Trump testing the winds on gun control

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not against keeping the Trumpenator honest with a primary challenge, but who will fund it? And who could stand in the crosshairs of him without wilting like ten-day old, unrefrigerated asparagus?

All legitimate concerns. Trump's blowhard and denigrating antics worked because people were ready for it at the time. At some point when the rubber quits meeting the road, the fickle public may well decide on a change. I'm not predicting anything as time will tell and this could go poof tomorrow if something new comes along. (Which is my hope).

 

[jamil]

An argument for banning greater than 10 round magazines:

Nikolas Cruz's gun may have jammed during Parkland school shooting | Miami Herald

"Had Cruz used high-capacity magazines, he would not have had to reload as frequently. That’s the reason Rubio is reconsidering his position on the the sale of high-capacity magazines, according to DeFede."

Okay. So let's pretend there's some kind of functional relationship between magazine size and fatalities produced. It's provably not a function, but let's pretend it is. Those are the two factors being discussed here. So let's draw a graph.

So imagine the graph has an x axis which represents magazine size, and ranges from 0 to max number of rounds in any magazine commercially available to civilians. The y axis represents fatalities produced and ranges from 0 to the max number of people killed in any mass shooting ever.

Clearly, this "function" would hit point (0,0) because if a gun has zero capacity, it can't fire any bullets to kill anyone. The function is unknown, but we we know it goes at least a little positive, because guns with magazine sizes of greater than zero have killed people in mass shootings. We also have (10,17) as a point because this shooting employing 10 round mags produced 17 deaths. A few more points and we can build a reasonable estimated function. So now we're getting somewhere. Let's say we can derive a very close approximate functional relationship between mag size and deaths produced, and it's even kinda linear.

So with this function we can decide the optimal magazine size to allow. What capacity is correct then? 10 rounds? 7? 5? Single shot? That sounds kinda arbitrary. Since we have a function, let's flip the question and solve for x. What number of deaths is acceptable? We'd like to say zero. And the only number of rounds that maps to zero deaths is a magazine size of zero. And that's a practical non-starter.

And if it places a handicap on bad guys at all, it also places the same handicap on good guys who are protecting themselves, families, property. That has a non-zero cost in lives the other way. So that's another axis we need for the graph that's not being considered.

 

[jamil]

I'm not against keeping the Trumpenator honest with a primary challenge, but who will fund it? And who could stand in the crosshairs of him without wilting like ten-day old, unrefrigerated asparagus?

The type of person who it would take to overcome Trump's pablum blitzkrieg is a competent, confident person, who doesn't suffer fools. Finding such a person who wants the job is the hard part. An example of such a person is someone like General Mattis. I think he's not the running-for-president type though. And I'm not convinced I'd like all his politics anyway. But that's the kind of person who would dismantle Trump's persona if put in that position to have to.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Had Cruz used high-capacity magazines, he would not have had to reload as frequently. That’s the reason Rubio is reconsidering his position on the the sale of high-capacity magazines, according to DeFede."

Okay. So let's pretend there's some kind of functional relationship between magazine size and fatalities produced. It's provably not a function, but let's pretend it is. Those are the two factors being discussed here. So let's draw a graph.

So imagine the graph has an x axis which represents magazine size, and ranges from 0 to max number of rounds in any magazine commercially available to civilians. The y axis represents fatalities produced and ranges from 0 to the max number of rounds killed in any mass shooting ever.

Clearly, this "function" would hit point (0,0) because if a gun has zero capacity, it can't fire any bullets to kill anyone. The function is unknown, but we we know it goes at least a little positive, because guns with magazine sizes of greater than zero have killed people in mass shootings. We also have (10,17) as a point because this shooting employing 10 round mags produced 17 deaths. A few more points and we can build a reasonable estimated function. So now we're getting somewhere. Let's say we can derive a very close approximate functional relationship between mag size and deaths produced, and it's even kinda linear.

So with this function we can decide the optimal magazine size to allow. What capacity is correct then? 10 rounds? 7? 5? Single shot? That sounds kinda arbitrary. Since we have a function, let's flip the question and solve for x. What number of deaths is acceptable? We'd like to say zero. And the only number of rounds that maps to zero deaths is a magazine size of zero. And that's a practical non-starter.

And if it places a handicap on bad guys at all, it also places the same handicap on good guys who are protecting themselves, families, property. That has a non-zero cost in lives the other way. So that's another axis we need for the graph that's not being considered.

The dead kids obviously mean nothing to you.

 

[Bfish]

Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' | TheHill

eh. **** it. Let’s apply that to all rights.

Wow, I hadn't seen that until now. Pretty bad!

Anyone see this? You know it's bad if it makes Feinstein happy!

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-d...ump-seems-to-endorse-her-assault-weapons-ban/

 

[jamil]

Wow, I hadn't seen that until now. Pretty bad!

Anyone see this? You know it's bad if it makes Feinstein happy!

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-d...ump-seems-to-endorse-her-assault-weapons-ban/

“Joe can you do that?” Trump asked. “Can you add some of the things. I’ll help. Can you add what Amy and what Dianne have?”

“I’m going to say this,” Trump continued. “We’re going to get it passed.”


House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), himself the victim of gun violence last year, next proposed a measure allowing concealed-carry permits to cross state lines — which Trump promptly dismissed.


“You’ll never get this passed if you add concealed carry to this,” the Republican president said.

WTF? Pro-gun president my ****ing ass!

It's probably true that a bill with reciprocity would have a very hard time in the Senate. But he says he can get Fienstein's AWB passed? Really? The only thing worse than a Democrat anti-gun zealot is a Republican one. You at least see the Democrat coming.

 

[Bfish]

“You’ll never get this passed if you add concealed carry to this,” the Republican president said.

WTF? Pro-gun president my ****ing ass!

It's probably true that a bill with reciprocity would have a very hard time in the Senate. But he says he can get Fienstein's AWB passed? Really? The only thing worse than a Democrat anti-gun zealot is a Republican one. You at least see the Democrat coming.

Agreed!

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I wonder if all of the late nite talking heads will praise him for it. I’m gonna guess no.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

trump: 8 year assault - Bing video

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Taken at face value Trump's comments suck and **** me off. That said, I will wait to see what he does or does not sign. I can't help but think that he is shining on the Dems so that the bill is so absurd that it can't pass Congress. Encouraging the Dems to go further, like DiFi, is just too absurd to be taken at face value. Keeping out CC reciprocity is a good way to make the bill unpalatable to enough of the Repubs in Congress that it keeps it from passing. If the anti-gun bill fails for that reason, but then a clean bill with reciprocity or armed teachers passes and is signed by Trump...well that would be pretty good. It's a dangerous and ugly game that is being played (if it is being played), but I think that it might fit with Trump's free-wheeling style.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

You at least see the Democrat coming.

Everybody should've seen this coming. He was (maybe still is) a pal of the Clinton's. I believe he even mentioned being for an AWB several times before he ran. A shill, indeed.

 

[Fargo]

Taken at face value Trump's comments suck and **** me off. That said, I will wait to see what he does or does not sign. I can't help but think that he is shining on the Dems so that the bill is so absurd that it can't pass Congress. Encouraging the Dems to go further, like DiFi, is just too absurd to be taken at face value. Keeping out CC reciprocity is a good way to make the bill unpalatable to enough of the Repubs in Congress that it keeps it from passing. If the anti-gun bill fails for that reason, but then a clean bill with reciprocity or armed teachers passes and is signed by Trump...well that would be pretty good. It's a dangerous and ugly game that is being played (if it is being played), but I think that it might fit with Trump's free-wheeling style.

You really think a NY businessman is playing 3D chess for the benefit of gunowners? He openly supported an AWB in the past when there was no question it wasn't for our benefit.

 

[Trigger Time]

Well i tell you one thing I hope this did is wake up all the gun owners that have thought they could take a nap for the last year and the next 3 years. OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE NEVER SAFE.
Start emailing and calling your elected officials now and firmly voice your anger with any passage of any new gun laws or regulations

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's probably true that a bill with reciprocity would have a very hard time in the Senate. But he says he can get Fienstein's AWB passed? Really? The only thing worse than a Democrat anti-gun zealot is a Republican one. You at least see the Democrat coming.

You can't tell me if Clinton or Bernie were after bump stocks, using EO to do so, talking against national reciprocity, etc. the result would be the same. No, it was "King Obama" and digging trenches. Now it's "meh, he's just talking". I think a lot of us saw this coming, but we were just "never trumpers"...

03-20-2016

So, anyway, we've got Hillary who we *know* is a liar and is anti-gun, but is a Democrat so we'll rally against her. Then we've got Trump who's somehow this "outsider", although he's been heavily involved in politics for decades, with abortive runs for President before and donations/campaigning for various candidates...yet he's an outsider? C'mon. No, what you've got is someone who's at best wishy-washy, at worst a wolf in sheep's clothing but will be an (R) so will not have the same impetus to oppose when it's politically expedient to pass background checks, assault weapons bans, etc.

Don't believe me? Then you don't know your history. Maybe look into Reagan asking Republicans to support the Clinton AWB and what the results there were.

 

[Punkinhead]

[FONT=&quot]“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.​[/FONT]

 

[ChristianPatriot]

[FONT=&amp]“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.​[/FONT]

And I voted for him because he wasn’t Hilary... Doh!!

 

[Thor]

Maybe everyone should go back and listen to his snake story again...

I don't care who you are, what pin you've put on to identify yourself today, Molon Labe.

 

[riverman67]

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.​

Yeah , this is unfortunate.
Confiscation is confiscation no matter how the words are parsed.

 

[KellyinAvon]

What's bad, worse and worst is the Lakeland, FL murderer could have been arrested for felonies (death threats electronically and in person) and could've been involuntarily committed to a mental facility. Do either of these? Schools are still GFZs and the murderer (who no doubt would've been out at some point) would've acquired firearms illegally, as he did three (per Dana L.) firearms he had acquired.

Make the felon fear the victim (Jeff Cooper)

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Taken at face value Trump's comments suck and **** me off. That said, I will wait to see what he does or does not sign. I can't help but think that he is shining on the Dems so that the bill is so absurd that it can't pass Congress. Encouraging the Dems to go further, like DiFi, is just too absurd to be taken at face value. Keeping out CC reciprocity is a good way to make the bill unpalatable to enough of the Repubs in Congress that it keeps it from passing. If the anti-gun bill fails for that reason, but then a clean bill with reciprocity or armed teachers passes and is signed by Trump...well that would be pretty good. It's a dangerous and ugly game that is being played (if it is being played), but I think that it might fit with Trump's free-wheeling style.

I'll jump for joy if you're right (not very high...but still).