s statement exposes the threat to freedom tied to the bump stock ban from day one. After all, bump stocks do not convert semiautomatic firearms into automatic ones, so banning them as if they do opens the door to banning numerous other devices that do not convert the actions of semiautomatic either.

Former ATF gun tech chief Rick Vasquez sounded this alarm in January when he warned that a bump stock will lead to other bans.

[Tex Nomex]

Stare decisis makes incrementalism a valid tactic in law.
Never give an inch.

[98Z]

98Z:

I really doubt that schools with signs saying 'gun free zone' attracts people bent on mass killings. I don't think they care. It is apparent that this guy thought the students in that high school somehow did him wrong so he targeted them. Hell, his brother was arrested today on the same school grounds. He just walked (skate boarded) onto the property without anyone apparently even caring.

I don't agree, and I'll tell you why. Think about this...

If the data isn't factual, it certainly isn't far off...

Let's look at the 98% number, whether it's off by few percent or not. 98% of mass shootings happened in a Gun Free Zone.

You can't flip that to be: 98% of mass shootings happened with an AR/MSR/AW...

The AR/MSR/"Assault Weapon" isn't the primary problem. The Colt SP1 was manufactured54 years ago, and we didn't see mass shootings start when it was released. We didn't start seeing this (level of) madness until the later '90s...

Something to think about...

[biodsl]

Dr. John Lott believes the single most effective tactic to reduce the number of mass shooting deaths is the elimination of gun-free zones. From pages 123 and 124 of his book, The War on Guns:

Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack places where civilians can’t defend themselves. One need only listen to the February 2016 wiretap of an ISIS supporter who was planning an attack on one of the biggest churches in Detroit. Khalil Abu-Rayyan explained his choice of target this way: “A lot of people go there, Plus, people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus, it would make the news. Everybody would’ve heard.” Fortunately, Abu-Rayyan’s father alerted the FBI.

The infamous 2015 Charleston, South Carolina church shooting was originally going to be a college shooting. But Dylann Roof changed plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards.

The Batman movie theater killer, James Homes, initially considered attacking an airport. In his diary, which was released in 2015, he explained his decision against targeting the airport because of ‘substantial security’. He then selected the only theater with 20 minutes of his apartment that banned permitted concealed handguns. There were six other theaters he could have gone to. The one he picked wasn’t even the one with the largest auditorium or the one that was closest to his home.

Or take Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in 2014 near the campus of UC Santa Barbara. Rodger ruled out various targets where he thought some with a gun would be able to stop his killing spree. Justin Bourque, who shot to death three people in Canada in 2014, even posted to Facebook a cartoon of a defenseless victim explaining to his killer that guns are prohibited.

All of this is footnoted in his book, which I'm not taking the time to reproduce here.

[LR1955]

Dr. John Lott believes the single most effective tactic to reduce the number of mass shooting deaths is the elimination of gun-free zones. From pages 123 and 124 of his book, The War on Guns:

Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack places where civilians can’t defend themselves. One need only listen to the February 2016 wiretap of an ISIS supporter who was planning an attack on one of the biggest churches in Detroit. Khalil Abu-Rayyan explained his choice of target this way: “A lot of people go there, Plus, people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus, it would make the news. Everybody would’ve heard.” Fortunately, Abu-Rayyan’s father alerted the FBI.

The infamous 2015 Charleston, South Carolina church shooting was originally going to be a college shooting. But Dylann Roof changed plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards.

The Batman movie theater killer, James Homes, initially considered attacking an airport. In his diary, which was released in 2015, he explained his decision against targeting the airport because of ‘substantial security’. He then selected the only theater with 20 minutes of his apartment that banned permitted concealed handguns. There were six other theaters he could have gone to. The one he picked wasn’t even the one with the largest auditorium or the one that was closest to his home.

Or take Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in 2014 near the campus of UC Santa Barbara. Rodger ruled out various targets where he thought some with a gun would be able to stop his killing spree. Justin Bourque, who shot to death three people in Canada in 2014, even posted to Facebook a cartoon of a defenseless victim explaining to his killer that guns are prohibited.

All of this is footnoted in his book, which I'm not taking the time to reproduce here.

BD:

I think our side will lose horribly and be laughed out of any debate if our major argument was 'gun free zone' signs were a bigger factor in these mass killings than the tool used. May be part of the decision making process of one of these guys but it isn't the major factor why they target a place. Most likely the amount of physical security is the major factor. Gun free zone signs are probably pretty low on the decision making priorities.

Also, there is a reason why leftists want the debate to be things like 'gun free zone' signs. It is so they can stay focused on the firearm and not the murderer or their own social policies that have lead to these acts of violence. It is a convenient way for them to avoid any and all real issues involving crime and violence in our society -- which can be traced to the social policies enacted by the left over the last fifty years.

With this Cruz guy, maybe someone will ask him if the school being a 'gun free zone' had any bearing on his decision.

LR55

[grayfox]

I think the gun-free zone stuff is a bad idea completely... you NEVER advertise your posture. But I also think, with 55, that the real issue lies in the hearts of the perps. And one thing that doesn't crop up much, but is a part of the issue (again adopted by the left yrs ago) is that
"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." - Eccl. 8:11
Solomon wrote this over 2500 yrs ago and it is still true today.

[Tex Nomex]

People commit murder for various reasons. Unhappy/mentally ill high schoolers probably want to kill where they're most familiar - school or places where people they don't like hang out. These being Free Fire Zones means it's just more likely the plan will be successful.

Terrorists are going to attack places where unarmed families congregate to cause the maximum carnage and the desired result: the largest media splash. Many of these are also Free Fire Zones, again giving the attack greater odds of a larger casualty count.

The powers that be need to rethink gun restrictions in public areas because people bent on committing mass murder don't follow gun laws, or any other law that might interfere with their plans.

Planet Earth is a dangerous place. The idea that banning firearms will stop violence, even mass violence, is just a childish fantasy. Such a ban would serve only to make every place a Free Fire Zone.

[montana]

BD:

I think our side will lose horribly and be laughed out of any debate if our major argument was 'gun free zone' signs were a bigger factor in these mass killings than the tool used. May be part of the decision making process of one of these guys but it isn't the major factor why they target a place. Most likely the amount of physical security is the major factor. Gun free zone signs are probably pretty low on the decision making priorities.

Also, there is a reason why leftists want the debate to be things like 'gun free zone' signs. It is so they can stay focused on the firearm and not the murderer or their own social policies that have lead to these acts of violence. It is a convenient way for them to avoid any and all real issues involving crime and violence in our society -- which can be traced to the social policies enacted by the left over the last fifty years.

With this Cruz guy, maybe someone will ask him if the school being a 'gun free zone' had any bearing on his decision.

LR55

Seriously Gene, the left has no desire to have an honest debate about anything. Most of the emotional screaming fools couldn't tell the difference between a assault rifle and a water pistol. This is the generation that believes in 63 different genders, strategically placed buckets of rocks to throw at an active shooter by school kids, micro aggression, open borders, communist anarchist and gender neutral bathrooms. Most criminals and even psychopaths will always choose soft targets over hard ones, which is why the vast majority of mass shootings occur in these places. How many mass shootings have we had at gun ranges, gun shows, or firearm competitions? This alone exposes the absurd claim, the gun is the problem. The pro gun side needs to keep hitting back with the truth and expose the lefts absurd opinions and knowledge of firearms. The left knows this and is the reason why their new tactic is to interrupt and scream until their opponent is unable to speak.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...march.html

[centerfire]

Link? What's your source? Fantastic news, if true!!!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bendbulle...rm%3famp=1

[bj139]

More Info.
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/stateIR.pdf
https://oregonfirearms.ejoinme.org/MyPag...fault.aspx

[LR1955]

More Info.
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/stateIR.pdf
https://oregonfirearms.ejoinme.org/MyPag...fault.aspx

bj:

OK -- so why did you link us to a 28 page document on initiatives? Is there something there you think we need to know?

LR55

[bj139]

That is the way to get the initiative on the ballot.

[BjornF16]

Seriously Gene, the left has no desire to have an honest debate about anything.

^^^^^
THIS

The left has fully embraced Saul Alinski tactics. Say/do whatever necessary...repeat lies until they become truth...demonize your adversary. The end justify the means.

[LR1955]

^^^^^
THIS

The left has fully embraced Saul Alinski tactics. Say/do whatever necessary...repeat lies until they become truth...demonize your adversary. The end justify the means.

Bjorn / Guys:

Don't have to tell me this. I have been around these guys since the late 60's.

That's why its stupid to even try to talk with them about these things. So I don't.

Talk with those who you know aren't leftists. Most don't own guns but I bet almost all vote.

LR55