Yay, GUNS!

[rangerx]

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's difficult to argue with you when you keep choosing to purposefully misrepresent the facts:

"The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which incorporated the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, banned the manufacturing and importing of the rifle [AR-15] along with other assault rifles, but the ban ended in 2004.  The regulation of the rifle is now left up to the states, and several state regulations are described below"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm not sure where the communication problem lies. The AR-15 usually fires the .223 round. Not the .22 round.

You can stop mentioning that weapon as I've never argued that it is not an assault weapon.

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection

Deflection

You're not answering my questions.

I've answered yours.

So, you must be confusing my posts for yours.

 

Either way, this is adding nothing to the discussion.

 

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You're not answering my questions.

I've answered yours.

So, you must be confusing my posts for yours.

 

Either way, this is adding nothing to the discussion.

 

There you go with the gaslighting again.

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

There you go with the gaslighting again.

 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Either way, this is adding nothing to the discussion.

 

[rangerx]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Either way, this is adding nothing to the discussion. 

You were the one who brought it up, so to that end, you are correct.

[koti]

Sory to barge in on you like this folks, I have a related question though: How easy it is to get your hands on that AR-15 rifle in the state in which the recent school schooting took place, what is the exact procedure?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Assault rifle or not an assault rifle.

WTF is the difference to the parent of a child murdered by either?

Like thoughts and prayers, the assault rifle question does nothing to resolve the issue.

There is no difference to the parent of a murdered child.

However, like with all complex negotiations it is critical that all parties involved use a common vocabulary.

Gun owners never think of their .22 rifles as assault weapons; they think of their .22 as an entry level gun for their 12 year old son to hunt squirrels. 

If you want to resolve this issue, you cannot tell the side you are negotiating with that their kid's gun is an assault weapon, or that is should potentially be banned because someone made a 30 round magazine for it. It is a non-starter.

15 minutes ago, koti said:

Sory to barge in on you like this folks, I have a related question though: How easy it is to get your hands on that AR-15 rifle in the state in which the recent school schooting took place, what is the exact procedure?

Quote

Florida has a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases. But anyone without a felony record, domestic abuse conviction, or a handful of other exceptions — such as a commitment to a mental institution — can walk into a gun store, wait a few minutes to clear a background check, and walk out with an AR-15 -style rifle, magazines and ammunition.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/ar15-mass-shootings-guns.html

[Raider5678]

12 minutes ago, koti said:

Sory to barge in on you like this folks, I have a related question though: How easy it is to get your hands on that AR-15 rifle in the state in which the recent school schooting took place, what is the exact procedure?

 

Anyone without a felony record, domestic abuse conviction, or a handful of other exceptions — such as a commitment to a mental institution — can walk into a gun store, wait a few minutes to clear a background check, and walk out with an AR-15 -style rifle, magazines, and ammunition.

Only New York, California, Washington D.C., and 5 other states have their own assault weapon bans.

 

Obtaining a handgun is much harder, however. Due to the fact handguns are used in far more school shootings then AR-15. In fact, little know side note, 97% of school shootings that result in death, the weapon was not a rifle(rifle means long barreled weapon that doesn't use pellets. AR-15 is a rifle. All assault rifles are rifles, not all rifles are assault rifles) . Almost always a handgun, with an occasional shotgun(which is even rarer than a rifle), is the weapon of choice.

Mass murders don't "always reach for the AR-15", they typically reach for a handgun.

 

The "systematic"(is it really systematic?) murder of kids in schools is not done by assault rifles. It's done by low caliber pistols. They're smaller, easier to hide, etc.

Hence why I'd put any form of a semi-automatic pistol in a hard to get licensing process. 

 

 

That being said, when someone does use an AR-15, they do a lot more damage

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MigL]

Interesting that both Raider and Zapatos list the lawlessness after a natural disaster as a reason for self protection guns.

In the society I come from, the natural order of things would be to help your fellow citizens through a tough time, not protect yourself from their doing you harm.
Yet I've spent a lot of time in Western New York ( mostly bars and clubs ) and always found Americans and Canadians very similar. So I'm not sure where the idea that they'd be intent on doing you harm comes from.

 

Usually we have this type of discussion about politics. One side does their best to 'demonize' the other side, and all discussion bogs down. The only way we can move the discussion forward, is by trying to understand the other side's viewpoint; not by assigning blame.

[zapatos]

 

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

So I'm not sure where the idea that they'd be intent on doing you harm comes from.

I got my idea from the news, although the level of violence portrayed has since been debunked.

 

Quote

Also during these first days, the New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass appeared on CNN, which had been running coverage of the hurricane without interruption.³ John Walsh, host of “America’s Most Wanted,” appeared with the Chief to help capture and punish those who broke the law in New Orleans. He pledged that those who raped, looted, and shot at police officers should be pursued, and that he would personally “put them on ‘America’s Most Wanted’ and hunt them down.” In addition to demonizing the criminals who “terrorized” the city as it flooded, Chief Compass then spoke at length about the almost 30% (an estimated 500 out of 1700) of the police force that did not stay in New Orleans as it flooded. He referred to them four times as “the cowards who walked away,” and praised those that stayed to fight the criminals in the streets. In one broadcast, Compass painted the police, the looters, and the shooters as the bad guys, all worthy of our antipathy. Both he and Walsh repeatedly emphasized their disgust with the lack of individual responsibility in these cowards and criminals. Neither mentioned nor explored the conditions that might cause a person to loot a grocery store or shelve their professional responsibilities in favor of personal responsibilities.⁴

http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Kaufman/

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you want to resolve this issue, you cannot tell the side you are negotiating with that their kid's gun is an assault weapon, or that is should potentially be banned because someone made a 30 round magazine for it. It is a non-starter.

I agree, for the most part. However, a thirty round modification, ceases to make it a "kids" gun. That would make it a serious adult gun, IMHO. When weapons are modified from their manufactured purpose, gray areas are entered. Would a sawed off shotgun not fit into this category? After all a sawed off shot gun is easy to conceal, access and does greater damage to multiple targets at close range.

Which should be the example for the other?

[koti]

Thanks for your answer @zapatos

 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I agree, for the most part. However, a thirty round modification, ceases to make it a "kids" gun. That would make it a serious adult gun, IMHO. When weapons are modified from their manufactured purpose, gray areas are entered. Would a sawed off shotgun not fit into this category? After all a sawed off shot gun is easy to conceal, access and does greater damage to multiple targets at close range.

Which should be the example for the other?

So here is where 'what to do' gets tricky. IMO you don't call the .22 rifle an assault weapon and regulate it, you instead call the 30 round magazine an unacceptable modification, then ban the magazine and make possessing a modified .22 rifle a crime.

As in your example of the shotgun, the sale of shotguns was not regulated simply because it could be modified in an unacceptable way, but instead possession of a modified shotgun was made a crime.

[iNow]

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So here is where 'what to do' gets tricky. IMO you don't call the .22 rifle an assault weapon and regulate it, you instead call the 30 round magazine an unacceptable modification, then ban the magazine and make possessing a modified .22 rifle a crime.

As in your example of the shotgun, the sale of shotguns was not regulated simply because it could be modified in an unacceptable way, but instead possession of a modified shotgun was made a crime.

Indeed, I think perhaps 'what to do' is restrict a multi-shot capacity, as moony suggested although even 5 seems excessive given that when the amendment was written into law only one was available and the reload time was significant; how many lives would have been saved if after each shot a bullet has to be manually placed in the chamber (even if the gun is not a musket)?

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So here is where 'what to do' gets tricky. IMO you don't call the .22 rifle an assault weapon and regulate it, you instead call the 30 round magazine an unacceptable modification, then ban the magazine and make possessing a modified .22 rifle a crime.

As in your example of the shotgun, the sale of shotguns was not regulated simply because it could be modified in an unacceptable way, but instead possession of a modified shotgun was made a crime.

A very rational response, thank you.

Here's the thing though. The so-called modular weapons, which are technically designed to be modified are being modified to maximize carnage. Unless one uses a gun to cut down trees, I don't see how these mods are necessary for the public good. One could argue silencers prevent hearing loss, but it's not in the absence of cheaper, more effect alternatives like ear plugs. They are banned because people would use them to a greater degree in the commission of crimes than those who substitute them for ear muffs. Bump stocks serve no purpose other than to workaround otherwise legal guns to attain a quasi-legal automatic feature. Yet the gun lobby is reluctant to ban them outright.

Again, the thing is (and not directed at you, personally) admonishing the gun control lobby for technicalities, whilst the gun lobby clings to other technicalities is disingenuous to the discussion.

 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, I think perhaps 'what to do' is restrict a multi-shot capacity, as moony suggested although even 5 seems excessive given that when the amendment was written into law only one was available and the reload time was significant; how many lives would have been saved if after each shot a bullet has to be manually placed in the chamber (even if the gun is not a musket)?

And then we move into the next level of complexity. Which weapon do you want to limit the shot capacity on? Shotguns as an example are used for duck hunting, and when duck hunting it is legal and considered reasonable to be able to fire multiple successive shots during the very short period the ducks are in range. Limiting a shotgun to one shell at a time would probably be a difficult argument to win with gun rights activists as it severely restricts hunting, something that is very much ingrained in US culture.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Having a semi-automatic weapon could be extremely useful. Looting during a natural disaster VERY often turns deadly. Walking down the road with a semi-auto discourages robbery attempts, Etc. The presence of a weapon more times than not will do more to steer someone away then actually having to shoot at them

Having a car is very useful. If people didn't have access to personal transportation the whole economy would suffer. One still needs to be the right age, pass a test, have insurance, and be licensed to drive. Everyone isn't legally able to drive. People with very medical conditions, previous DUIs, and so on are not allowed to drive. Something being useful doesn't automatically mean everyone should have unlimited access.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And then we move into the next level of complexity. Which weapon do you want to limit the shot capacity on? Shotguns as an example are used for duck hunting, and when duck hunting it is legal and considered reasonable to be able to fire multiple successive shots during the very short period the ducks are in range. Limiting a shotgun to one shell at a time would probably be a difficult argument to win with gun rights activists as it severely restricts hunting, something that is very much ingrained in US culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun

 

[Moontanman]

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I live in an area where I can't name a single person adult who doesn't own a gun. At least 3/4 of the kids I know above 10 own guns as well(technically their parents own them, but they're "theirs" the same way they might have a phone)

And I know iNow already answered this, but I'll answer again.

 

The biggest reason for owning guns are hunting.

Everyone I know has a rifle. Most boys/girls get their first rifle around 10 and go hunting with their dad.

So the biggest reason for owning a gun is hunting. 

So, reason number 1: Hunting.

 

The second reason is a sport.

Every year, there are usually 5-6 shooting events held by farmers or people with plenty of land. Most are clay pigeon shoots, but there are others like target shooting, etc. 

There are small prizes, but it's usually more about the shooting then the prizes(which are like a plate of fudge or something).

So, reason number 2: Sporting.

 

Now, reason 2 is where you get to the AR-15. I know of only 2 people who have one, and both of them keep them locked up tight. They get them out for target shooting even for clay bird shoots, so others can have fun shooting it. I've shot it. Something about watching a paper target get shot every time you pull the trigger(Their's aren't fully automatic. I've never seen a fully automatic gun) is satisfying.

It's also like a bragging right. Which leads to reason number 3.

Collecting.

I know of 4 collectors in my valley. 2 of them collect old guns like flintlocks, musket loaders, etc. The other two collect modern guns. I've even seen the gun the Israeli army uses(I didn't get a chance to shoot it). 

So there are five main reasons:

1. Hunting.

2. Sports.

3. Collecting.

4. Bragging/showing off.

5. Self-defense (About 15 people in my church have a concealed carry from what I've heard. Nobody I know of has an open carry. I've never seen anyone other than a trooper carrying a pistol in the open.)

Hopefully, that helps clarify the reasons for owning guns.

 

Now I will admit, just this summer I heard of the first shooting accident in the valley my entire life. A teenager was shot when his friend(who wasn't local) thought the gun was unloaded, pointed it at him, and pulled the trigger after they had gone hunting. It ripped straight through his abdomen(rifles at close range will go right through typically) but it missed all the vital organs I believe. He survived and made a full recovery already.

But, universally, the first rule instilled into everyone I know who uses a gun is: Never. Point. It. At. Anyone.

General rules are(I'm sure Moon has heard these before):

1. Never point it at anyone.

2. Never look down the barrel.

3. Always assume it's loaded.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're going to shoot.

5. Keep the safety on until you're going to shoot.

 

There are more, but these are instilled into kids as much as the ten commandments.

 

 

 

You got that right! I had that pounded into me as child until I dreamed about it. My first gun was a breech loading shotgun, I wa 10 or 11. I put up hay for an entire summer to buy it. I went alone to the feed store to buy it, I picked it out paid for it and carried it home (walking). The feed store was several miles away. I really wanted that gun, now my son has it. I was death on squirrels for a few years!  Oh I forgot, yeah turkey shoots! 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun

 

Biggest gun I ever shot was a 4 gauge, I tried to buy a 10 gauge bolt action slug gun many years back but I was to slow and someone else got it... 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Moontanman

[rangerx]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And then we move into the next level of complexity. Which weapon do you want to limit the shot capacity on? Shotguns as an example are used for duck hunting, and when duck hunting it is legal and considered reasonable to be able to fire multiple successive shots during the very short period the ducks are in range. Limiting a shotgun to one shell at a time would probably be a difficult argument to win with gun rights activists as it severely restricts hunting, something that is very much ingrained in US culture.

Limiting a shotgun to one round at a time is more often than not a conservation, not a kill-ability issue.

Achieving a bag limit is a privilege, not a right conferred by gun rights.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Biggest gun I ever shot was a 4 gauge, I tried to buy a 10 gauge bolt action slug gun many years back but I was to slow and someone else got it... 

 

My gramps had a 4 gauge, he only fired it when he wrapped his arms around a tree or a gate post.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Here's the thing though. The so-called modular weapons, which are technically designed to be modified are being modified to maximize carnage. Unless one uses a gun to cut down trees, I don't see how these mods are necessary for the public good. One could argue silencers prevent hearing loss, but it's not in the absence of cheaper, more effect alternatives like ear plugs. They are banned because people would use them to a greater degree in the commission of crimes than those who substitute them for ear muffs. Bump stocks serve no purpose other than to workaround otherwise legal guns to attain a quasi-legal automatic feature. Yet the gun lobby is reluctant to ban them outright.
 

I agree 100% with everything you say here, and would love to see a ban on bump stocks and large magazines (among other things), and a slew of regulations on everything from mandatory firearm training, to gun security requirements such as gun safes.

Quote

Again, the thing is (and not directed at you, personally) admonishing the gun control lobby for technicalities, whilst the gun lobby clings to other technicalities is disingenuous to the discussion.

I am very happy to admonish either side of the debate when they use arguments that cause a breakdown in meaningful communication and negotiation. The thing is, there are not many gun rights people here for me to admonish.  Please don't consider me part of the 'gun lobby', unless you consider the gun lobby to be people who think there is a place in this country for reasonable use of firearms that does not put undo risk on the public.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

There is no difference to the parent of a murdered child.

However, like with all complex negotiations it is critical that all parties involved use a common vocabulary.

Gun owners never think of their .22 rifles as assault weapons; they think of their .22 as an entry level gun for their 12 year old son to hunt squirrels. 

If you want to resolve this issue, you cannot tell the side you are negotiating with that their kid's gun is an assault weapon, or that is should potentially be banned because someone made a 30 round magazine for it. It is a non-starter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/ar15-mass-shootings-guns.html

 I can define a squirrel into a lion but it doesn't make it a lion. Assault weapons are full auto military guns. They ones we buy are lookalikes. I agree that limited magazine capacity would be a good idea but to ban a gun because it looks like military weapon is just silly. Although, as i said, anyone who thinks they have to have one is probably living out a Rambo fantasy. Shot guns are far better for home defense, much less dangerous and far more practical.  

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

My gramps had a 4 gauge, he only fired it when he wrapped his arms around a tree or a gate post.

My grandpa was the owner of the one I saw.

A few years back i had a run in with local drug traffickers. The Sheriff told me that if i didn't have a gun now was the time to get one. He told me that they couldn't be there instantly and I was the first line of defense. On another note they did have a car sitting near my house for a couple weeks just incase..