by "CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
Published 10/06/2017 at 13:00
by "CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
Published 10/06/2017 at 13:00
Tags: firearms
STARS: 13
*personal rant buffer*
In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting I would like to talk firearms. As a multiple firearm owner I obviously stand on the side of keeping the current right to own firearms. As a Californian that right is very heavily regulated, just like vehicles. Not that most of the regulations that California put forward would ever directly affect me. I have no need for fully automatic firearms or a .50 BMG rifle (though I would like one because how cool), but I can own a hunting rifle, a pistol (home protection), shotgun (hunting/home protection), and a few vintage rifles for their own value and intrigue. While there are more I would like to add to my very small collection, I am not in need of any more.
Now that you know some background, I would like to talk policy. I have no issues with talking about banning firearms or restricting them more. I have no problem with banning them altogether if that is what our government decides that is what is best. I would prefer to keep them, but not at the cost of being a felon etc. My only problem is that the debate between keeping firearms or not is not much of a debate. This is especially true at the public level and pretty true at the government level too. My main gripe is not with the for firearm ownership group, but with the anti-firearm ownership group. At least from my own experience the people for owning firearms are fairly reasonable willing to discuss the pros and cons of firearm ownership. While yes there are radicals on both sides, the issue I have with the anti-firearm side is education. The anti-firearm side for the most part has very little to no firearm education or experience in using them and in all honesty that hurts their argument and usually makes them look uneducated. This was extremely prevalent when the California state government decided to ban the “bullet button” for the AR-15. Sidenote, AR stands for Armalite, not assault rifle. For those not in the US or unaware of CA law, the bullet button was a safety feature that required a tool to remove the magazine from the AR-15 to make it harder and slower to change magazines. Thus helping deter rapid reloads in a shootout since that is the only time other than competition that you would need to reload quickly. Unfortunately the term bullet button made CA government officials think it was easier to fire the gun faster. As you can see in the video below of Senator Kevin de Leon, he doesn’t know what he is talking about and just watch the faces of the officers behind him as he speaks.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
So my point is that I believe the anti-firearm side should learn how a firearm works and operates. Otherwise how can you form a complete opinion on the matter? How can you say guns are evil and everything about them is bad when you can’t tell the difference between a semi-automatic, lever action, bolt action, single action, double action, pump action, and fully automatic firearms? How can you look at an AR-15 and say that is is an evil gun when a Mini 14 is the exact same thing, just wood and blued metal instead of “tactical”?
I would be willing to take anyone I knew out to the range and help them understand a firearm, even to help them concrete their stance on not wanting to own or operate one, but at least they will know how to and they will know how a firearm functions in order to better form an argument. Seriously, if any of you are in CA and want to go to a range and learn or even just talk firearms and learn more about them I would be happy to help. I think every person should learn how to properly operate and understand how a firearm functions in the very least for common knowledge, but it could be a good life skill to have in an extreme emergency.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
10/06/2017 at 13:05, STARS: 1
Think this is more of a ‘gubmint problem than a party problem. It seems to me like legislators don’t give an actual damn about problems, just appearing like they are doing something about them.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 13:08, STARS: 2
I’m on a very similar page. I think the next couple weeks will blow anti-gunners minds about what is actually legal or gray area right now: binary triggers, gat cranks, AR pistols, 80% lowers, 80% Glocks and 1911, tannerite.
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:09, STARS: 16
Personal opinion:
Independent on how certain weapons or magazines or technical terms operate, guns kill people, not like rocks or dildos, guns kill people because that is what they were designed to do, guns serve no other purpose other than to shoot things/people, you don’t need to understand guns to know that.
There is no “but cars also kill people, should we ban cars huh??”
Unless you are a hunter or work security, there is almost no logical reason anyone should have a gun.
Some developed countries have accepted that and reduced not only mass-shootings but also murders with guns to almost 0 a year.
And I finish my pseudo-rant with the always amusing “The Onion”:
"someassemblyrequired" (someassemblyrequired)
10/06/2017 at 13:12, STARS: 1
Both parties use this issue to polarize - the real solution that saves lives is somewhere in the middle - see Canadian firearms regs. I’m on the other side of this issue (I’d like to see much heavier restrictions on handguns and concealed/open carry), but I’m hopeful reasonable people on both sides will push this in the right direction.
"rillweid - Now with more TRD and less TDI" (rillweid)
10/06/2017 at 13:13, STARS: 1
So much this. I find they’re much less scary when you actually understand how to operate them safely/have tried it.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/06/2017 at 13:14, STARS: 0
The Onion also knows what the “we must do something” response actually is
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 13:16, STARS: 1
Guns are the great equalizer, especially given that you can’t count on law enforcement to save you from anything. As a bigger guy, I could do very real damage to someone long before police could be on scene. If you don’t have guns, obviously gun crime goes down; but is there any correlation with general murder rate or violent crime rates?
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:16, STARS: 1
“In order to not upset democrats from the countryside I will say that guns are a thing, an existing thing that exists and we need to talk about them in neutral terms. Thoughts and Prayers”
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/06/2017 at 13:18, STARS: 3
But if you get rid of guns, young women can’t defend themselves against Harvey Weinstein.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
10/06/2017 at 13:18, STARS: 4
The USA is a large and massively diverse country. On one extreme, it contains densely populated cities with people stacked on top of each other (SF, NYC) where a discharged firearm could send enough lead and shrapnal to injure many people. On the other extreme, there are massive counties in the west (CO, UT, MT, WY, AK) where police and state troopers could be an hour away and bear/animal attacks are a real potential. It’s inherently difficult to create laws to govern such a wide range of situations.
A few days ago, I read an OpEd in the NYT and I regretfully cannot find it as the NYT publishes approximately a million gun articles an hour, but I’ll attempt to paraphrase with some of my emphasis:
Guns and cars are compared frequently. They both kill and injure lots of humans. They’re inherently dangerous and try as we might, it’s not likely that we will ever prevent all fatalities associated with operating a car. We can change the way we think about cars though. Different laws in how cars are designed and operated, improvements in the infrastructure in which cars are operated and user training have significantly reduced the amount of automotive fatalities (per car crash) since the 1950's. A simple glance at an IIHS crash test video will show this.
TLDR: Changing the way we think about things can reduce the injuries from them without outlawing the thing alltogether. (I’ll update if I can find the article.)
"Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street." (demon-xanth)
10/06/2017 at 13:18, STARS: 4
And the current attack on silencers is based on Hollywood’s depiction that does the equivalent of saying that this...
Plus these:
Makes it as quiet as these:
The political debate that you see these days, that has even spilled off the internet, has completely removed any semblance of grey area and especially the concept of “We disagree, and that’s okay.”. Hence people saying that anyone who supports anything Trump says is a fascist and racist. I’m the kind of guy who hasn’t agreed with much of any political figure for a long time from either side, and that the high point election was actually Obama vs. McCain because even if I didn’t agree, they both felt like they actually cared whereas this last election I didn’t like a single candidate from either side from even the primaries.
Remember folks, we can disagree, and still get along.
My personal weird stance:
Drinking culture annoys me.
I don’t like the taste of alcohol.
I hate dealing with drunks and people who believe being drunk off their ass in public is acceptable behavior.
The manufacture of alcohol absolutely fascinates me to the point that I’d love to make a still of my own. Despite using the product as a cleaning fluid.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/06/2017 at 13:20, STARS: 1
A few things:
1.) It’s the wake of a horrific mass shooting so emotions are still running high. Gonna be tough for many to stay pragmatic.
2.) Among the pro gunners you are a fucking fudd if you do not support civilian ownership of every weapon available to the military. Flamethrowers and miniguns for everybody.
3.) Among the anti gunners you are a fucking mass murderer and dickless psychopath if you believe that it should be perfectly acceptable to own a semiautomatic pistol. “Common sense laws” tend to include things that make NO sense, like banning bayonet lugs and weapons based on how they look.
There is no middle ground. If you’re in the middle both sides treat you as an enemy. Neither side is willing to deal and that’s why we get two things: a lack of legislation towards anti-violence when republicans are in power, and a lack of legislative efficacy when democrats are in power.
One place where reform should start is the current background check process. I’m not talking about even changing it yet- just allocate some funding to help the current system work as intended . Maybe introduce penalties for not updating records. Speed up the process so the Dylann Roof situation can’t happen again. People think a background check (at present) is comprehensive and thorough. Well, it’s fucking not, and there’s plenty of information that “never made it in”.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
10/06/2017 at 13:22, STARS: 1
Have ridden a Trek District belt drive. Can confirm, dead silent.
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:22, STARS: 1
Funny that the answer to the gun debate is income inequality, a great amount of criminal activity is derived from marginalized populations. Once we fix that a little bit, the notion that you need guns to protect yourself or your property becomes mute.
Also, it is fair to assume that guns that commit crimes are almost always guns that were once purchased legally, the notion that guns that commit crimes come from a magical black-market sewer by Mexicans and other minorities is quite wrong. No access to guns means fewer guns to commit crimes.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 13:22, STARS: 13
The problem is that the “pro-firearm” side as you describe is generally hesitant to actually do anything to regulate firearms. So you get left with the “anti-firearm” side grasping at straws for increased regulations that don’t necessarily make sense.
You say pro-firearm people are willing to discuss, yet I mostly see people crying about their guns being taken away, or how “guns don’t kill people, people kill people, or talking about mental health while also not suggesting any solution to whatever problems are present.
I don’t get guns at all, and I’ve fired them. Do I think they should be banned entirely, all together, full stop? Probably not. There are legitimate uses for them (though personal protection is a bit of a stretch IMO). But is what we’re doing now enough? Clearly not.
What I would like is for all of the gun-owners and gun-advocates to admit that we have a problem with gun violence in this country and propose real genuine solutions the problem, rather than simply trying to stop the other side from regulating guns or criticizing their efforts to find a solution.
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:23, STARS: 2
Guns can’t stop Harvey Weinstein. His only weakness is tight shirt collars.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
10/06/2017 at 13:25, STARS: 4
When anyone uneducated talks on a topic its infuriating. See cars for an example. That being said, not all liberals(TM) are gun dumb. I grew up shooting them, and have voted blue my whole life.
A lot of people support “common sense” laws. But they never get passed because “slippery slope” *cough bullshit cough*
Congress and yea I’m saying it, the GOP never do their jobs and vote with what the people want. Congress may not work but lobbying sure does.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
10/06/2017 at 13:25, STARS: 1
So my point is that I believe the anti-firearm side should learn how a firearm works and operates.
To this effect, a firearm is an inherently simple device. You don’t need a 3d printer, or a CNC mill to make one.
"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile)
10/06/2017 at 13:26, STARS: 2
Quibble: the ability to kill and the actual killing are discrete, in the sense of an item’s purpose. The *purpose* of a firearm is to project force by virtue of its ability to kill, not specifically and only to harm in the way you imply. If a policeman’s weapon is never used to down a suspect, has it failed in its purpose? Quite the contrary. Nor is that the case for a shotgun known to rest behind a bar in a bad neighborhood. It was there as much that it never need to be used by virtue of what it implies; as to be used, and used to kill.
Is a window-breaking hammer under the seat of a car without purpose if the car is never in an accident disabling the door? Not at all.
Therefore, your premise is completely faulty.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/06/2017 at 13:27, STARS: 5
You say pro-firearm people are willing to discuss
It has been my experience that they are not. There is no compromise. Give up the slidefire and we might as well all be using Kentucky long rifles.
"victor" (victor)
10/06/2017 at 13:28, STARS: 3
I actually agree with you here. I’m a bleeding heart commie liberal, but I think that due to the huge diversity in the country of environments, guns still have their place. The question is at what point unregulated gun ownership and design (fully auto) becomes too much of a public health hazard. Thanks the the gun lobby, the CDC is banned from researching guns as a health hazard.
BTW, i love clay and trap shooting. I love target shooting. But I think that the gun lobby is largely wrong, and that the vast majority of americans (both a supermajority of self identified Democrats, and a supermajority of self identified Republicans) are looking for responsible licensing, regulations and ownership.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
10/06/2017 at 13:30, STARS: 4
My take is 180 from yours and gosh darn it I am also a gun owner since 1986! I think with the NRA lobbying congress there is no possibility of passing reasonable gun control legislation, which clearly needs to be done. I am not afraid of the government taking away my guns, I am not a criminal nor do I own any assault rifles nor are any of my guns registered because they are so old.
I personally don’t think that anybody should be able to own an AR15 or AK47 converted to semi auto. Most pistols scare me not because they are loud or are hard to shoot but because of their intent. They are intended to be a close range killer, simple as that.
Buy a fucking 10-22 and put a 30 round clip on there and go blow up a couple dozen cans, if you want. Assault style rifles and most hand guns have no purpose other than to shoot people, many people, which we have seen over and over again.
"diplodicus" (diplodicus)
10/06/2017 at 13:31, STARS: 2
I think the personal protection stuff is pretty much bullshit too. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint and have never felt like that situation would have gone away if I had a gun. I feel like I read a lot more articles about accidental discharge killing or injuring a family member vs actually stopping a home invasion or similar scenario.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 13:31, STARS: 0
Here’s a quick, probably actually meaningless but interesting, comparison between the US and the UK
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
Look at categories like “murders per million people”, the US is significantly higher than the UK, and using the stats on that page the US rate of murders with guns is 138 times that of the UK .
Is that a correlation? Maybe. The rate of murders is not directly correlated with the rate of gun murders, it would be difficult to determine how exactly it correlates. This however is not looking at crimes that involve guns, just murders, so who knows how that would compare.
"Shift24" (the-nope)
10/06/2017 at 13:31, STARS: 3
But “now is not the time to talk about gun control” said by every useless politician in Washington D.C. Its amazing how we are too stubborn to learn from others success stories. Just for reference Australia had a shooting in 1996 and in about 12 weeks legislation was put into place and they havent had a mass shooting since.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 13:31, STARS: 0
I think you missed my point, does a decrease in gun crime correlate to a decrease in general violent crimes? AKA, If guns aren’t available are they just replaced with other forms of violent crime?
Income inequality is a weak answer in my opinion. Take guns away from people who follow the law, give more money to poor people and the world will be peachy?
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:32, STARS: 0
FINE UGH. INTENDED PURPOSE.
Also, the discussion here is not one ability or *purpose* but one of potential.
Hence the reason those trusted with this potential or *purpose* should be a very limited number of people.
"Party-vi" (party-vi)
10/06/2017 at 13:33, STARS: 26
We will never ban firearms in the US. It will never happen. I’m fine with this.
I’m not fine with the ability to purchase a firearm at a gun show without a background check first. I’m not fine with people being able to purchase firearms without a level of familiarity or training prior to gun ownership. I’m not fine with someone making multiple purchases in a specific time period without being questioned or at least noted. I’m not fine with concealed carry or open carry. I’m not fine with anyone with a history of domestic abuse purchasing a firearm. I’m not fine with people leaving firearms accessible to children or passersby in their homes. I’m especially not fine with the NRA being such a powerful lobbying entity when it only has 5 million members and there are over 80 million firearm owners in the US. I don’t want an organization that represents 6% of a population to be dictating legislation.
"Makoyouidiot" (makaan12)
10/06/2017 at 13:33, STARS: 5
I’m pretty gun-ho (yeah my pun game is epic) but for many years I’ve thought that it is completely insane that I can (and do) walk into a gun shop and be out again with an AR or AK or whatever in less than 5 minutes. My background checks have NEVER taken longer than 5 minutes. I couldn’t tell you my 5 favorite cars in 5 minutes, how the hell is that thorough enough of a background check in that timeframe? I also wouldn’t be opposed to waiting periods, 3-7 days is NOT A BIG DEAL GODDAMN IT. This makes me kind of a pariah in the serious gun groups, but I’m still a gun owner, I hunt with an AR-15, I plan to buy a supressor for my .22 so I can see just how quiet it is, I watch gun youtube channels....so I’m shunned by the opposite side as well. God Forbid someone is in the center nowadays.
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:35, STARS: 0
Yes, seeing as how efficient and, most importantly, how reassuring a gun can be to one considering to commit violent crimes.
Also, take guns away from everyone and distribute wealth in a better way sounds like a better idea.
"victor" (victor)
10/06/2017 at 13:35, STARS: 7
You know how to get reasonable politics? End Gerrymandering and make lobbying and political monetary, insider trading, and gift contributions illegal.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
10/06/2017 at 13:37, STARS: 3
^This 1,000 times. I think a majority of americans would agree with this view point, however with unchecked lobbying and the buy off of our representatives by corporate America no meaningful legislation will ever come out.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
10/06/2017 at 13:37, STARS: 1
If you were robbed at gunpoint and DID have a gun, would you even want to use it? Would you even be able to think straight to aim and operate it properly? It’s a super high stress situation and not many people can.
Even then, would you want to use it knowing all of the legal hell that would follow in the next year(s)?
"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile)
10/06/2017 at 13:38, STARS: 0
I just thought that you might want to reflect on the difference between “people only buy a gun because they want to kill someone” and “want to project a specific kind of force”. It can be as wide a difference as buying insurance for the purpose of insurance fraud, and buying insurance with the hope not to need it.
As to who can be trusted with such insurance, I differ with you completely - but I can differ only if the terms of a sound discussion are recognized. “People only buy guns to kill because guns are only to kill” is a nullity, and frankly embarrassing.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 13:41, STARS: 0
I’m a pro-gunner. I reside in the Detroit Metro area, for Michigan at least all of our handguns are registered and you are required to have a background check for all purchases. Buying from a FFL they run you through NICS, sell you a pistol, you drop off the Pistol Sales Receipt to your local sheriff’s office and it has things like the serial number and your info on it. Private purchase you have to go to the sheriff, they run a NICS and issue you a Pistol Sales Permit which allows you to buy a pistol from private party and then you file a Pistol Sales Receipt. AKA, our state government knows I have pistols, how many, when they were purchased and from who. I’m fine with that, and I’d be fine if they made the same process for long guns.
Also, slide-fire is really among the least shocking things that are still legal and probably shouldn’t be. Binary triggers, tannerite, AR pistols and 80%s should definitely be illegal or more regulated. 80%’s are still in a gray area I believe.
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
10/06/2017 at 13:42, STARS: 0
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:42, STARS: 0
I agree, I was not talking about the people per se, I was talking about the guns, in the sense that they were designed with a purpose. Not everyone that buys a gun does so to kill people, but that potential becomes inherent to them.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 13:42, STARS: 0
Well, I see this discussion will go no where. Also, leave my income alone.
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:44, STARS: 0
Indeed, we remain internet friends.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
10/06/2017 at 13:44, STARS: 4
Great post!!! The only note I have is with this bit here:
...the people for owning firearms are fairly reasonable willing to discuss the pros and cons of firearm ownership...
While this is true, the politicians who tend to represent gun owners are not willing to discuss much of anything, short of saying “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is with a good guy with a gun.”
The NRA is not much better with their ads that are at minimum propaganda and at worst is a call for violence.
The GOP spent the entirety of Obama’s two terms trying to brainwash gun owners into thinking that he was going to take away all of their guns...At no point did he ever suggest that.
So it doesn’t matter what gun owners themselves think or how reasonable they are when the politicians don’t care.
Even if the anti-gun side were to make cohesive arguments (and sometimes it does), it would still be them against a multi-billion dollar industry with massive political firepower. It’s like arguing to a brick wall.
It’s like, it doesn’t matter if I meet people who are sympathetic of transgender people, Jeff Sessions and the Vice President will still take away my rights the first chance they get. :(
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 13:44, STARS: 3
The last sentence is my biggest issue. Even ONE story a year of a kid accidentally killing themselves or someone else because they were playing with a gun stored in the house “for protection” is enough for me to question the entire institution. And yes, I know gun owners, “responsible people store their guns safely” but responsible people aren’t the real issue in any situation. There are other ways to protect your home.
Outside of the house, I get heebie jeebies at the mentality that leads to carrying a weapon. Do you really distrust fellow humans so much that you need a deadly weapon on or near your body at all times? To me it signals that you are analyzing every interaction as if it might be the one that could end your life. Open carry especially, gross. Not only do you want to have a gun in case you feel a need to use it, but you want me to know that you have it?
"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile)
10/06/2017 at 13:45, STARS: 0
Just as long as you realize that the fact it’s a *contingent* purpose changes the whole scope of the argument. We cool.
"diplodicus" (diplodicus)
10/06/2017 at 13:46, STARS: 1
Nah I wouldn’t, I have terrible aim when just shooting. I wouldn’t want someones death on my conscious even if I was capable of it. It’s just stuff not worth anybody dying for.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 13:47, STARS: 0
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
10/06/2017 at 13:48, STARS: 0
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
10/06/2017 at 13:50, STARS: 3
I’m a gun owner and plan to purchase more in the future. I would enjoy having a shooting hobby in the coming years. I do hunt as well and use firearms for that purpose.
That being said, I think we need to take a serious look at banning the AR series of weapons. The one common thread through many of these shootings is the AR. Going off the of my head; Aurora, San Bernardino, Pulse Nightclub, Vegas, Sandy Hook all apply. The only US mass shooting I can think of with very high casualties that didn’t involve an AR is Virginia Tech.
The Vegas shooting brings up how the AR family is perfectly designed for this sort of attack. It’s fairly reliable at 400+ yards and has incredible aftermarket support to tailor it for this type of attack. If you’ve seen the pictures, he had several AR’s in different configurations. Some set up with high powered scopes and longer barrels, while some were set up for more close quarters engagements. Most had bump stocks. He also had tons of high capacity magazines that obviously work for all of them interchangeably.
I fully understand the argument that people will find a way regardless of whether or not AR’s are legal. I also understand that there are firearms like the Mini 14 and Mini 30 that have semi automatic capabilities. However, they struggle for accuracy at long ranges and after they build some heat. They also don’t have the aftermarket support and can be picky on ammunition. The AR series was developed because of the shortcomings of the Mini.
How you ban something that is already been produced and sold in mass quantities is another thing I don’t have an answer to. Do you do a buyback program? With what money? Do you outlaw the sale of new models but allow the ones already sold to remain in private hands? Do you require an elevated license? All questions I don’t have the answer to. But, I think it’s a direction we should start looking at as a country.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 13:51, STARS: 1
What enforcement is in place to ensure that you have actually dropped off the receipt to the sheriff’s office?
"diplodicus" (diplodicus)
10/06/2017 at 13:53, STARS: 0
Yup one of my uncles killed his little brother from accidental discharge. That’s something you never let go of. Another guy I played hockey with killed his cousins wife same way. Jim jeffries has a good bit about keeping your gun for protection in a safe.
I know there have been a few cases in MI this year where people got into road rage and someone pulled out their pistol and just shot the other person in the street. Over some argument about traffic laws.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 13:54, STARS: 1
It’s too bad the lobbyists will never support it.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
10/06/2017 at 13:55, STARS: 0
If you were robbed at gunpoint and DID have a gun, would you even want to use it? Would you even be able to think straight to aim and operate it properly? It’s a super high stress situation and not many people can.
Probably not. When a guy was trying to rape me I could have easily sacked his crotch and gotten him thrown out by force...But I was so panicked I never thought of the easy way out.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 13:58, STARS: 0
That is where things go downhill. You can receive a civil infraction and $250 fine for turning it in late, but never turning it in nets you basically zero penalty. It’s really a dumb setup.
FYI, here is the form: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/ri-060_523727_7.pdf
As someone that concealed carries I can probably shed some light on things. Going to college in Flint and being in less than safe areas of Detroit frequently for work pretty much drove that decision. I’ve had homeless people try to get in my truck with me, held up, and my biggest concern anymore is getting carjacked.
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
10/06/2017 at 14:00, STARS: 2
Google helps, but you should write a paragraph explanation on all of these so people have an idea of what all of these are about.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:03, STARS: 4
While I would disagree with banning the AR, I do like the license tier idea, but I think we should have tiered licensing for vehicles too.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 14:04, STARS: 0
Part of the issue we have right now is we are long past the point where we could realistically remove guns from circulation. One could argue that there would be no hold ups if there were no guns, no? Maybe you’d be held up with a knife, but then would you need a gun to protect yourself?
It seems like there needs to be a system that prevents you from having the gun in your possession before the state is aware that you have the gun. If there’s no penalty for not turning in the sales record, there’s no reliable way to know a sale happened. That is how we get situations where bad people can do bad things if intended, because an individual might pass a background check but a background check alone doesn’t say whether or not you intend to use the weapon for harm.
"Sam" (samwellington)
10/06/2017 at 14:09, STARS: 1
America’s real problem is that guns have been so proliferated and ingrained in our society that it’s almost a wholly unrealistic fantasy to suggest even attempting to curb the numbers, because there will ALWAYS be 2 more for every 1 you get off the street (even if they stopped manufacturers, there are still way too many in current circulation, plus underground gunsmiths would become a thing). Europe didn’t really have proliferation of guns like America, so it’s a lot easier for them to control the supply.
What we really need are smarter laws to make it - not much difficult - but harder than just walking into a store and walking out - to buy a gun. I find it kinda ridiculous that I’m able to walk in to a store here and walk out with a gun that could kill hundreds, and if I was truly crazy (I don’t think I am) I’d only have to put on a sane act for about an hour while they check my completely clean background. The Constitution prohibits the government from getting rid or guns, but it definitely doesn’t prevent psych evaluations and a certification process (i.e. show that you understand how to safely handle and disarm a firearm in your required anchored gun safe). You need a license and training to cut someone’s hair in a barbershop, but you can buy an AR15 with only a background check.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:11, STARS: 3
In regards to the snippet of my post you noted, that is why I stated in my own experience with other firearm owners and that there were radicals and people that wouldn’t agree with anything anyway.
I agree that 90% of the issues in politicians and their lobbying buddies. Honestly I think as constituents we should focus on banning lobbying before trying to get our politicians to even listen to us.
Also as a gay man I agree that Jeff Sessions and the VP are not good people.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
10/06/2017 at 14:12, STARS: 2
So I can just draw my gun on wildlife and it’ll surrender to become dinner or wall art?
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 14:12, STARS: 1
Binary triggers: allow the weapon to fire on both the pull and release of trigger, basically doubles your firing rate and pretty easy to bump fire to even higher rates. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8uIeVy9zWAhVCMSYKHeGADt0QtwIILjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Do5ONpFy-QR8&usg=AOvVaw1d-xufYADxeVfZbFXdyJxo
Gat cranks: Cost less than $20, clips onto an AR trigger guard and becomes a crank that can work the trigger to a far higher speed than a finger ever could. What most gun people thought the Vegas shooter was using.
AR Pistols: AR based weapons are serialized on the lower receiver only. The lower receiver can be designated for a “pistol” intended to be fired with only one hand. This distinction means it is registered as a pistol, and can be well under barrel and OAL requirements. This also brings in the Sig arm brace, which the ATF has ruled on and conveniently looks just like a stock.
80%’s: Super gray area. The lower receiver of the AR is purchased “80% complete” with no serial number on it. Then you conveniently buy a jig that allows you to finish it with a drill or a dremel and voila, AR with no serial number. People have started selling 1911 frames (single stack, single action only, typically .45acp pistol) under the same guise, so you have a non-registered pistol. Companies also started doing the same thing with polymer “Glock” frames recently.
Tannerite: binary explosive set off by a high speed round. Unrelated, I hate the term high powered rifle. Handguns typically fire a larger round slower, 9mm is either 127 or 147 grain ammo, .45 is either 185 or 230, .223 is 80gr. but has far more velocity. Mix two components of tannerite, shoot it with anything that has enough velocity (pretty much only rifles) you get a proportional boom. Super easy to buy in large quantities.
"Pickup_man" (zekeh)
10/06/2017 at 14:15, STARS: 3
As a gun owner I’m good with pretty much all of this*, and honestly I think a lot of gun owners feel the same. The hard part is getting the right people to do something about it.
*I’m good with concealed carry, but I think there should be a lot more training, certification, and uniformity between states. I also think that carriers should have to provide a solid justifiable reason for concealing, more than, “just in case” or just because they want to.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:16, STARS: 0
I agree, I don’t mind a good background check. I too couldn’t tell you my favorite car or hell, band for that matter in 5 minutes without some discussion. Though I do feel if you already own several guns, then having a waiting period for another background check doesn’t really matter. Cause I could just use those to shoot people if I wanted. I don’t mean to be crass, but it is true.
I think if they did some sort of extra background ID card like the quick passport thing they do to get through TSA quicker I would so pay a fee and get an extra hefty background check to get in and out of the gun store quicker.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 14:17, STARS: 0
If there was a way to start fresh as a society and guarantee that you had 100% containment, I think people would be more willing to give up non-hunting guns or line up more with countries that require sporting weapons be secured at a club.
Michigan has some flaws in our system for sure, a couple years ago they tried to revamp some things and while overall I think the change is positive, there are also some things that slipped through the cracks.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
10/06/2017 at 14:18, STARS: 1
I don’t get guns, I really don’t. Their intent is to kill or destroy, whether it’s life or a target. I’ve shot guns, hunted, was in the military and shot more guns there. It was never my cup of tea. I’ve tried several hobbies that ended up being not for me.
That doesn’t mean I think guns, or ownership, should be abolished. I also don’t have a solution as to how to prevent gun related crimes. I wish I did. I do wish the NRA would go the hell away, though.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:18, STARS: 4
I agree. I like concealed carry, but more training is necessary for 95% of the people that get permits. But that is the same with drivers licenses. I think 95% of drivers need more training too.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:20, STARS: 0
My only thing is the AR15 was always a semi auto. People convert them to full auto, not the other way around. It is the M16 that is a full auto assault weapon.
Also I think all lobbying should be banned so our government can work for the people like they are supposed to.
"wkiernan" (wkiernan)
10/06/2017 at 14:20, STARS: 0
This strikes me like as if I were criticizing the fabulously shitty and overpriced U.S. health care system (the U.S. is to the health care industry as the Soviet Union was to the automobile industry) and then someone comes along and tells me, “But you don’t know how to do a heart transplant, so your opinion is worthless.”
It seems to me that that’s beside the point at best. There are lots of other countries in the developed world. None of them have such
laissez-faire
governmental policies toward guns as the U.S., and in none of them do so many of the citizens fetishize guns as perversely as U.S. citizens do, and none of them have as high a death rate from guns as the U.S. does. An American citizen does not have to know or care about the distinction between “magazine” and “clip” to see how those three facts are related, or to object to the fact that gun hobbyists and the gun manufacturing lobby consider that their beloved hobby is more important than the lives of tens of thousands of his fellow citizens.
"66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash" (66671)
10/06/2017 at 14:20, STARS: 1
My biggest gripe recently is with how rven anti gunners sort of side step the issue. Like after colombine banning guns with barrel shrouds (there’s a funny clip on youtube with the woman who tried to ban them, you might’ve seen it), or howthey want to maybe get rid of bump stocks, while there are still assisted reset and and binary triggers (even if those are banned along side it, you still have the fundamental issue at hand, the firearm itself).
Someone at a gun range once asked me what the most dangerous gun in the world was. The answer? All of them. I saw that article title “what is a bump stock and why is it so dangerous?” well the danger obviously is 99.9% due to it being mounted on a semi auto rfile ffs, we need to start treating firearms with the respect that they deserve or we won’t ever see the end of this I don’t think.
"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile)
10/06/2017 at 14:22, STARS: 1
The wildlife are kind of immune to the first order projection of power. The idiots.
But yes, in that specific case, the contingent ability to kill of the firearm is exerted, via “that fucker over there looks really tasty”.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:22, STARS: 1
It is, but most people couldn’t tell whether or not my Beretta has the safety on or how to do a basic field strip. Besides knowing at least how the different actions operate. I just think people should be fully informed before making a valid argument.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:24, STARS: 0
I said in my experience with pro gun people personally. Overall I would agree the people you see advocating for guns are not willing to discuss crap, but that is because anyone near the center will never get air time or be popular enough to do anything to help.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 14:24, STARS: 0
Oh please do not bring back the system of need justification. It is a nightmare for everyone involved. I conceal carry and would be fine with getting rid of open carry, increasing the required training (currently an 8 hour class and shooting 50 rounds) and even requiring frequent retraining. Just not bringing back the days of the gun boards.
"Party-vi" (party-vi)
10/06/2017 at 14:27, STARS: 1
Maryland is a may-carry state IIRC, in that once you demonstrate the need and meet the requirements you will be issued a wear and carry permit. As I understood it previously, you either need to handle large amounts of cash regularly for your profession, or have a credible threat made against your life. Retired state police are also allowed for wear and carry after they complete a similar permit application. There needs to be some sort of joint partnership agreement for states to draft carry permit requirements, which would make reciprocity a lot simpler.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
10/06/2017 at 14:28, STARS: 1
Honestly I think as constituents we should focus on banning lobbying before trying to get our politicians to even listen to us.
OH that’s a fantastic idea! I didn’t even think of that. Kill lobbying (money in politics in general) and it may be easier to actually get stuff done.
As for Sessions/Pence (oh gosh what a terrible duo), ugh hopefully one of them resigns or gets fired. I don’t like this version of Celebrity Apprentice!
"merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc" (merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc)
10/06/2017 at 14:29, STARS: 1
Tiered licensing makes sense in both respects. I wouldn’t think many folks would take issue with this. We just have to start somewhere.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 14:29, STARS: 1
I’ve seen both personally. Lots and lots of people on my facebook this week have been posting the typical “guns aren’t the issue” crap. And whether it’s the gun lobbies fault or that of common folks, right-wing politicians generally seem to hold the “don’t take our guns away” opinion and they’re the ones writing the policy.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:29, STARS: 0
God help the anti-gun people that find out about 80% anything.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 14:30, STARS: 0
What would a solid justifiable reason be?
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:30, STARS: 1
I agree, if we banned lobbyists then our government might actually be able to do work.
"merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc" (merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc)
10/06/2017 at 14:30, STARS: 0
I’ll just leave this here:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:32, STARS: 0
I have been seeing the exact same crap and I was getting tired of it, so I wanted to post about my more center thoughts on it. There is plenty more, but I just wanted to talk about learning about guns to better an argument.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/06/2017 at 14:32, STARS: 0
NJ is like this (justifiable need) and it’s a nightmare. There are people with legitimate needs (ATM servicepeople in very crime ridden areas) that don’t get one. It’s not defined and therefore it’s essentially no-issue.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/06/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 0
I would need to read more, but based on his description that 80% thing is fucking terrifying. Why does that even exist?
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:35, STARS: 1
We do have to start somewhere and if we could get rid of lobbyists then maybe we could get it done, but until that happens I don’t feel like we will get anywhere.
I would happily pay a higher DMV fee and take some classes to be able to have a 1000+ hp car and I would do the same to be able to own a .416 Barrett rifle with a 2000 yard range. The car because I like big HP and the rifle because I like competition long range shooting.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 14:35, STARS: 1
I think the other reason for the prevalence of the AR platform is that it’s cheap. You can buy a basic AR for way cheaper than any other semi-auto rifle above like a 10/22. And the reason IMO is pretty simple, there is no patent on the AR platform, it expired years ago. So anyone can make one, they are all interchangeable and the core components are all the same.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:36, STARS: 0
Right? if lobbyists were gone then think of the wonder of work the government could get done... What a world.
Yes it is bad. Maybe they will die of old age soon...
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:38, STARS: 7
I think all lobbyists should be banned so our government can work.
"Sam" (samwellington)
10/06/2017 at 14:38, STARS: 1
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate
Here’s some good data, but there’s a lot to sort through. Like he said though, guns really aren’t the problem. It’s mostly people being impoverished leading to crime, part of which are homicides. Notice that the countries with the lowest violent crime rates are also countries with low levels of poverty and the ones with the highest rates of poverty have higher violent crime rates.
Crime has been proven time and time again to be connected not to race or culture, but being poor or discriminated against economically (through banks denying loans or not being hired due to race). African-Americans get to be poor AND discriminated against economically, which is why they commit more crimes than white people who are poor but not discriminated against economically to the same degree (it’s mostly an education issue in these areas as access to higher education is shit in America and you need a degree to even be middle class anymore).
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 14:39, STARS: 0
Because crazy folks love not having a serial number on a gun that they don’t have to register anyways? Basically it boils down to this: the NFA/ATF can only regulate it once it is machined for the firing controls, so people sell a partially machined receiver with no serial number. The government knows, but because of our laws there is nothing they can do because it technically isn’t considered a firearm yet. As slanted as Ammoland is this answers it really well: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/atf-answers-questions-on-80-receiver-blanks/#axzz4ukfrBfF5
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:41, STARS: 0
It actually isn’t that bad. Technically they are supposed to be registered after you build it, but the only reason these things exist is because California can’t make good laws and thus people make these weird workaround to be able to keep their firearms. If CA hadn’t done any of these recent restrictions that do virtually nothing then the market for the 80% would not exist.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
10/06/2017 at 14:42, STARS: 1
I am vehemently against guns. I have shot a gun. More than one, in fact.
The conflict over guns, and the conflict of many common political issues, is a conflict between a focus on principles and a focus on consequences.
The anti-gun folks are more concerned about the consequences of guns: people being shot and injured or killed. They have reasoned that guns are devices whose intended purpose is to shoot things, and shooting people injures or kills them, we should do stuff to prevent people from being shot by guns, and the easiest way to do that is to reduce the number of guns out there.
The pro-gun folks are more concerned about the principles of guns: their right to own them as protected (to a not-unlimited extent) by the second amendment. They tend to chafe at any regulations on guns, because they feel that these regulations infringe on the principle of their right to own guns.
The anti-gun folks will not be magically converted over to the pro-gun side once they fire a gun, like, “OH NOW I GET IT, ALL THOSE GUN PEOPLE WERE RIGHT, NEVERMIND.” The consequences are what are important to them.
Since I focus on the consequences, I think it’s a very easy value judgment to make that the consequences of insufficiently restricted gun ownership far outweigh the consequences of gun enthusiasts’ principles being violated. Gun enthusiasts would do well to take a little more time to consider the consequences and not be so hung up on the principles.
"Funktheduck" (funktheduck)
10/06/2017 at 14:42, STARS: 1
In my state, if you have your carry permit it works like that. No need to call in the check because you have a card showing you’ve been through the deep check
"Pickup_man" (zekeh)
10/06/2017 at 14:47, STARS: 0
I agree that regulating justifications is an extremely tough thing to do. My reasoning behind that is because getting a permit in some places is stupidly simple, and leads to a lot of people carrying around guns who have little to zero business carrying one. Instead then, let’s make it quite a bit more work to get one to deter people who want it “just because”. In my state the process is literally send the state $10 they run a background check, then send you the permit in the mail. This is way too easy IMO and leads to a lot of people getting concealed permits and carrying guns, just because they feel like it.
"Pickup_man" (zekeh)
10/06/2017 at 14:51, STARS: 0
I made a mistake there, providing a justifiable reason is completely objective and impossible to regulate. My thought behind that is this: In my state getting a concealed carry permit is as easy as filling out the application, sending the state $10, they run a background check, and mail the permit to you a few days later. That’s it. IMO, that’s way too easy of a process to give someone permission to carry around a gun, and leads to a lot of people getting a permit just because they can. Perhaps, instead of having to provide a justification, we require more training, and re-certifying every so often to help dissuade people from getting carry permits just because they can.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/06/2017 at 14:52, STARS: 1
For Michigan we have the 8hr NRA class, fill out your application, go get your fingerprints done with the sheriff’s office of records (fun fact: they are now taken electronically in MI), Michigan State Police run your background and issue you a card. Cost is around $150 for the class, $100 for application, $15 for fingerprints, and $115 to renew every 5 years. I would be fine if they significantly bumped up the training or evaluation portion.
Previously we had county gun boards who could randomly decide if you had a justification for carrying or not. It was hit or miss, some counties denied everyone, some approved everyone, some split the difference. We also have a clause for immediate need where you can be issue a permit to carry within 24 hours, good for 60 days if you are at a “high risk” of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault. Mainly gets used for people who had to put someone on a restraining order or similar.
"Sam" (samwellington)
10/06/2017 at 14:54, STARS: 0
America is run by the vocal minority. Which makes the “money is speech” thing make a whole lot more sense.
I mean, most conservatives I’ve met only give a shit about their taxes. Most people really don’t care about politics in this country (which is bad).
"PartyPooper2012" (PartyPooper2012)
10/06/2017 at 14:54, STARS: 1
NJ has a similar rule - if you have been threatened or need to handle valuables, they MAY issue a concealed carry permit. In the words of some wise old folks of NJ - you must know a judge or blow a judge.
What if you only carry a large wad of cash that one time? Buying a car for instance and paying cash?
What if you’re walking down a dark alley and McDonald’s Robber wants your wallet and/or your life that day?
You didn’t have a valid enough reason to carry so you didn’t. Now you might could be dead. Your gun is safe in your safe. What purpose does a gun serve?
In NJ there is no stand your ground either. If someone busts through your door and tries to rob or hurt people in the house, residents of the premise are to flee. So then you ask - what for do I have a gun. Hunt? Paper shredding at the gun range?
I am not even talking about full auto or semi or even a musket. Just the laws themselves.
Even more ridiculous the fact that your constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t carry over naturally from the state in which you reside to most other states.
I am for reciprocity law. I am for well trained concealed carry. I am for stand your ground law. If all the above were legalized, people wishing to do mass/harm would think twice... maybe even more.
"Nothing" (nothingatalluseful)
10/06/2017 at 14:55, STARS: 1
Boy do I agree with that.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:57, STARS: 0
Yeah? If only carry permits weren’t so stupid in CA
"Pickup_man" (zekeh)
10/06/2017 at 14:57, STARS: 0
I need to correct something I said. Providing a justifiable reason to have a concealed carry permit is too objective and to difficult to judge and regulate effectively. My though behind that was this, in my state at least, and I suspect several others getting a concealed permit is as easy as; fill out form, send money to state, background check, receive permit in mail. That’s it, and it leads to a lot of people carrying around guns, just because they can. While it hasn’t seemed to be a problem I think that it should be more work to receive a permit in order to deter people from carrying around a concealed, loaded weapon, just for the hell of it.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
10/06/2017 at 14:58, STARS: 0
I don’t want to sway anyone by shooting a gun. I just want them to be informed so their arguments don’t sound retarded.
"Sam" (samwellington)
10/06/2017 at 14:59, STARS: 0
I mean, it could happen. Meaning it’s is within the realm of things that possible. Just need to amend the Constitution and kick out every single NRA-type conservative citizen (so they don’t immediately overthrow the government) first. That’s the unfeasible part.