This is a controversial subject among gun rights advocates. You are weighing property rights against second amendment rights and the right of self-defense. Your obvious support for employers who want to ban guns on their premises raises the question of what those same employers are willing to do to safeguard the safety of their employees. If an employer is willing to pay armed guards to protect the parking lot, building and occupants, then banning guns is a lot more reasonable than if said employer just wants to post “circle with slash through handgun” signs at the doors and driveways. Doing that just creates another “gun-free zone” where everybody is a sitting duck.
I am conflicted on this issue. I recognize the importance of property rights, as well as employer rights to set policies. On the other hand, I recognize the right of self-defense, including the right to keep and bear (carry) arms. It doesn’t surprise me that the NRA comes down on the gun rights side of the argument, and I don’t fault them for it.
Well, I know a few certified “gun nuts”. One is a retired Federal agent,and very active in Cowboy action shooting, which is target shooting, he does this several times a month or more, spends long hours at the range. He owns a couple dozen cowboy type guns- lever action, shotguns, six shooters.
The other is a man who collects WW1 & WW2 weapons, has a couple hundred and has both a curio and a reloading license, since he reloads for a living, he also does a lot of target shooting and some varmit eradication. He is a little bit of a “prepper” but also works security.
The third collects valuable engraved guns- which he never shoots. Some are true works of art.
The fourth shoots skeet and trap, competively, has a roomful of trophies, used to shoot game birds but no longer. He has over a dozen shotguns, all double barrel.
So I think trying to categorize those who own a lot of guns into any one category is fruitless.
I’ll bet there is no support for the position that banning firearms from your parking lot increases the risk of firearm injury on the premises. So the private landowner’s choice should be between letting every employee have guns on its premises or paying people to have guns on its premises? What the hell kind of Hobson’s choice is that?
It’s interesting that to you, the only reasonable solution to gun violence is more guns. RAND Corp. just did a huge metastudy of gun control restrictions. They conclude that there is poor data and that most gun violence studies are crap. However, when the data was good enough to draw any conclusions about gun violence initiatives, 100% of the arrows pointed away from what gun rights advocates would want.
If you stand for freedom from government oppression, the choice is obvious. If you are reflexively pro-gun and only sometimes for freedom, then the conflict must be hard to bear. It doesn’t surprise me that the NRA comes down on the side that they do. Such a law lowers the regulatory risk of owning firearms and helps to promote the sale of firearms. That is the only thing the NRA really cares about.
A “assault rifle” is a miliary rifle capable of both semi and full auto fire. They are tightly restricted and rare in private hands in the USA.
A “assault weapon” is whatever a gun grabber wants to define. Usually it is some combo of purely consmetic things, isuch as a pistol grip, a flash supressor, a bayonet lug, whatever.
So, even tho by no means am I a “gun nut”- I, along with anyone who knows anything about guns- take exeption to that vague term “assault weapon”. Since it is a term with no real meaning.
One of those things is preventing your employees from bringing their gun to work with them.
You don’t have to put up circle with a slash signs, you just put it in the policy manual. Are you saying that a gun locked in your car is going to protect you on your way to or from your car, or are you saying that not only can employers not prohibit people from having their gun in their car, but they also cannot prohibit them from carrying while at work?
I come down on the side of the right of property owners to set rules for the property that they own, and for employers to set rules for the employees that they pay. If employees feel that not having a gun on them at all times makes the workplace unsafe, they can find another job that has different gun policies. People have left jobs because they didn’t like the break room refrigerator policies before, I am sure they can find an employer that will allow them to keep their gun at the ready at all times while they are making copies.
Sure, any modern high powered rifle bullet will do that, it doesnt have to come from a “Military-Style Rifle”. In fact a .223/ 5.56 is rather on the low end of the power range. Take a big game rifle- bolt action- firing a .300magnum.
You are correct to identify two different issues. I think it’s reasonable for employers to implement rules regarding carrying inside their buildings or outdoor active work areas, however they see fit. They have that right. And the employee has the right to find another job. I find it less reasonable to extend bans to parking lots and within employees’ own vehicles.
As I said, I agree if you are talking about within buildings and work areas. I think it is unreasonable when it comes to cars and parking lots. An employer need not be aware of what an employee’s commute entails, or what he may be planning to do after work (like visit a shooting range, go hunting, etc.). There may be no other nearby or reasonable parking choice. It’s none of the employer’s business what an employee has in his car.
As a “gun grabber”, meaning someone who would like to see meaningful gun control reform that leaves gun owners and prospective owners with the option of procuring whatever gun that they can show they can handle safely, while also wanting to prevent those who cannot handle such lethal devices with public safety in mind from having them, I would define an assault weapon as a weapon that you would use for assault. Meaning that it is not used for personal defense, but rather for offensive use.
It is hard to define, but only because the gun community and manufacturers wish it to be so, and then take exception that people use their ill defined terms in a way that they do not like.
If the gun community had any interest in joining the conversation, they could help out, in defining terms and categories that can be agreed upon.
But, simply, anything that fires high power bullets with semi-automatic (and obviously fully automatic) action, with a long enough barrel to give accuracy outside of 25ish feet is what I would consider to be an assault weapon.
The problem is, is if it is defined by cosmetic features that guns of a certain function have, then the gun community will find ways of changing that cosmetic feature to get the function that was intended to be restricted, and defining it by function makes gun owners mad that they will no longer be able to buy that gun with that function without having to fill out some extra paperwork.
I disagree when that thing in his car can very quickly become that thing shooting in his building, whether it is the employee or someone who broke into the car doing the firing. Perhaps the things that the employer chooses to ban on its premises is also no one else’s business.
The reasonableness of alternative parking choices is the employee’s problem.
I don’t entirely disagree, unless it becomes the employer’s business. I don’t care what my employees have in their cars, as long as has no impact on work. I don’t care if they have guns or drugs, I’m not going to be out there searching their cars, so I’m not going to know anything about it unless they make sure I know about it.
If the person has it locked in a proper gun safe that is mounted in the trunk, then the employer has little to care about, and they don’t need to know. If the person is out in the parking lot showing their gun off to other employees, that’s a bit different.
In the interest of joining the conversation, virtually any available type of firearm that is used for offensive actions also has application, and has been used, for personal defense. The weapon of choice for self-defense today is a firearm that fires high power bullets (at least powerful enough to stop a person threatening oneself) accurately at 25+ feet with a semi-automatic action. Many police, CCWers, and gun owners interested in home defense choose weapons of this type precisely because they’re well-suited for self-defense.
Would you support an employer’s rule that their employees aren’t allowed to have the item in their car if it were parked on a public street alongside the business, as opposed to in the employer-owned parking lot?
Why should Second Amendment proponents want the loopholes closed? We wish the laws weren’t there to begin with.
You can be in favor of reducing traffic deaths; but thinking that attaching a spoiler to your Mazda turns it into an illegal “street racer”, and that banning spoilers will actually help anything, is knee-jerk ignorance.
I don’t generally support storing guns in cars because cars get broken into all the time and cars get stolen often enough that this is a bad idea. But do I support the rule you describe? No, I wouldn’t support it. My general view is that the employer can make rules about what happens on its property, not what happens anywhere.
None of those meet any standard or current definition of a “assualt weapon”. They are just deer rifles, that happen to be semi-auot. In most cases they cant take a magazine beyond 5 rounds.
The problem is, is if it is defined by cosmetic features that guns of a certain function have, then the gun grabbers will find ways of adding minor cosmetic features to get more guns banned.
Semi-auto is also a bad way to define- since the old .303 WW ONE Enfield can fire 15 rounds in a minute, about the same speed as a semi-auto.
And a lever action rifle, like the Cowboy period Winchester, can fire even faster than a bolt action.
So, semi-auto is only a tad more deadly.
This is why banning any particular type of gun as “dangerous” or “assault” gets eye-rolling among gun experts.
Yes, the AR 15 looks deadly, and since you can switch high capacity magazines quickly it is more dealy- slightly.
Maybe only 15 kids would have died, not 17. Or he would have just taken longer and killed as many.
I have no issues with restrictions on selling large capacity magazines, mind you, that might help a little.
That makes it seem a trivial matter of semantics and cheap debating tactics and that’s really not what it is, or all there is to at least.
Without having to define what a ‘gun expert is’ it’s a plain fact, in view of the capability of various guns, that it would be practically pointless to aim a ban as narrowly as ‘the AR-15’. And if the idea of such a narrow ban was so far removed from the actual debate, why would this thread go on as long as it has?
Also, gun control advocacy groups and media allies have consciously adopted terms like ‘assault weapon’ and ‘military style’ which are practically useless at best and frequently counterproductive for rational discussion. They are designed to get people worked up, which is part of politics on all issues from all sides, but has a real downside in this case. It’s not just a matter of drawing a line within a gray area on a rational basis. It’s laws which have actually been passed, my state has one, allowing more capable box magazine fed semi-automatic rifles while banning less capable weapons based on criteria which grow out of consistent lack of attention to important details, and use of made up political terms like ‘military style’ and ‘assault’.
Again, if the sloganeering and lack of attention to important details had no effect but to upset self proclaimed ‘experts’ or people left with nitpicking semantics as their only counter argument, that would be one thing. But that’s not the case IMO, it’s worse than that, and demonstrated by the idea a ban on one designation of gun could sustain a discussion rather than just ‘that’s ridiculous’. And so my comment.
It’s still unrealistic if it emphasizes ‘donors’ as implying large moneyed interests being a major factor in the gun debate, so other issues maybe. Anti-gun control in the US is a grass roots phenomenon, overwhelmingly. Again, in practicing correct Dumb Politics you don’t want to blame other voters but rather find organizations or ‘donors’ to blame. But with this issue it’s self deception to really think it’s organizations or money in a vacuum or from some small elite. It’s from a highly motivated significant size minority of voters.
Again in DP-101 you’ve got to find a non-regular people scapegoat. But it seems to me many on the gun control side really believe in an NRA bogeyman, and/or ‘big donors’ to a degree that’s way out of line with the actual political reality of grass roots opposition to gun control.
I do not see how you can use an AR-15 for self defense unless you are being attacked by an army. A handgun is much more practical for close quarters, it is easier to conceal, maneuver and bring to bear on target. I have many doubts about one’s capability of drawing a handgun successfully when someone has a gun pointed at you, unslinging and bringing to bear an AR-15 is just ridiculous.
If you need to be able to fire accurately over 25’, with easily achieved high rates of fire of high powered rounds in a large “clip”, you are the one doing the attacking.
That is exactly my point as to why second amendment proponents have absolutely nothing useful to add to the conversation about public safety. They only want the ability to have any and every gun they want to have. It’d be like having Wesley Snipes have input into tax reform.
Obviously, you know nothing about car racing. As it is true that the spoilers on most cars serve no purpose, they actually do have a useful function for actual racing. If street racing becomes an issue to public safety that lawmakers need to get involved, then banning spoilers on cars would put a hurting on the street racers, and only annoy regular people that like the cosmetic look.
Much as Scott Adams is a genius and right about everything he has ever said, I think I am going to have to disagree with his rather wide broad brush of both gun control advocates and of gun users.
While I agree that only a small minority are buying them for the purpose of killing other civilians, the idea that they are primarily used for self defense strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Sport? Yeah. Showing off how manly you are with your big powerful gun? Sure. Defense? Please.
Good job, you caught me in that I didn’t say everything and define everything to your satisfaction, therefore I can have no opinion whatsoever about what sorts of lethal weapons are to be in the public sphere. I did forget to say anything about “clip” size.
Well, and I said that I wanted to define it by function, rather than by cosmetic, did I not? And it is not the people that are trying to find ways of protecting the public sphere that are finding loopholes. If the “gun grabbers” want to add a feature to ban, they have to actually go through the legislature to do so. If the gun nuts want to find a way around that ban, they just need to change some minor cosmetic part.
And we can have a maximum firing per minute standard as well, if that is what is necessary.
And everytime you fire it, you have to take you hand off the trigger, and work the lever (or the bolt, for bolt action guns), and then reacquire your target, giving your targets more ability to evade your fire.
You seem to be operating under the impression that only 17 shots were fired, because there were 17 people killed. As there were students who were hit and injured, but not killed, and some who were hit by more than one bullet, him only having access to 15 bullets would have dropped the count by more than you said.