[BMWGUYinCO]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

In theory? His dad should absolutely be brought up on charges contributory to his son's actions. He had to vouch for his son's mental status on the application for a firearms permit. With him knowing the history of his son, meant that he lied on the application.

Many of these instances have been family members covering up for their "angels". "Not my angel. He never exhibited any signs or tendencies to commit such a crime." If person can't be a decent human being to do their due diligence in getting authorities/help involved, then maybe facing felony charges/jail time will push them to do the right thing.

His Dad....? But he's innocent, just ask him:

"The father of the alleged Highland Park parade shooter has told ABC News that he is not culpable in the Independence Day attack, in spite of having signed a consent form for his son to apply for gun ownership.

“I had no -- not an inkling, warning -- that this was going to happen,” Bobby Crimo Jr. told ABC News about the Fourth of July attack his son, Robert “Bobby” Crimo III, allegedly carried out in Highland Park, Illinois. “I am just shocked.”

Crimo claims both he and his wife asked their son just days before if he had any plans for the holiday. “He said ‘no.’ That was it,” Crimo recalled."

What a fucking douchebag - typical clueless parent who denies any responsibility or culpability. Here's where society is going wrong folks, right here.

Oh, there's a bit more to this article:

"Crimo says he never saw his son as a danger to anyone, but authorities recently disclosed at least one past instance in which his son allegedly threatened violence. In 2019, police in Highland Park confiscated 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from the suspect’s home after a family member called claiming he “was going to kill everyone.”"

But neither parent chose to press charges. Arrest them both too, I say.

[BMWGUYinCO]

Originally Posted by Torgus

I would argue the 9 months before she was born was likely what set her up for failure. Drugs can really negatively effect brain development. This is the cause for a lot of 'bad eggs' they are just fucked from literally day 1 and nothing they can do about it because of brain chemistry and/or how their brain developed in the womb.

The father should 100% be held liable.

What about the mother?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Tommy-G

Dude, you cant even go to a grocery store anymore without some sort of awareness. I'm not living in fear and I still don't know about getting my CCW but better believe I am not naive of it either

Really sad b/c I don't believe there is truly a way to defend or stop this from happening (and becoming more frequent)

If you can obtain a CCW where you live, I would advise you to do it. It is better to have a firearm and not need it than the converse. I don't even walk to the mailbox without a pistol with me. I deal with the craziness so much on a weekly basis that I would be doing myself a huge disservice by failing to prepare. I do not want to get caught with my pants down………so to speak.

[XutvJet]

I'm not anti-gun at all, but do firmly believe that acquiring a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle designed to carry significant rounds and the bullets themselves should be heavily regulated compared to other types of rifles. IMO, one needs to be 25+ to own or even shoot one of these weapons, and they need to have a pristine criminal and mental record. There can be no denying how much death and injury a single rifle like this can do with just one single 30 round magazine and 15 seconds time in a crowd of people.

As ryan stewart noted, the kinetic energy of a typical high-power .223/5.56 round is frightening. I would much prefer to be shot by a handgun as it's FAR more survivable. I dare any of you to search images for "AR-15 bullet wounds" and see what they can do to the human body. Sure, there are plenty of common high-powered hunting rifles out there that can inflict the same kinetic energy, but most hunting rifles are not very effective in a mass shooting situation for a number of obvious reasons. Many of the children that died in Uvalde and Parkland were in pieces. I'm certain many would start to consider these types of guns if they saw the crime scenes of these shootings.

As for mass shootings and no where being safe, it's the current US we live in. Many people are too polarized and one-sided and are not willing to compromise. I also blame the media and its hype. It causes fear and also makes for more shooters as they see it as a way (misguided) to fully express their pain. That's the harsh reality. Yes, we're seeing hundreds of deaths and injuries every year from mass shootings in the US and it's just insane, but I'm not overly worried about my safety or my family's. I stay aware of my surroundings best I can and avoid anything I sense or see that might be sketchy. I avoid confrontation at all costs and will only commit to a fight when there's no other option. I have no desire to CCW, but I am not at all against it.

Driving in the US is still far more dangerous thing to do in the US with 40K+ deaths per year and millions of injuries per year. No one really talks about that or how scared they are of cars and driving. They really should be if they are fearful of being in a mass shooting situation as dying or being seriously injured in a car are far greater. Again, I blame the media

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Torgus

I would argue the 9 months before she was born was likely what set her up for failure. Drugs can really negatively effect brain development. This is the cause for a lot of 'bad eggs' they are just fucked from literally day 1 and nothing they can do about it because of brain chemistry and/or how their brain developed in the womb.

The father should 100% be held liable.

I fully agree with the first paragraph. Regarding your last statement, what about parents of obese children? Should they be held liable for child abuse? The parents provided the children a poor diet, saw the damage being done and continued to do it. Obesity at a young age will be detrimental to their short and long-term health, takes years if not decades off their life, their healthcare over time burdens the health care system, not to mention all the social crap they'll likely have to endure throughout their life because of their weight.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Regarding your last statement, what about parents of obese children? Should they be held liable for child abuse? The parents provided the children a poor diet, saw the damage being done and continued to do it. Obesity at a young age will be detrimental to their short and long-term health, takes years if not decades off their life, their healthcare over time burdens the health care system, not to mention all the social crap they'll likely have to endure throughout their life because of their weight.

This thread is about a mass murderer. Lying on a federal document giving consent for his son to buy the gun. Start a thread about fat people's parents if you want?

Originally Posted by BMWGUYinCO

What about the mother?

The father signed a consent form for his son to apply for gun ownership. He lied on the form. The mother did not afaik.

[rebekahb]

Originally Posted by BMWGUYinCO

I've mentioned this somewhere before on these forums

I do remember you sharing this story before. It reminded me of my nephew which is why it stuck with me. The blatant ignoring of his actions is not helping him. There are other factors at play I don't feel like getting into but this child runs the household. It's not good at all. When she wants to come visit my husband and I don't get very happy about it. It's a shame because it's his sister but the stress that comes along with the kid is a lot. I will say when one of us has him alone he doesn't try and pull as much crap. Both of us will shut that shit down in a heartbeat.

I guess no one ever wants to look at their child and admit they're a danger to society but look at all the innocent people who suffer because of their ignorance.

[Sedan_Clan]

So much to unpack here…..

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I'm not anti-gun at all, but do firmly believe that acquiring a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle designed to carry significant rounds and the bullets themselves should be heavily regulated compared to other types of rifles. IMO, one needs to be 25+ to own or even shoot one of these weapons, and they need to have a pristine criminal and mental record. There can be no denying how much death and injury a single rifle like this can do with just one single 30 round magazine and 15 seconds time in a crowd of people.

ANY semi-automatic firearm can be fed a significant number of rounds. A semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. It doesn't matter if it's an AR-15, a mini 30, an M1 Garand, etc. Any rifle round is going to tear apart a human body. Why the arbitrary age limit?!? So a person can become a cop or join the military and serve this country at 18 years of age (…or by today's standard, are mature enough to choose their gender at 7 years of age), but they need to be 25 to own a firearm? Your argument is completely disingenuous when handguns are used to commit the vast majority of murders. Mass shootings using rifles is an extremely low percentage of the killings that occur.

The AR-15 has been around since the early 50's. Mass shootings became a thing around 1999/2000 (…Columbine). The issue isn't the firearm. Most mass shooters are males between the ages of 14 & 17 who have been ostracized and have other mental health issues.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

As ryan stewart noted, the kinetic energy of a typical high-power .223/5.56 round is frightening. I would much prefer to be shot by a handgun as it's FAR more survivable. I dare any of you to search images for "AR-15 bullet wounds" and see what they can do to the human body. Sure, there are plenty of common high-powered hunting rifles out there that can inflict the same kinetic energy, but most hunting rifles are not very effective in a mass shooting situation for a number of obvious reasons. Many of the children that died in Uvalde and Parkland were in pieces. I'm certain many would start to consider these types of guns if they saw the crime scenes of these shootings.

Again, you're attempting to use an emotional plea to pad your argument, but it is extremely flawed. A rifle is a rifle. A rifle round is a rifle round. It doesn't matter if it's a "hunting" rifle or one categorized as a sporting rifle. If you want to kill a large number of people, it can be accomplished regardless of what rifle you choose.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

As for mass shootings and no where being safe, it's the current US we live in. Many people are too polarized and one-sided and are not willing to compromise. I also blame the media and its hype. It causes fear and also makes for more shooters as they see it as a way (misguided) to fully express their pain. That's the harsh reality. Yes, we're seeing hundreds of deaths and injuries every year from mass shootings in the US and it's just insane, but I'm not overly worried about my safety or my family's. I stay aware of my surroundings best I can and avoid anything I sense or see that might be sketchy. I avoid confrontation at all costs and will only commit to a fight when there's no other option. I have no desire to CCW, but I am not at all against it.

What's the compromise? We already have 700+ gun laws on the books. What is one more law going to accomplish? I reject the notion that society, as a whole, is somehow the issue when a person decides to violate the law and commit a heinous crime. I should not be subjected to losing my rights because of somebody else's actions.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Driving in the US is still far more dangerous thing to do in the US with 40K+ deaths per year and millions of injuries per year. No one really talks about that or how scared they are of cars and driving. They really should be if they are fearful of being in a mass shooting situation as dying or being seriously injured in a car are far greater. Again, I blame the media

This is true. Many things kill far more people annually than a mass shooter, but that doesn't fit the political narrative.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by CTinline-six

Mental illness is a huge problem. Without getting political, I think we need to take a step back in our society and look at what causes these situations and not just the tool being used.

We should be looking at the tool being used and how its so easy for these nutbags to get a hold of them. Without that tool they wouldn't be able to inflict anywhere near the damage they do.

But I guess I'll get in trouble for being political for stating a fact.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

We should be looking at the tool being used and how its so easy for these nutbags to get a hold of them. Without that tool they wouldn't be able to inflict anywhere near the damage they do.

But I guess I'll get in trouble for being political for stating a fact.

So basically nobody should have handguns, right? That's the predominant tool.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

So much to unpack here…..



ANY semi-automatic firearm can be fed a significant number of rounds. A semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. It doesn't matter if it's an AR-15, a mini 30, an M1 Garand, etc. Any rifle round is going to tear apart a human body. Why the arbitrary age limit?!? So a person can become a cop or join the military and serve this country at 18 years of age (…or by today's standard, are mature enough to choose their gender at 7 years of age), but they need to be 25 to own a firearm? Your argument is completely disingenuous when handguns are used to commit the vast majority of murders. Mass shootings using rifles is an extremely low percentage of the killings that occur.

The AR-15 has been around since the early 50's. Mass shootings became a thing around 1999/2000 (…Columbine. The issue isn't the firearm. Most mass shooters are males between the ages of 14 & 17 who have been ostracized and have other mental health issues.






Again, you're attempting to use an emotional plea to pad your argument, but it is extremely flawed. A rifle is a rifle. A rifle round is a rifle round. It doesn't matter if it's a "hunting" rifle or one categorized as a sporting rifle. If you want to kill a large number of people, it can be accomplished regardless of what rifle you choose.




What's the compromise? We already have 700+ gun laws on the books. What is one more law going to accomplish? I reject the notion that society, as a whole, is somehow the issue when a person decides to violate the law and commit a heinous crime. I should not be subjected to losing my rights because of somebody else's actions.



This is true. Many things kill far more people annually than a mass shooter, but that doesn't fit the political narrative.

Ok since you have obviously taken it political.

"Doesnt fit the political narrative" You know most people who are like "we should have standards for these guns are also on board for having standard for ALL GUNS but these are the low hanging fruit, right? Most people would be all for comprehensive background checks and chain-of-custody laws for ALL GUNS. Most street guns were originally bought legally, and then end up being "illegal" via straw deals or just simply stolen out of vehicles they carelessly were left in.

So youre cool with children being murdered as long as you arent delayed or having to get a special stamp to buy a specific type of gun? That is what you are saying and lets just be clear. I have my own gun collection and if it meant I had to jump through a hoop to get a new Beretta just to keep one of these shitbags from getting ahold of an AR Id be cool with it (I could only recently do same-day anyway because of clearances causing me to pop on NICS erroneously)

Not all semi-automatic guns are the same and saying "a rifle is a rifle" is a straight-up lie. My Benelli holds seven and I have to push them in when its time to refill, same goes for most hunting rifles. If youre needing 5, 30rd magazines for hunting youre a crap shot. The guy in vegas couldnt have rained 500+ rounds before everyone fled if he was stuck using a remington 700

Also comparing this nutbag kid to a soldier? Those 18 year olds are trained on using those weapons, and they are run by a psych and can absolutely be discharged so they dont end up being private pyle.

For a cop you apparently know nothing about guns, which would scan based on the ones I would train when I was in KC, horrible shots and ignorant as hell about guns.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

So basically nobody should have handguns, right? That's the predominant tool.

So youre so simple that you can only think in black and white huh? Literally ANY standard is basically "Obama gonna take mah guns!"

[BMWGUYinCO]

Originally Posted by Torgus

The father signed a consent form for his son to apply for gun ownership. He lied on the form. The mother did not afaik.

Ah. You replied to my post about the girl that my neighbors adopted, not the post I made on the father of the mass murderer. Two different subjects, that is why I questioned whether the mother should be held accountable as well (in the case of the adopted girl, whose parents were both drug addicts).

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

Ok since you have obviously taken it political.

"Doesnt fit the political narrative" You know most people who are like "we should have standards for these guns are also on board for having standard for ALL GUNS but these are the low hanging fruit, right? Most people would be all for comprehensive background checks and chain-of-custody laws for ALL GUNS. Most street guns were originally bought legally, and then end up being "illegal" via straw deals or just simply stolen out of vehicles they carelessly were left in.

So youre cool with children being murdered as long as you arent delayed or having to get a special stamp to buy a specific type of gun? That is what you are saying and lets just be clear. I have my own gun collection and if it meant I had to jump through a hoop to get a new Beretta just to keep one of these shitbags from getting ahold of an AR Id be cool with it (I could only recently do same-day anyway because of clearances causing me to pop on NICS erroneously)

Not all semi-automatic guns are the same and saying "a rifle is a rifle" is a straight-up lie. My Benelli holds seven and I have to push them in when its time to refill, same goes for most hunting rifles. If youre needing 5, 30rd magazines for hunting youre a crap shot. The guy in vegas couldnt have rained 500+ rounds before everyone fled if he was stuck using a remington 700

Also comparing this nutbag kid to a soldier? Those 18 year olds are trained on using those weapons, and they are run by a psych and can absolutely be discharged so they dont end up being private pyle.

For a cop you apparently know nothing about guns, which would scan based on the ones I would train when I was in KC, horrible shots and ignorant as hell about guns.

Most people are not on board with a universal background check. When it's spun a certain way by the media - on its face - it sounds great, but once delved into further, those people tend to change their tune.

These days, most street guns are stolen or manufactured at home (..e.g. ghost guns). Straw purchases are such a low percentage that it's not a consideration, and straw purchases rarely involve felons.

Don't be ridiculous Ryan!! Nobody is comfortable with children being murdered. If that's the position you're going to take (…again, all emotion but very little rationale), why aren't you so animated about the children who die weekly from being struck by handgun rounds?!?

The Vegas shooter had belt-fed modified rifles. There is nothing anybody could have done to prevent that.

As for soldiers, psychs, etc….

….somebody who shoots their rifles often is every bit as "trained" as a common soldier. Being in the military does not automatically produce someone that is adept at handling firearms (….nor does it automatically qualify them as a proficient shooter). Sociopaths pass psychs all of the time. After all, they are sociopaths. A psychological evaluation does not do much to detect who will or will not decide to commit a crime. Those evaluations are 100% subjective. Have you ever been subjected to one?


P.S. Figures you'd try to lump in some bolt-action rifle nonsense into this. I provided examples of the common/popular semi-automatic hunting rifles in my prior post. All of which can utilize high capacity magazines and inflict as much damage as a modular/sporting AR format rifle (…if the shooter chose to do so).

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

So youre so simple that you can only think in black and white huh? Literally ANY standard is basically "Obama gonna take mah guns!"

No, I'm asking you a question. If handguns are used in the vast majority of killings, why are you focused on the small percentage using rifles? It's absolutely political. It's like people using ectopic pregnancies and rapes (…which account for less two percent of overall abortions) to justify the need for federal abortion protections when 90+% are elective/requested for no reason.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Most people are not on board with a universal background check. When it's spun a certain way by the media - [i]on its face[/i/] - it sounds great, but once delved into further, those people tend to change their tune.

These days, most street guns are stolen or manufactured at home (..e.g. ghost guns). Straw purchases are such a low percentage that it's not a consideration, and straw purchases rarely involve felons.

Don't be ridiculous Ryan!! Nobody is comfortable with children being murdered. If that's the position you're going to take (…again, all emotion but very little rationale), why aren't you so animated about the children who die weekly from being struck by handgun rounds?!?

The Vegas shooter had belt-fed modified rifles. There is nothing anybody could have done to prevent that.

As for soldiers, psychs, etc….

….somebody who shoots their rifles often is every bit as "trained" as a common soldier. Sociopaths pass psychs all of the time. After all, they are sociopaths. A psychological evaluation does not do much to detect who will or won't decide to commit a crime.

LOL, so more to unpack I guess. Youre emotional so Ill excuse the bad syntax this time.

A. So you circle back to kids. Again, people who are for restrictions on ARs are all for restrictions on all guns so just going "so you're OK with kids getting shot with pistols is, again, a black and white simpletons argument. We would like to stop these nutbags from getting those too, but right now the AR is something that was restricted until 2004 and, in a saner world (back in 1994) its the most likely to happen again.

B. "The media?" Show me where, when delved into further, people flip and are NOT in support of requiring checks? Id be curious to see those poll questions and how they are worded (if they even exist outside of Infowars or whatever).

C. Guns are not being made at home en-masse, that is just utter bullshit and anyone with two cells to rub together. I dont disagree on the stolen but the bulk of them are not stolen initially, they are stolen (like I already said) from careless people. That is why there should be chain-of-custody (I already said that too but I could see you overlooking it due to emotion).

When I was a dealer we lost ZERO guns, but we regularly had investigators digging through our boxes (since you aren't allowed to digitize it, databases are SCARY) looking for sale history of a gun used in a crime after it was stolen out of some aholes car and he didn't report it. In every facet of life we are held responsible for acting responsibly. There are all kinds of gun safes, if you jerk off the fantasy that you are one of the statistically insignificant people whose home will be invaded in the middle of the night quicksafes like the speedvault are cheap as shit, I know as Ive owned them.

I have to report selling a car but I dont have to report selling a gun, and the next person has to report and register it if they want to take it outside...

D. Vegas shooter? Ok now you have completely taken leave. He had 24 guns he would have had to have an FFL license for and magazines he couldn't have bought online from 1994-2004.

E. No, not everyone who shoots all the time is as "trained" as anyone. That is also moronic. That is like saying a guy who jerks off 3x a day is good at sex. Shit form is shit form, no matter how much you practice it. Professional soldiers are endlessly taught muzzle discipline, weapon maintenance, etc. Ive shot with countless people and the only ones who didn't scare me were ex military, outside of that nobody can even properly do a 4 step draw.

Honestly the more they shoot without proper discipline the worse they get because they THINK just doing it a lot makes them better, which makes them more confident/dangerous.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

P.S. Figures you'd try to lump in some bolt-action rifle nonsense into this. I provided examples of the common/popular semi-automatic hunting rifles into my prior post. All of which can utilize high capacity magazines and inflict as much damage as a modular/sporting AR format rifle (…if the shooter chose to do so).

LOL, ok, a fucking 7400, R1 or a BAR Safari.. If you cant get the job done with that then youre shit. The clip, the rails, and the hollow stock is for cosplay.

If were sporting for actual Id rather spend my $$ where I did. Starting with with an accumark action in 338 Lapua (hand loads of course), fluted, with a modified trigge, a fibre stock and a Leupold mounted to the top. Basically an elite before they marketed the elite.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

No, I'm asking you a question. If handguns are used in the vast majority of killings, why are you focused on the small percentage using rifles? It's absolutely political. It's like people using ectopic pregnancies and rapes (…which account for less two percent of overall abortions) to justify the need for federal abortion protections when 90+% are elective/requested for no reason.

And Im saying I, and most people, agree. We should also make it harder for criminals and nutbags to get handguns by using UBCs and chain-of-custody requirements. Hell, Im all for actually using the ENTIRE 2nd amendment, which 99% of people (even those who refer to it) cant even quote.

But were also smart enough, like I already said twice, to recognize the low-hanging fruit and realize the impact a single handgun can have pales into comparison to a single semi auto, with a stack of high-cap mags.

Its not emotional for me like it is for you so I can see beyond the black and white.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

(I could only recently do same-day anyway because of clearances causing me to pop on NICS erroneously)

Did you get a UPIN?

Delays are stupid if you already own firearms. On your 1st purchase I am fine with a cooling off period. But if you give them an inch they take a mile and that is why almost no one will vote for MORE gun laws as they don't stop the real issues.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

A. So you circle back to kids. Again, people who are for restrictions on ARs are all for restrictions on all guns so just going "so you're OK with kids getting shot with pistols is, again, a black and white simpletons argument. We would like to stop these nutbags from getting those too, but right now the AR is something that was restricted until 2004 and, in a saner world (back in 1994) its the most likely to happen again.

I wasn't the individual who brought kids into this discussion. The AR was restricted here in California and that restriction came with a sunset clause. The onus was on the government to prove that the ban resulted in less crime. It did not, thus, the ban expired. That's the simple version.

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

B. "The media?" Show me where, when delved into further, people flip and are NOT in support of requiring checks? Id be curious to see those poll questions and how they are worded (if they even exist outside of Infowars or whatever).

I could dig up the details, but it would not change your opinion.

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

C. Guns are not being made at home en-masse, that is just utter bullshit and anyone with two cells to rub together. I dont disagree on the stolen but the bulk of them are not stolen initially, they are stolen (like I already said) from careless people. That is why there should be chain-of-custody (I already said that too but I could see you overlooking it due to emotion).

We are pulling manufactured guns off of these criminals daily. We are also finding these criminals in possession of guns gifted to them by cartel smugglers. The large bulk of the guns were not stolen from somebody being careless. Are guns stolen? Absolutely. Much of our data supports the stolen firearms were obtained from home burglaries and home invasion robberies. I can't account for what is taking place in your area, but I can account for what's taking place in mine. I concede that things vary by region.

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

D. Vegas shooter? Ok now you have completely taken leave. He had 24 guns he would have had to have an FFL license for and magazines he couldn't have bought online from 1994-2004.

His firearms and magazines were purchased legally in various parts of the country. Not every state has restrictions on magazine capacity, etc. He did not need an FFL.

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

E. No, not everyone who shoots all the time is as "trained" as anyone. That is also moronic. That is like saying a guy who jerks off 3x a day is good at sex. Shit form is shit form, no matter how much you practice it. Professional soldiers are endlessly taught muzzle discipline, weapon maintenance, etc. Ive shot with countless people and the only ones who didn't scare me were ex military, outside of that nobody can even properly do a 4 step draw.

Honestly the more they shoot without proper discipline the worse they get because they THINK just doing it a lot makes them better, which makes them more confident/dangerous.

You're presumptuous in your thinking. Soldiers are not "endlessly" taught anything. I know plenty of current/ex military who can't shoot the broadside of a barn. I know plenty of current/ex military who are not very knowledgeable about firearms. I know many civilian shooters who are extremely competent with their firearms. We can toss anecdotal experiences at each other all day, but it will accomplish nothing. More than half of my partners in law enforcement over the last 10-12 years are either current or ex-military. Not every one of them is as proficient as you purport. I have shot rifle courses with them and I qualify with them quarterly. I see the results of what they sent down range. Conversely, I have some partners on this department with no military experience who shoot 1 1/2" groupings all day long with their eyes closed.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

And Im saying I, and most people, agree. We should also make it harder for criminals and nutbags to get handguns by using UBCs and chain-of-custody requirements. Hell, Im all for actually using the ENTIRE 2nd amendment, which 99% of people (even those who refer to it) cant even quote.

But were also smart enough, like I already said twice, to recognize the low-hanging fruit and realize the impact a single handgun can have pales into comparison to a single semi auto, with a stack of high-cap mags.

Its not emotional for me like it is for you so I can see beyond the black and white.

There is no way to make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms. It's fallacious reasoning.....a pipe dream to sell to the masses who don't have any perspective. The only way to make such a claim even remotely possible is to rid this entire country of guns and lock down the borders…….and we know that will never happen.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Most people are not on board with a universal background check. When it's spun a certain way by the media - on its face - it sounds great, but once delved into further, those people tend to change their tune.

These days, most street guns are stolen or manufactured at home (..e.g. ghost guns). Straw purchases are such a low percentage that it's not a consideration, and straw purchases rarely involve felons.

Don't be ridiculous Ryan!! Nobody is comfortable with children being murdered. If that's the position you're going to take (…again, all emotion but very little rationale), why aren't you so animated about the children who die weekly from being struck by handgun rounds?!?

The Vegas shooter had belt-fed modified rifles. There is nothing anybody could have done to prevent that.

As for soldiers, psychs, etc….

….somebody who shoots their rifles often is every bit as "trained" as a common soldier. Being in the military does not automatically produce someone that is adept at handling firearms (….nor does it automatically qualify them as a proficient shooter). Sociopaths pass psychs all of the time. After all, they are sociopaths. A psychological evaluation does not do much to detect who will or will not decide to commit a crime. Those evaluations are 100% subjective. Have you ever been subjected to one?


P.S. Figures you'd try to lump in some bolt-action rifle nonsense into this. I provided examples of the common/popular semi-automatic hunting rifles into my prior post. All of which can utilize high capacity magazines and inflict as much damage as a modular/sporting AR format rifle (…if the shooter chose to do so).

On the bolded part, there's a guy named Lucas Botkin who founded T.Rex Arms. I watch the guy in amazement when he shoots. He has no military experience but shoots a ton. Even some former special ops guys has commented on how good he is and has made some of his techniques their own. They've even said when you shoot a ton you'll eventually get good all things being equal.