- Messages
- 85
- Reactions
- 169
I'm going to post some lines I read from a CNN article by Michael Fanone who is a CNN law enforcement analyst who served for 20 years with the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department. Link to article here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html
I thought many of these quotes were really weird and some downright face palming: (I will use parentheses when injecting my own thoughts/rebuttals)
Overall I think this article is completely stupid and I would like to hear what this community thinks.
I thought many of these quotes were really weird and some downright face palming: (I will use parentheses when injecting my own thoughts/rebuttals)
(Throughout the article, he doesn't elaborate further on why he thinks this... and he doesn't explain how anyone was misled. What were they told that misled them? Nobody knows, apparently.)I've sold guns at big box retailers and I've also sold firearms at a small retail gun store. Some gun buyers have been misled into thinking that the AR-15 is somehow practical for self-defense. But frankly, it's the last gun that I would recommend for that purpose.
(How many people have you talked to? I could give you an answer instantly: they're accurate, fun on the range, and has a lot of power)I've pressed some customers about why they want an AR-15, but no one could ever come up with a legitimate justification for needing that particular weapon.
(You had me at the ad hominem, but I'm still confused why the idea of tyranny is unfathomable when so many other countries have done it, and are doing it right now)Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, "We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That's part of our Second Amendment right." Personally, I think that's ludicrous
(I don't think that's how bullet proof vests work... if it slices through like butter then you're wearing a vest from wish .com)it's far more power than should ever be in the hands of the average civilian.
The bullet fired by the AR-15 is capable of defeating the average police officer's body armor, like a knife slicing through butter
(we all know how accurate the police are...)For an officer armed with a 9 mm pistol, hitting a target beyond 50 yards is going to be difficult, even for the most accomplished marksman
(Feeding dozens of rounds in the space of minutes? That sounds like literally any gun in existence if you can reload even at half-pace. You still haven't gone over why we are singling out an AR-15 for having 30 rounds magazines and not pretty much any other semi auto rifle, or even some extended magazines on handguns..)And magazines that can feed dozens of rounds into the weapon in the space of minutes clearly were meant for use only on the battlefield
(Michael, come on man, you literally just said the police all have AR-15's, but somehow were still overmatched to a single shooter? The police didn't even try to go in, waiting outside for an hour and doing nothing.)The prevalence of these weapons means police sometimes are overmatched, as we saw with the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, last month.
(It is a fact that they did. The police have those rifles, too. There's pictures of them with them... Or is this a plea to up their budget? I'm not following.)I have no doubt that police in Uvalde wish they had had weapons as powerful as the one carried by the shooter who snuffed out the lives of the victims in that school.
(Wouldn't it be great if people didn't murder? I think you just solved violent crime, Michael)But a far better outcome would have been if the shooter didn't have an AR-15 in the first place.
(A dollar per round for a .223 or 5.56? Where the bubblegum are you shopping for ammo at? I've seen cheaper prices than that in California. Especially when you get a LEO discount on ammo in a lot of places)the cost of ammunition exceeding a dollar per round is more than this guy can afford.
(is that for you to decide what people need? How would you know what the needs of someone is? we call that a slippery slope)I no longer need it. But neither, to be honest, do most of the people flocking to guns stores to buy one.
(I think you're overestimating the arguments you made if you meet them to the conclusion of 'no brainer')Banning these powerful weapons from the civilian marketplace is a no-brainer
(As are the law in almost every state in the country. And when people in one of those states receives a background check, passes it, then commits a violent crime, nobody brings up the fact that he passed the background check)as are universal background checks.
(What?! That's literally what confiscation is. You just contradicted yourself about 3 times in one sentence.)And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime
(first off, good luck getting that past a supreme court. Second, this would just push people to the black market where you have even less control)If banning them outright seems like too extreme a solution to be politically palatable, here's another option: Reclassify semi-automatic rifles as Class 3 firearms.
That would mean that someone wanting to purchase an AR-15 would have to go through a background check, fingerprinting and review by an official from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives – a process that takes anywhere from 12 to 16 months.
(So people 21 and older are emotionally stable? (obviously not - a lot of the mass shootings he references were carried out by people 21 and older). 18 year olds are a huge risk? Why are they allowed to join the military then, and fire actual machine guns?)And since Class 3 weapons can't be purchased by anyone younger than 21, it would solve the issue of emotionally unstable 18-year-olds buying them.
(Civilian demand doesn't equate to criminal demand. In fact, if civilian demand is down, criminal demand is usually up. And that goes for any product or service.)All of these hoops and hurdles are sure to reduce the civilian demand for these weapons.
(They really don't, because it's impossible to know what someone's intentions are when they purchase a gun. They can say it's for self defense and pass any test you give them, then immediately go out and commit a violent crime with it.)Our public officials have it within their power to help make it harder for people who shouldn't have these weapons to get them.
(Most PD's have AR-15's, body armor, and ammo, so I don't know why they would worry about being outgunned by another AR-15..)A police officer should never have to worry about being outgunned by the bad guy they're protecting the public against.
Overall I think this article is completely stupid and I would like to hear what this community thinks.
