post vegas shooting

[surfivor]

 I liked what the Oklahoma congressman said today when asked about the power of the NRA. He said the NRA reflects citizens views and that he is not answerable to the NRA but to the citizens

[Mr. Bill]

The NRA issued this statement:

In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented.  Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control.  Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks.  This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world.  In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.  The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.  In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.  To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.

Blaming loose firearms regulation on the Obama administration.   My respect for the NRA leadership is approximately zero.

[David in MN]

The NRA issued this statement:

Blaming loose firearms regulation on the Obama administration.   My respect for the NRA leadership is approximately zero.

You forgot the deep secret of the NRA... they hate guns. Just a shill for the GOP these days.

I'm glad my 2 year old already has her lower. Man was mommy PISSED when she opened that box.

[RitaRose1945]

The NRA issued this statement:

In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.  To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.

Utterly ridiculous and, frankly, offensive.

Nevada already has some of the most lenient (and mostly sensible) gun laws.  If you have one and you're not a felon or anything, by all means, you can open carry, even if you don't live here.  We allow concealed carry for permit holders from 30 states. 

But reciprocity has nothing to do with what happened Sunday night.  Private business owners are allowed to restrict firearms on their property, which is (I think) perfectly within their rights.  Casinos and their entertainment venues have it covered all by themselves, so you generally aren't allowed to bring them to large events like that.  It's just too much of a risk, and even if you do feel the need to defend yourself from something like this, it's likely you'll do more harm than good by interfering in what is almost always a very well executed plan to shut down the threat.

So let's say the people at the concert were armed.  I'm assuming handguns only, because what idiot walks into a concert with a 10 gauge or a sniper rifle.  Seriously.  So this guy is going to be able to shoot 500 yards and accurately hit a target he can't see with no danger to innocent people in the rooms on either side, above or below?  I call bullshit.  I'm sure there are people out there that could do it, but they would likely already be employed by MGM International for a very large chunk of change.

They're using it as an excuse to "OMG! Protect yourself!" when the people at the concert wouldn't have been allowed to have guns there anyway.  Total BS.

[machinisttx]

At 500 yards, the average self defense handgun cartridge is no real danger to a human target.

When Charles Whitman was shooting people from the clock tower back in 1966, the responding cops were happy that armed citizens showed up to assist. That's not the only instance, just the first one that came to mind. It's sad commentary on the state of America that anyone would argue against similar actions. Unsettling as well.

[NWPilgrim]

Once you agree that any inanimate object is a contributing factor in people being killed, then you have given up the argument against gun control.  The NRA just agreed (before it even became a legislative issue, if it ever would have!) that gun control is good.  They just want to argue how much is OK.  MORONS.

[BLACK SHIRT]

Once you agree that any inanimate object is a contributing factor in people being killed, then you have given up the argument against gun control.  The NRA just agreed (before it even became a legislative issue, if it ever would have!) that gun control is good.  They just want to argue how much is OK.  MORONS.

THIS!!! The NRA just sold out its membership.

[Chemsoldier]

My understanding is that the NRA is arguing that they want to push for national reciprocity and not fight it if the ATF wants to reclassify the slide fire system as an NFA violation just as they have a dozen other trigger shenanigans over the years.

To be honest, that may be the best way to go forth. The left is going to beat the right over the head with this if the slide fires remain not just legal, but not even NICS worthy. If ATF simply reclassified it as NFA then no anti-gun votes are done.

Otherwise, it will be probable an anti-gun congressional vote will happen and I don't think we want either side to have the voting record as ammunition going into the next congressional election.

I don't like it, shall not be infringed means just that, however we have been infringing continuously since the civil war and this ain't the hill to die on. Don't let the progressives drive a wedge between committed gun rights advocates and general conservative supporters of the 2A.

[iam4liberty]

Nutty Feinstein just introduced a bill on the subject.  Lots of consequences if passed.

It will completely eliminate aftermarket triggers and even factory tunable triggers.  Anything which lessons trigger pull, weight, or geometry would be banned as that would "accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun."

It can also be construed to eliminate higher capacity magazines, in fact the main language on rate of fire comes directly from her last bill on magazines.

There is no grandfather provision or even conversion to NFA item.  For it to be enforced would require a door-to-door confiscation.

And, of course, not only is the military exempt but all tenticles of federal government.  So you are good if you are a congressperson or supreme court justice.  Special privaleges for special people.

It is so bad on so many levels it is hard to imagine a worse piece of legislation. It is completely disengenuous, political opportunism.  And if it couldnt be worse she is trying to use her dauughter to sell it in saying she was a victim of the shooting!  How was she a victim?  Well she has been traumatized because supposedly she considered going to the concert.   

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/7/a7493ca2-0cd7-416a-8d1f-929d89e71572/0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

ALB17865 S.L.C.
115TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. ll
To prohibit the possession or transfer of certain firearm accessories, and
for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
llllllllll
llllllllll introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on llllllllll
A BILL
To prohibit the possession or transfer of certain firearm
accessories, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Automatic Gunfire
5 Prevention Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN FIRE-
7 ARM ACCESSORIES.
8 Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amend-
9 ed—
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (1) in section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following: ‘‘(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun. ‘‘(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.’’; and (2) in section 924(a)(2), by striking ‘‘, or (o)’’ and inserting ‘‘(o), or (v)’’.

[Chemsoldier]

That is Feinstein. Tell everyone it is about machine guns as insert poison in it to force pro-gun people to vote against it so she can cast them as bad people.

[iam4liberty]

This just in.  JMs have  just been declared an illegal firearm accessory.  And unlike a bump stock or trigger crank they actually increase accuracy and reliability.  Look how easily any rifle can be converted with a JM attachment:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tUeqoV3ibQg

This just shows how absurd using rate of fire as a criteria for legislation is.  It isnt a slippery slope.  It is a cliff.

[David in MN]

Step 1) Ban the slide fire stock.

Step 2) Establish a black market.

Step 3) Cody Wilson releases a file so you can 3D print your own.

Step 4) Everybody who wants one has it.

The idea that technology can be stopped by paper. When will we give up on this idiocy?

[NWPilgrim]

This just in.  JMs have  just been declared an illegal firearm accessory.  And unlike a bump stock or trigger crank they actually increase accuracy and reliability.  Look how easily any rifle can be converted with a JM attachment:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tUeqoV3ibQg

This just shows how absurd using rate of fire as a criteria for legislation is.  It isnt a slippery slope.  It is a cliff.

Jerry is the boss!  He is in a very small group of firearm experts over the last 130 yrs that mastered all types of small arms at the very pinnacle of precision and speed. Simply amazing and every video of him is worthwhile.

As to your general point, yes, any number of "devices" such as shoestring, belt loop and such can be used to the same effect as the bump/slide stock.  Over the years I have come to the conclusion that we should quit trying to outlaw objects (drugs, weapons, etc.) and limit our criminal laws to behaviors.  Ridiculous that a bank or fund can party and gamble and lose tens of billions of client money (and get reimbursed with taxpayer money, while many of those clients are destroyed!), or a federal agency can "walk" guns to foreign drug cartels and no one gets arrested, let alone spends time in prison.  But OMG if you get caught owning a baggie of weed or a short barreled longarm without a stamp (right, Randy Weaver?) you face the full wrath of LE and armies of public paid attorneys.  Outlawing "things" never prevents crime and never works and is a sink hole of public expenses.  A person with a clean record who becomes determined to kill people is nearly impossible to prevent. If he is willing to murder then he won't pay attention to other laws, either.   Allowing citizens to be armed at all times in whatever manner at least gives a chance for faster stopping of the violence.

[iam4liberty]

Nancy Pelosi hopes a bumpstock ban will be a slippery slope:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2zbVhto5kw8

[DrJohn]

To me rate of fire is like the term assault weapon.  My rate of fire would probably be different than yours with the exact same equipment, and compared to Jerry Miculek's, lol... 

Who is going to decide what the "ROF" is for each gun?  If I change the trigger so it is smoother, but I don't change my ROF, will that be okay, if its not - who is going to determine that my ROF increased, the gravel pit police?  What if I build my own gun from the ground up and choose a Timmney Trigger, does that make my gun okay, but the factory gun with an aftermarket Timmney not okay?

Maybe they should just say you cannot exceed the maximum ROF inherent in the design - you know the  ROF determined by the physical limitations inherent on the design, i.e. the amount of time it takes to extract and eject the spent cartridge case from the firing chamber, re-cock the firing mechanism, and load a new cartridge into the firing chamber.  This way the Jerry Miculeks of the world, and the rest of us can just go about our lives, hurting no one but paper and steel...

[RitaRose1945]

At some point we do need to acknowledge that not all gun owners are responsible or even reasonable gun owners, though the vast majority are, and that those who aren't can do a hell of a lot of damage in a short amount of time with things the way they are now.

Also, the founding fathers could no way have known the capabilities, both in speed and capacity, of firearms we have now.  I have a feeling they would not be arguing, "Hell yeah, everyone needs 40 semi-autos if they want them!" even if they could see 200 years into the future.

We need to work some compromises here, and not just get into the "2nd Amendment says I can do whatever I want!" and "Ban them and melt them all down!" shouting between the two minority factions when the remaining 90% of Americans are fine with a reasonable discussion and some restrictions.

[Smurf Hunter]

At some point we do need to acknowledge that not all gun owners are responsible or even reasonable gun owners, though the vast majority are, and that those who aren't can do a hell of a lot of damage in a short amount of time with things the way they are now.

A mom leaving a loaded gun in her purse for a toddler to find is irresponsible.  Planning a massacre suggests a different adjective.

Also, the founding fathers could no way have known the capabilities, both in speed and capacity, of firearms we have now.  I have a feeling they would not be arguing, "Hell yeah, everyone needs 40 semi-autos if they want them!" even if they could see 200 years into the future.

Careful, that narrative is a bit trite.  So is my canned response for the last decade or longer.  "The founders couldn't have imagined smart phones and social media when the wrote the first amendment."
Also, personal cannons were a thing in the late 18th century.  Most often installed on merchant ships for pirate defense, but I digress.

We need to work some compromises here, and not just get into the "2nd Amendment says I can do whatever I want!" and "Ban them and melt them all down!" shouting between the two minority factions when the remaining 90% of Americans are fine with a reasonable discussion and some restrictions.

This is the most complicated and the most important.  In most negotiations each party wants something from the other. When buying a car, you want the car, the seller your money.
Anti-gun people want our guns, accessories, at least some aspects of how we own and operate them. What does an anti-gunner have that a gunner wants?
That's the problem.  We're not trading anything.  One party has NOTHING to lose.  By definition how can this be a compromise?

[iam4liberty]

Also, the founding fathers could no way have known the capabilities, both in speed and capacity, of firearms we have now.  I have a feeling they would not be arguing, "Hell yeah, everyone needs 40 semi-autos if they want them!" even if they could see 200 years into the future.

The founders had privately owned ships capable of leveling cities!  Who do you think held all the artillery and other items while there was no standing army?  They saw the issue as a matter of character not device.

[RitaRose1945]

The founders had privately owned ships capable of leveling cities!  Who do you think held all the artillery and other items while there was no standing army?  They saw the issue as a matter of character not device.

But not everyone was capable of owning those ships.  You really think the average accountant had one?

[RitaRose1945]

A mom leaving a loaded gun in her purse for a toddler to find is irresponsible.  Planning a massacre suggests a different adjective.

Both do damage, though.  It's just a matter of motive and scale.

Careful, that narrative is a bit trite.  So is my canned response for the last decade or longer.  "The founders couldn't have imagined smart phones and social media when the wrote the first amendment."
Also, personal cannons were a thing in the late 18th century.  Most often installed on merchant ships for pirate defense, but I digress.

Okay, but again, I can use the F word over and over again in a public place, even over a microphone or on all social media at once and no one dies.

This is the most complicated and the most important.  In most negotiations each party wants something from the other. When buying a car, you want the car, the seller your money.
Anti-gun people want our guns, accessories, at least some aspects of how we own and operate them. What does an anti-gunner have that a gunner wants?
That's the problem.  We're not trading anything.  One party has NOTHING to lose.  By definition how can this be a compromise?

It's a compromise because there really are some people that want all guns outright banned, and it has happened in other countries.  Compromise is when those who believe others should have no guns and those who think they should have all guns meet in the middle and say "These guns are fine, and these guns are not, and these people will do these things to keep these types of firearms while these types will have no restriction."  It's not always about money or trading this for that, and sometimes it's about doing the right thing, not "If I give something, then I have to get something, or forget it!"

Sometimes compromise is about allowing some restrictions in exchange for not having others.  But all I hear from the hardcore guns rights activists are "Slippery slope!!!" if you talk about any restrictions whatsoever.  I don't ever hear "Maybe that one change might keep certain firearms capable of spitting out thousands of rounds in just a few minutes away from people that are either irresponsible or capable of using it on a human just because they're pissed off."

There is no give on either side, but both sides also forget that neither represents the majority of Americans, most of whom want a little regulation but not a lot.

[Smurf Hunter]

Both do damage, though.  It's just a matter of motive and scale.

Okay, but again, I can use the F word over and over again in a public place, even over a microphone or on all social media at once and no one dies.

It's a compromise because there really are some people that want all guns outright banned, and it has happened in other countries.  Compromise is when those who believe other should have no guns and those who think they should have all guns meet in the middle and say "These guns are fine, and these guns are not, and these people will do these things to keep these types of firearms while these types will have no restriction.

Sometimes compromise is about allowing some restrictions in exchange for not having others.  But all I hear from the hardcore guns rights activists are "Slippery slope!!!" if you talk about any restrictions whatsoever.  I don't ever hear "Maybe that one change might keep certain firearms capable of spitting out thousands of rounds in just a few minutes away from people that are either irresponsible or capable of using it on a human just because they're pissed off."

There is no give on either side, but both sides also forget that neither represents the majority of Americans, most of whom want a little regulation but not a lot.

With respect, I fundamentally disagree with your thoughts on compromise.

Suppose there's a fence dividing the property of neighboring ranchers.  One rancher moves the fence 100 yards into the neighboring ranch.  This of course infuriates the other rancher and he demands the fence be restored to it's original location.  The rancher who moved the fence refuses.  A family feud ensues, violence, etc.  Third party peace negotiators are brought in, and they broker a compromise deal to move the fence just 50 yards.

Theoretically, if a rancher periodically steals from the other, he'll ultimately be allowed to keep some of the plunder. I believe this is very much the strategy of anti-gun people. Attempt to take everything, but when they only keep a fraction, it's "reasonable", "common sense", "compromise".

[Chemsoldier]

I think pro-gun folks can get some things they want from anti-gunners.

CCW reciprocity that forces NY, California, etc to accept other states permits is a compromise on the anti-gunner's side.  The anti-gunners have those states in a hammerlock that is not going away anytime soon. Recognizing out of state permits, with their looser standards will seriously loosen the arguments for more restrictive in state permitting.  This will lead to more permits, and more people with guns for serious purposes is good for gun rights.  A person with a gun for self-defense is far more useful to the cause of the 2A than two people with guns primarily for bird hunting.  The extreme anti-gunners are ceding an expansive gun control regime.  They love Europe and its gun laws, CCW being common everywhere makes that flatly impossible here.  I have never met anyone to get a permit and become a "get rid of them all" person afterwards, they could still be quite anti-gun, but by European standards they are still pro-gun loonies. 

Basically the freedom of expanding the carrying of weapons is far far more powerful for good than the bad of say adding a marginal piece of junk like the bump fire stock to the NFA list.  Hell, if you really want to carve out an exemption that it be the only type of "full-auto" that can be added to the registry new.  But, the point is expand freedom now in places that has stubbornly resisted rather than living in terminal fear that any measure at all will be the start of the end of our freedoms later. 

[Mr. Bill]

My friend Andrew Wiegand posted this essay on his Facebook page -- I'll repost it here because he says things a lot better than I could:

I think very nearly all gun control advocates are decent, fine people. I mean that in all sincerity. Granted, some of them may get pretty heated sometimes toward people who oppose gun control for whatever reason. But it's a contentious issue that often tends to show people on any side of it in their worst light, I get that. For the most part, I really do think the best of nearly all people who advocate gun control.

But I think that actually lies at or at least near the root of the problem. People think gun control is a good idea because they think like decent, fine, moral human beings.

Try thinking like a monster.

I'm going to list off a quick series of facts, and I invite you to think about them not from the perspective of a decent human being, but from that of a rotten, hateful, motivated, dedicated, ambitious, creative, patient, seriously damaged maniac. Hear me out.

The parts necessary to augment an ordinary Glock with fully automatic fire capability are legally available in nearly finished condition, with no background check nor any other state involvement of any kind. The fully assembled selectfire sear is smaller than a pack of tic tacs, and could easily be made of nonferrous metal.

The bumpfire stock that politicians are now talking about outlawing already exists as a data file in the wilds of the internet. The specs can be downloaded by anyone with an internet connection, and printed out by anyone with a 3D printer.

There is a popular trigger device available now called a "binary trigger" that discharges a round not only every time you pull the trigger, but also every time you let off the trigger, effectively and legally doubling your potential rate of fire.

There is a device called a "gat crank" that you can legally clamp onto your trigger guard, and it's literally a crank that you turn by hand, it fires 3 rounds per revolution, and it increases your rate of fire to about that of a machine gun. It costs $40 to purchase, but you could easily make your own if you couldn't buy it.

There is a machine now called a "ghostgunner" that you can buy which is no bigger than a toaster oven that will churn out as many finished rifle and pistol frames as you care to make, all at the mere touch of a button. No background check, no serial number, nothing. It's not especially practical, but it is an important proof of concept.

You can buy a flamethrower through the mail just the same as you would buy a pair of pants or a jar of Vegemite.

Commonly available explosive compound "tannerite," same story.

You can make a silencer in a matter of a few minutes out of commonly available household items.

The United States Army makes its field manuals on irregular warfare, improvised munitions, and many other related subjects freely available for download right from its website.

There are so many ways to make homemade acids and poisons, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Homemade bombs or explosives, same story.

Boobytraps, same story.

The gasoline in your car and the heating oil in your cellar are horrifying, cruel, diabolical weapons. Did you know you can totally make your own napalm? It's true.

Why am I prattling on about all this? Because I want you to understand that it's unstoppable. The reason we don't see mass murders every other day isn't because a 16" barrel on a rifle is legal but a 15" barrel is illegal. it's not because a machine gun or a silencer is illegal for civilians without a government permission slip but legal for civilians with one. It's because the vast, vast majority of people don't want to kill each other.

I know this is going to sound cliche. I know this is going to sound like, "GuNs dOn'T KiLl PeOpLe, PeOpLe kILl pEoPlE." But I'm not trotting out a platitude here. I'm sincerely speaking from the heart. The problem is not bumpfire stocks, or legally owned machine guns, or even illegally owned machine guns. The problem- the root problem, the only problem- is people who want to kill other people.

Look, I'll be totally honest with you. I'm still a twelve year old boy at heart in some ways. That show Mythbusters that used to be on? Loved it. When they would blow up a cement truck, or fire a rocket sled into a concrete wall, or cut down a tree with a machine gun? Oh man, that was awesome. I would totally love to do stuff like that. Plus I do believe in the concept of armed personal self defense, as well as the concept of presumed innocence. It's fair to say I have a dog in this fight.

Unfortunately, people like you won't let me live the whole Mythbusters thing. It's okay, I'm not mad about it, I understand that you're coming from a good place with that, even though I don't agree with it. But I really want you to know that you're not accomplishing anything (apart from depriving me of my right to pursuit of happiness).

Think like a monster. Think about all the different ways you could so easily commit mass murder if you wanted to, and nobody would be able to stop you. Thankfully, 99.99999% of people aren't like that. What to do about the tiny minority of people that are like that? I don't know. But I think that's where the discussion needs to be: people, not objects.

At the end of the day, we can disagree about this or that, and that's fine. I have no problem with that. But the last thing I want to say is, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't automatically assume some sort of character malignancy on my part over this.

I saw this earlier today:
"I am willing to accept stricter gun control as the price of reducing mass murder.
I am willing to accept mass murder as the price of loose gun control.
Pick one."

My problem with that is it presents the issue as if there are only two ways of thinking about it, all other ways of thinking about it are invalid, and the second way of thinking about it is monstrous.

It's a rhetorical construct designed to shut down conversation, to silence discussion, and to mischaracterize anyone who disagrees with the narrative. And above all, it's a rejection of critical thinking, which I especially resent.

Alright, that's it. I know this wasn't very brief. Thanks for sticking with me this far.

[iam4liberty]

Basically the freedom of expanding the carrying of weapons is far far more powerful for good than the bad of say adding a marginal piece of junk like the bump fire stock to the NFA list.  Hell, if you really want to carve out an exemption that it be the only type of "full-auto" that can be added to the registry new.  But, the point is expand freedom now in places that has stubbornly resisted rather than living in terminal fear that any measure at all will be the start of the end of our freedoms later.

This is exactly the NRA's thinking.  Bumpstock on NFA list in exchange for national reciprocity and hearing protection act. That is a compromise.

So, RitaRose and SmutfHunter, do you support this reasoned compromise?

[Smurf Hunter]

This is exactly the NRA's thinking.  Bumpstock on NFA list in exchange for national reciprocity and hearing protection act. That is a compromise.

So, RitaRose and SmutfHunter, do you support this reasoned compromise?

On a practical level?  Sure.
I'll trade a gimmick accessory I had no interest in buying in exchange for retail sales of suppressors (non NFA) and the ability to CCW across the lower 48 states.

The thing is, this is at the highest political levels.  I've not met any friend/neighbor/coworker who's anti-gun that thinks an increase in CCW or suppressors are acceptable.

I guess my concern isn't just getting favorable legislation, but normalizing ourselves in mainstream society.  I'm not a dangerous nut job because I hand made 300 rifle rounds this last weekend, or shot a quarter sized group at 200 yards.

[RitaRose1945]

Suppose there's a fence dividing the property of neighboring ranchers.  One rancher moves the fence 100 yards into the neighboring ranch.  This of course infuriates the other rancher and he demands the fence be restored to it's original location.  The rancher who moved the fence refuses.  A family feud ensues, violence, etc.  Third party peace negotiators are brought in, and they broker a compromise deal to move the fence just 50 yards.

Now let's say the one rancher has property with an old mine right on the edge, and he doesn't keep a decent fence around it.  Yes, you have to go onto his property to fall in, but it's literally right on the edge, so people can fall in without meaning to.  Sometimes people even push them in, which is their bad, but saying "Most people don't do that" doesn't magically make them alive again.  They're still dead.  The town keeps asking him to put a fence around it and are even willing to pay for it, but the rancher says "I have the right to not fence my property.  It's not me that is causing these people to die, it's those nutjobs that keep pushing them in.  The town has already done everything they can to identify those that are likely to push people into the well as they walk past the property, but they don't always know ahead of time.

Would it not be in the best interest of the public in general to build a fence around the abandoned mine, whether the rancher wants it or not?  Is his freedom to do whatever he wants with his property more valuable than the people who die because they keep getting pushed into the mine bu a minority of people who want to kill them?

Outlandish example, but the right to be able to kill someone and the right to own property are not even close to the same thing either.  One can easily do harm while the other will not impact anyone but yourself no matter what you do.

[RitaRose1945]

This is exactly the NRA's thinking.  Bumpstock on NFA list in exchange for national reciprocity and hearing protection act. That is a compromise.

So, RitaRose and SmutfHunter, do you support this reasoned compromise?

I think they're completely separate issues, but if they want to use them as bargaining chips, then I guess that works.

ETA: I don't have a problem with reciprocity (my state recognizes concealed carry form 30 other states) but I don't like the "hearing protection" deal.

[Smurf Hunter]

but I don't like the "hearing protection" deal.

even our enlightened European cousins can buy suppressors as easily as rifle slings

Does paying a $200 tax and waiting 6-9 months make us safer than buying them from Walmart?  Please explain...

[DrJohn]

Now let's say the one rancher has property with an old mine right on the edge, and he doesn't keep a decent fence around it.  Yes, you have to go onto his property to fall in, but it's literally right on the edge, so people can fall in without meaning to.  Sometimes people even push them in, which is their bad, but saying "Most people don't do that" doesn't magically make them alive again.  They're still dead.  The town keeps asking him to put a fence around it and are even willing to pay for it, but the rancher says "I have the right to not fence my property.  It's not me that is causing these people to die, it's those nutjobs that keep pushing them in.  The town has already done everything they can to identify those that are likely to push people into the well as they walk past the property, but they don't always know ahead of time.

Would it not be in the best interest of the public in general to build a fence around the abandoned mine, whether the rancher wants it or not?  Is his freedom to do whatever he wants with his property more valuable than the people who die because they keep getting pushed into the mine bu a minority of people who want to kill them?

Outlandish example, but the right to be able to kill someone and the right to own property are not even close to the same thing either.  One can easily do harm while the other will not impact anyone but yourself no matter what you do.

And what about all the cliff edges around the world?  Who pays to put up and maintain the fence, what would the fence due to the view?  Is spoiling the view worth the safety you get in return?

[Smurf Hunter]

And what about all the cliff edges around the world?  Who pays to put up and maintain the fence, what would the fence due to the view?  Is spoiling the view worth the safety you get in return?

When safety trumps all else, things like this happen:

UK anti-stabbing knife