Guns

[Bonefish]

*shrugs*

I don't care. I refuse to take firarms advice from people who don't own firearms, who don't use firearms, and who apparently have an unreasonable fear of firearms. I am not going to debate firearms with people whose idea of "not taking firearms away" and "common sense gun laws" are synonymous with Australia's confiscation regime. I am not going to trade my right to defend myself away to people who want me to trust in organizations that are under no legal obligation to protect my life or property.

There is no point. There is no reasonable discourse to be had on this subject next any longer. The line has been drawn, and it's clear that there is no room for compromise. One side supports my right to defend myself, the other side doesn't. I don't have a choice in this matter anymore.

But from here on out, I will be voting for my right to protect myself. Because it has become obvious that I cannot rely on others to do that for me. I don't particularly like the rest of the baggage that goes with it, but given that there is no longer any room on the left for gun owners, I guess that tells me where I belong.

[bralbovsky]

Talk about unreasonable fear....

For what it's worth, I do own and use guns, even in NY, which is trying to be the most restrictive place in the country.
Eventually this will go the way of the 'free everything for everybody' movements. The mainstream will find them ridiculous, and won't step up to defend them when public opinion cycles go through their inevitable churn. The outcomes will be worse than any painful compromise, for everyone.

[Phoebe]

Yeah, uh, I've lost track of the "I'm a gun owner who hunts / on a shooting team / former military / long experience with guns" testimonies that point out how far we have gone to the extreme of whatever the NRA AKA Gun Industry wants. Absolutely no sign that anywhere in America will there be a gun-free place where gun owners can't "defend themselves" with guns. Absolutely zero evidence of anything even remotely close to this happening. But overwhelming, astonishing, jaw-dropping amounts of evidence that NRA supporting gun owners are totally paranoid insane that this is going to happen. What happened to these people? It has come to the point now that instead of registering normal human emotion in the wake of slaughter of innocents, they immediately go into full "Defend My Guns" mode. It's nauseating. This is Trump's base. Meanwhile, they wouldn't know how to find an ovary with a guided map, but they feel sure that they're all expert gynecologists when it comes to regulating women's bodies. I'd like to think that half these people are paid trolls, but unfortunately, no, I know these people. It's not good for our democracy overall when we can't respect the humanity of our cousins who are so stuffed with utter shit as to have these views and vote on them, for child molesters or whoever else best slakes their vicious thirst to punish brown people - whatever, as long as the Almighty Gun is saved. I'm a gun owner. I'm trying to get a concealed carry license. When you've lost me, something is badly fucked up.

[Mike]

Okay, you've inspired another question, Bone:

You will vote for the right to defend yourself. For me to understand what you mean, I have a question in two parts...

A) What level of threat do you reasonably think all citizens should have the right to be individually prepared for? I assume home invasion is the bottom of some scale that ends with "invading Chinese foot-soldiers with nuke-zookas" or "Russian carpet bombing" or "corrupt congress mustard gassing American cities" or some such. How high up that scale should people be able to prep for?

B) For whatever your highest level threat is, what sort of ordinance do you think is required and/or should be allowed to all citizens to defend against that?

[Bonefish]

A) man sized or largest natural predator or dangerous wildlife in the area. Multiple assailaints is not an unreasonable threat level to expect. Whether that means a couple of crackheads, rapists or muggers, I think that is a reasonable precaution to take. Criminals do operate in groups, hence the legal definition of gang and dedicated law enforcement forces to deal with them.

B) I think it's reasonable to allow the use of a weapon that can effectively stop the above threats. This means muzzle loader are right the fuck out(and technically, I think that black powder guns are not legally considered firearms) in terms of reasonable. Semi automatics in a Calibre sufficient to be effective against a man or the largest hostile wild life, with sufficient ammunition to engage multiple assialents are reasonable

And if you will ensure me of that, and that you will help me to protect that requirement. I will gladly walk the dog with you licensing, registration, back ground checks and voting consistently liberal. I do not think that is unreasonable.

If I can't get that level of commitment, then I am just gonna, to quote Tropic Thunder, "go full retard". And you know that is not what I want to do. I am willing to compromise. That just means I want you to meet me somewhere in the middle. If you can't, that's fine. But I will not give up what are the best firearms for self defense. I will give up a lot but not that.

[Mike]

Granted.

More dangerous weapons probably ought to require more stringent licensing requirements (like a separate CDL is required for operating big rigs or what have you or having to jump through extra hoops for concealed carry). And I know some people want to charge for hoops to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive, but I'd rather make it as cheap and convenient to ensure greater compliance.

I personally think that widespread enforcement of licensing and registration requirements will actually reduce illegal gun ownership--make it easier to prosecute illegal firearm ownership and make it less likely that guns will be used in crimes. If the legal process is cheap, easy and convenient and gets high compliance, then it is harder, more inconvenient and more expensive to skirt the system... thus reducing illegal gun ownership.

[Bonefish]

I am doing that thing, where k point at you, then point at me, Mike. I am in 100 per cent agreement with you. My problem is: when the next school shooting or whatever happens, the same people will be putting on the media blitz, and I need some hardcore assurances we ain't gonna collectively lose our shit and make bad decisions then that will take away people rights.

One of the things, I guess, that I didn't realize until my buddy started arguing with me last night, was that apparently... A lot of people don't know anything about guns. I pretty much had to walk him through this, correcting him when he would say things that to me, are just basic gun facts. We are talking about technical and specific definitions. And I think we have to use those when talking about guns, otherwise we get legislature like the 94 AWB, which was effectively worthless. Unless you are really, really scared about the rash of bayonetting that we didn't have.

Another thing is, Just owning a gun isn't enough. Sorry Phoebe. I don't know you, so don't take this the wrong way. But I am going to use this video: https://youtu.be/UQX3RsAXN88 as an example of the problems.

So this guy, after giving a passionate and heartfelt speech about guns, and how he didn't want his gun to ever be used in a mass murder, and so, he cur it in half with a saw. Except he didn't. See, an AR15 has two main parts, an upper and a lower receiver. The upper receive is the barrel, gas block and sights. The lower receiver are all the working parts that make the gun go bang bang bang. Ar15s are made so that you can separate the upper and lower receiver in about 5 minutes and mix or match them, with minimal tools needed.the lower receiver is the part that is regulated, the uppers are not even considered firearms.

So not only did this guy NOT destroy his rifle and make it so that no one will ever use it for a mass murder, he also violated the NFA laws by illegally converting his rifle to a short barreled rifle. Now, I don't think this guy did the video with the idea of getting liberal likes and attention, and keeping his gun for nefarious purposes. I think he just didn't know what he was doing.

Which terrifies the shit out of me.

[bralbovsky]

Exactly why reasonable gun people need to stay in the conversation.

Hell, cigarettes are good for very little, and we haven't managed to ban them. Even prohibition, which actually happened, didn't last. Neither of those products is mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

[Bonefish]

I will look up and see if I can find the link, but I have a PDF with an autopsy of a guy who fought the law. He engaged about four cops with a pistol, the cops shot him around 30 times with their .40 Smith and Wesson, and another 30 or so time with Ar15s. He was still resisting when they handcuffed him and tossed him in the ambulance.

Ask any Hunter who has ever shot a deer with a high powered rifle like a 30-06 or 7mm remember mag. And the dear immediately runs 100yds before blood loss kills it. Or the big game Hunter in Africa who shot a male lion about five times, from about 100yds or so. And the lion STILL managed to pounce on him. Fortunately for him, the lion was too weak from blood loss.

Movies and videogames to the contrary, 1 bullet cannot be relied upon to kill. A motivated attack(or high on drugs) can take a lot of damage and keep on coming.

[Phoebe]

My in-laws hunt deer with bows, so... I have a hard time with the concept that you NEED a big gun for a deer because it runs off bleeding.

Can I ask why this is the sine qua non of voting for you, just out of curiosity? Why are you willing to vote for people who want to violate every other constitutional right you have with impunity, and are actively doing so, effectively, and taking your money to boot? So that you can guard against the completely hypothetical, totally unrealistic possibility of meaningful restrictions on access to massive arsenals?

[Bonefish]

I am not going to get into a debate about wound ballistics. You can talk about your in laws and their experiences, but I will continue to take my advice on wound ballistics and firearms from those whose occupation is enforcing the law, instructing military and law enforcement, and generally recognized as experts.

Why is this an issue for me? Because while you consider it hypothetical, I remember when I could not buy a rifle because of a ban. The same bans that pop up again and again. So it's happened in my life time. It's not a hypothetical fantasy, it can happen.

Gnerally speaking, I DONT vote for the people you are talking about. I have voted for one president in my life. I voted for Pat McCory(biiiig mistake), and a handful of judges. Generally, I dont participate, because I don't vote for people I disagree with. Note, a lot of your arguments work on both sides of the aisle. Democrats also voted for the creation of that list that i was on last time I tried to fly, and that same list that I have to get a lawyer to find out if I am still on. So I ain't really sold on them, you dig?

I would love to vote for a Democrat. But, honestly, I don't feel that enough of you take my(and MILLIONS OF OTHERS) rights seriously for me to join the party. And until I feel comfortable, I damn sure ain't gonna vote for someone who will turn me into a felon over night because they don't know what the "shoulder thingy that goes up and over" is. You won't trust your reproductive Rights to senators who don't know how biology works, I won't trust my gun rights to senators and president take who don't know how guns work.

[Phoebe]

But the thing is, I'm not voting blindly for Democrats just because some Republicans have insane views about women's bodies. Nor would I vote only on that one issue. I vote for politicians all the time who have different views about abortion than I do, since pretty much all of them have different views on abortion than I do. What I don't understand is why the ability to purchase one particular kind of rifle rather than another is the end-all-be-all of voting for you. I really cannot fathom that. Guns are literally the most important thing in the world to you? Why?

[Bonefish]

They are not the end all. If they were, I would be an NRA life time member. I generally DONT VOTE because I don't find a way to reconcile my my views and the views of a candidate. I took a chance on Obama, and that honestly seems to have flopped big time.

Why is buying a rifle important? Because it's a matter of self defense. I believe that EVERY person has the right to defend themselves from threats to their life. I am not in the business of telling people that they can only use the means I find acceptable. And when people propose taking away the most effective self defense tools on the market, the firearms that cause the least death, because of feelings and emotions, I get real frikken nervous.

How do I know it ends there? When someone commits the next tragedy, what then? Do we ban more guns? Just keep going? How do I know that emotions and feelings won't be the trigger the next round of restrictions, especially when the restrictions seem arbitrary and determined by what people feel is scary.

Why do you want to ban "assault weapons"? They are not the most widely used firearms for homicides, not even mass murders. You are more than twice as likely to have someone beat you to death than you are to be killed by an "assault weapon". What's the reasoning behind banning them?

[bralbovsky]

I wanna go back to our comparison with vehicles.
Not everyone should drive a truck, or a motorcycle. Different lengths, magazines, etc, all have their theoretical purposes.
Training, training, training.

A kid, who can't be counted on to do certain things reliably because of his brain structure (assuming it's normal) - of course generalizing, because public policy will need to- shouldn't have free access to certain tools. At 18 could he get a military exemption? sure.
Do I care if grandpa takes him out to look for moose (other than my fondness for moose) with an aforementioned relatively light, high rate of fire weapon? Just like if junior gets a glass of wine at holiday dinner, that's not awful. I need gramps to accept deliberate responsibility for the kid's actions, and I want gramps to be trained. If gramps doesn't know what he's doing, I don't want him near it either, just like I wouldn't want him near the tractor, or the tractor trailer.

You, I'm sure, are fully aware that lots of folks who own and use these things don't really understand them.

[Bonefish]

I understand that argument. The problem is that assault weapons bans are not an answer. Why? Because they are phrased in such a way as to include firearms based on what are largely cosmetic features or by being based on a model that is explicitly called out by name.

Imagine if we tried this with cars. We have an "assault vehicle ban" that applies to four wheel drive vehicles with fuel tanks greater than 15lbs, and have three of the following features: tow hooks, fog lights, roll cages, detachable tail gates, removable camper shells, truck beds, or tinted windows. Specifically banned are Ford f150s, f250s, f350s, Chevy Silverados, Dodge Rams.

There are a lot of vehicles that are not trucks that are now banned or require greater licensing, and there are lots of trucks that are not covered by the ban. There are also SUVs that are based on the same frames as those trucks that a lot of people are not going to give up.

And that is exactly the sort of problem assault weapons bans run into. They are either too broad: "all semi automatic firearms" or require very constrained and arbitrary legislation and create a host of loopholes. They are BAD laws.

[FlameBlade]

How about if we define the limits based on how much damage a single bullet can do to body. More damage, more regulated?

For example, read this doctor's account of gunshot wounds, and what is the difference.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl- ... story.html

[Phoebe]

but captures an important insight: far-right conservatives are winning every seat of actual political control and are inflicting their will on the nation accordingly, yet still manage to feel persecuted because the Starbucks cup is not to their liking. This is perhaps why, even as the only truly tangible measures of change in response to more gun slaughter in schools have involved further relaxation of legal gun restrictions and the cosmetic change of a few stores moving ages from 18-21, gun enthusiasts still feel like the giant conspiracy to deprive them of ever more and bigger guns is more dangerous than guns are. No, it's more dangerous and stressful than ever simply to be a child who attends school. But some gun owners are sure they're the ones under siege, facts be damned, because kids who witnessed the worst sort of slaughter are getting some positive press that won't amount to any real gun law change (except more guns). All of this helps someone's bank account, and it's not yours or mine.

[Phoebe]

So... Most pro-gun home defense experts say an AR-15 or similar is a bad choice. Other guns recommended instead. I'm not an expert myself so I wonder, what are these experts getting wrong? Meanwhile, in another universe from the NRAs, even people outside my unusually clever, skillful, and anecdotally relevant family somehow persist in deer hunting with bows. Not sure how they succeed, but there are all these dead deer to prove you don't even need a gun, much less a military one, to take one. So, I'm left wondering why we need some types of guns so much and what meaningful freedom is possibly infringed by controlling access to them.

[bralbovsky]

At the risk of being taken either too seriously, or not seriously enough, I submit that it's like the development of the crossbow. Technology made something artistic and difficult - shooting an animal or an enemy at range with a projectile - easy enough for any oaf. The windlass, the muzzle loader, all made common folk, who had not practiced, who didn't really understand, very deadly. As deadly as one with training, certainly not, but the church attempt to outlaw crossbows was partly an attempt to keep deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, the property of an elite. (Not necessarily a traditional elite, because bowyers and fletchers, while constrained to fulfill huge contracts to monarchs, still had stock to sell to outlaws and poachers)
The crossbow democratized deadly force in uncomfortable ways.
Fast forward to the pistol, which any thug could acquire and use. Regardless of its inevitability, WW1 is ignited by a peasant.

All of this develops parallel and intertwined with "official, state sanctioned" use of deadly force.
Fast forward to the AR-15, which in lightness and ease of use outstrips most of its cousins. Perhaps not small, but normal sized, children can fire it with discomfiting accuracy.

So the dual prongs of -why is it the poster child of this issue - and - why do folks cling to it so strongly- are also intertwined. The gun people on this board do not need something so easy and light, we can, no doubt, handle something which requires more strength and practice. The gun people at that ceremony/service apparently feel that it would be ok if we could implant a rifled barrel into out hand, it'd be our birthright. Just point and shoot.

We somehow feel that turning 18 suddenly makes us qualified - we have a right, after all - to vote. (Notwithstanding huge efforts to dissuade certain demographics from being able to do that.) We might feel the same way about guns, despite admonitions within the amendment, despite our logical admission that there's more to voting, or speaking, or worshiping, or assembling than just being able to do it.

I think the fundamental difference might be that this one is deeply polluted by commerce. I think this because the other rights that are polluted by commerce are also perverted. Colt invented the tradition, with advertising. Fox sells lots of ads pretending to be fair and balanced, PACs and corporate citizens have muddied the waters, for money. But, and this is important, we don't really sell stuff, we sell ideas, we sell symbols, we sell images - mostly of ourselves. This makes it possible for beer, and perfume, which both look like piss, to be billion dollar industries. It makes it possible also, for lies to be sold as truths, and for access to weapons to be given a higher priority than the safety of school children.

[Bonefish]

Bralbovsky, I want to talk about a few things here.

First, the Second Lateran Council, where Pope Innocent II "banned" crossbows". At the time, the Pope's major opponent was Roger II of Sicily, who had a sizable muslim force in his armies, and these muslims were renowned for their use of the bow. By anning the use of the crossbow against christians, Innocent II was likely trying to play a game with Roger: deny him the use of christian crossbowmen, while Innocent's own armies and allies could freely use the bow against the excommunicated and heathen Sicilians. And in general, nobody listened to him anyway and kept busily filling each other full of holes for the next 800 years.


But back to gun, commerce, perversions of truth: Why is it your side keeps bringing up this whole "safety of children vs gun owners rights" angle? School shootings DO NOT HAPPEN with the regularity and frequency that warrants massive changes in our life. Go to Wikipedia, and go through every school shooting in the US since 2000, and there are a lot of them, and add up the dead. In 18 years, I bet you won't get more than about 360ish dead. Over an 18 year time period. Germany pulled around 45 for the same time period, but has around a third to a quarter of our population. How in the hell did we get to this place where we act like there are thousands of american schoolchildren being murdered in our schools EVERY YEAR?!

The only thing I can figure out is the Media. Mass shootings are just a fucking money-maker for them. You get 24 hour coverage, people tuning in, you can hire experts to give their sound bites, and obsess over the shooter, and it's just fucking sick. It's the same thing with violence in general. There seems to be this idea that we are living in a super violent society where an unhinged madman is likely to pull out a pistol and bangbangbang you're dead! And we don't. You wanna avoid being shot? It's easy: Don't be poor, don't be involved with drugs, don't be young, don't be a man. And avoid the places where poor, young men who are involved with drugs hang out. Congratulations, you follow those simple steps, and your odds of being shot are drastically reduced! To almost European levels of violence.

Now, that's why I get so upset about this. Banning assault weapons doesn't deal with almost 80% of the gun deaths in this country. At best, it deals with 3 to 5%, and is a difficult and tricky thing to legislate. Why, for example, do we consider a semi-auto with a wooden rifle stock to be a hunting rifle, but you add a bayonet lug, and suddenly it's a "weapon of war"? Or a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, or a collapsible stock. Or a barrel shroud. It's a lot of effort to be spent fixing a tiny part of the problem, that places you in opposition to people who would, in many cases, prefer to work with you on the 90% of the deaths.

For "weapons of war" that are "Designed to kill people as fast as possible" and "more dangerous than other firearms", these rifles don't actually contribute a lot to the problem. So I don't understand why that's the target of "commonsense gun laws". And I still haven't seen any serious proposal as to why they deserve to be the focus of reform, and the pint that will not be negotiated. Like, I could give you 90% of the gun control platform, but when I get to "assault weapons", suddenly I am the unreasonable one who demands too much?

I just don't get it. And let me be honest: I'm not specifically talking about you, or Phoebe, or anyone else directly. I have been having this debate for half my life, and this current flurry of political interest in guns, it's not surprising to me. It's the same sort of mass produced stuff, and it's absolutely terrifying to me that we have people who don't know what they are talking about, in positions of power, who are proposing laws about things that, again they are ignorant of. It's crrrraaaaaaaaazy.