The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[rah]

I'd shake that man's hand, if it was still attached.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Shooting a bear = yawn
Strangling a bear with your bare hands = win

The bear's got pretty good single-leg takedowns. It can't sprawl for [stuff], though. The little kid is today the UFC Lightweight Champion, incidentally.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There is nothing 'sporting' about hunting with a gun or a bow* under any circumstances, frankly. If you want me to appreciate the 'sportsmanship' go kill an animal with nothing but what you find in the woods; that might impress me a little.

*unless you made the bow with what you found in the woods

Due to our destruction of the environment, we have an obligation to cull herds when there are no predators to do it. Hunting can be and should be part of environmental stewardship.

 

[Lexicus]

Due to our destruction of the environment, we have an obligation to cull herds when there are no predators to do it. Hunting can be and should be part of environmental stewardship.

Yeah, I'm not taking a position that hunting is inherently unethical or anything, just that hunting with a gun leaves me unimpressed as a sport.

 

[cardgame]

I'm fine with hunting and hunting rifles and shotguns. But you don't need a handgun with extended magazines or rifles with bump stocks. You don't need semi-auto firearms at all for hunting and I am not sure it's even legal in most jurisdictions.

Of course it's legal, providing it's in-season and of large enough caliber to be humane. We do in fact ban hunting deer with .22 because you're just torturing the animal if you do that, unless you can get a perfect headshot every time.

But we also have a need for semi-automatics in hunting down feral hogs, if you talk to anyone who does this. They can travel in pretty huge groups, so you need the 20-30 round magazines, and they can really mess you up if they get aggressive and you're too close, so you need the rate of fire. Also so you don't bag 2-3 at a time and have to chase them down constantly. For this task, from my limited research, the AR-15 in fact is seen as a favorite choice.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Of course it's legal, providing it's in-season and of large enough caliber to be humane. We do in fact ban hunting deer with .22 because you're just torturing the animal if you do that, unless you can get a perfect headshot every time.

But we also have a need for semi-automatics in hunting down feral hogs, if you talk to anyone who does this. They can travel in pretty huge groups, so you need the 20-30 round magazines, and they can really mess you up if they get aggressive and you're too close, so you need the rate of fire. Also so you don't bag 2-3 at a time and have to chase them down constantly. For this task, from my limited research, the AR-15 in fact is seen as a favorite choice.

Cool. I'm fine licensing, registering and tightly regulating hunters (and even sport shooters!). It should not be easy to obtain those weapons but not impossible.

 

[cardgame]

Oh, so you mean like common sense gun control*?

*heads exploding in background

 

[Estebonrober]

Yea these last three posts deliver

 

[Broken_Erika]

Oh, so you mean like common sense gun control*?

*heads exploding in background

Yea these last three posts deliver

The Headless ones disagree....

 

[Phrossack]

Of course it's legal, providing it's in-season and of large enough caliber to be humane. We do in fact ban hunting deer with .22 because you're just torturing the animal if you do that, unless you can get a perfect headshot every time.

But we also have a need for semi-automatics in hunting down feral hogs, if you talk to anyone who does this. They can travel in pretty huge groups, so you need the 20-30 round magazines, and they can really mess you up if they get aggressive and you're too close, so you need the rate of fire. Also so you don't bag 2-3 at a time and have to chase them down constantly. For this task, from my limited research, the AR-15 in fact is seen as a favorite choice.

Regarding wild boar, it's best not to shoot them. According to my local Department of Conservation, shooting them just causes the rest of the group (or "sounder) to scatter, and they'll be warier next time.

Instead they catch boar with bait and large, remotely dropped cages hanging from above. This lets them catch the boar all at once. Since boar are such a problem, we really have to use extermination techniques rather than hunting.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I saw some guys carrying a boar out of the jungle near Manoa Falls on Oahu (Hawaii) on vacation. They used dogs and bows to take it down. It was large but didn't have huge tusks. I guess in some instances you can avoid using AR's for the job.

But to re-iterate: I'm fine allowing that. Just make sure they have to register themselves and the guns, take training courses, have a gun safe and other precautions. They should also have to undertake background checks that include a mental health evaluation. They don't have to talk to a shrink but if they have been diagnosed with certain issues then their guns should be held until they sort through the issue and shouldn't be allowed to own more.

 

[Commodore]

But this preparation for a hypothetical has an actual cost of N deaths every year: That is, the N deaths aren't the cost of defending yourself against a tyrannical government, they're the cost of reserving the ability to do so, even in the event such a tyranny never happens. You're paying the freight for a commodity you aren't using. Furthermore, you're paying the freight for something you don't want to use, and we have the means to avoid it, if we're smart and attentive.

Okay, but that argument could be used for just about any right. Particularly those guaranteed in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. How many guilty criminals have gotten off scot-free to go commit other crimes because their Constitutional rights were violated at some point in the criminal justice process? Does that mean we should start curtailing everyone's 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights just to make sure guilty criminals are easier to convict? Of course it doesn't.

You also have to ask yourself if gun control is really something you are willing to fight for. Because if you claim to be worried about people dying, then continuing down the road of increasing regulations on guns is going to cause a lot of deaths. Hell, there are already stories starting to crop up of deaths related to the attempted enforcement Red Flag laws that have been passed in some states because police seem to think it's a better idea to kick someone's door in in the middle of the night instead of sending an officer to try to enforce the law peacefully.

Also, the notoriously passive gun community is starting to wake up and is becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to gun control measures. There was just an armed protest in Pittsburgh in which all the protestors brought their firearms, locked and loaded, to oppose the new gun control measures proposed by their mayor. The protest went off without any reported violence (something leftist protestors can't claim), but armed protests is not something 2nd Amendment supporters usually do. At least not on a large scale. The fact that gun owners are starting to do stuff like that is what we in the Army would have called escalation of force. The first step in escalation of force was a verbal warning, which the 2nd Amendment supporters did for decades by writing to politicians and staging unarmed protests. The next step in escalation of force was a verbal warning while showing your weapon. That's the step the 2nd Amendment supporters are starting to move into. The next step after that is a warning shot. The final step, of course, being the use of lethal force on the target.

I'm taking the time to explain that to you because of the question I'm about to ask: Do you really think gun control is so important that you are willing to let things progress to that final step of escalation of force? Because that is what's going to happen. We aren't Australia. And while you may eventually get your way in the end, there's going to be a lot of dead bodies on both sides before the issue is settled one way or the other. So again I ask: Do you think the inevitable conflict and bloodshed that will tear this country apart is worth it?

He set up the executive order with significant procedure errors to make it easy pickings for an NRA suit.

Except the NRA isn't even challenging the bump stock ban, nor do they have any plans to. The only statement they have issued about it is that they are "disappointed" that it doesn't grandfather in the people that already legally own them. For all your railing against the NRA, they are actually gun control's biggest ally. The NRA has had a hand in writing just about every piece of federal-level gun legislation, including the NFA and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

Now if there's a pro-2nd Amendment organization you want to hate, then you need to look at Gun Owners of America. GOA has usually been a smaller organization, but is starting to grow rapidly as more and more gun owners become disillusioned with the NRA and their constant compromising on gun rights. GOA has a very clear "zero tolerance" policy on gun control of any kind and the only thing that has stopped them from suing over every piece of gun legislation is their lack of resources. That's starting to change though and they are planning a legal challenge to the bump stock ban. They are also going to start lobbying hard for a national reciprocity law that would force all states to recognize and honor the CCW permits and licenses issued by other states, regardless of their own laws on the matter.

They don't have to talk to a shrink but if they have been diagnosed with certain issues then their guns should be held until they sort through the issue and shouldn't be allowed to own more.

If you have ever bought a gun in your life, you'd know they already do that. When you fill out the 4473 when you purchase a firearm, they ask you those questions and answering "yes" to them means the dealer will not sell you a firearm. If you try to lie and say no, the dealer will still run a background check on you (that's why they ask for your drivers license or other state ID when buying a gun) and it will come up. At that point, not only will you not be allowed to purchase the gun, but you will be arrested since it is a felony to lie on a 4473.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Except the NRA isn't even challenging the bump stock ban, nor do they have any plans to.

Sounds like they don't have to courtesy of GOA:

That's starting to change though and they are planning a legal challenge to the bump stock ban.

The NRA is also having financial difficulties and have to be pickier about the fights they pick. Their failures don't take away from the fact that Trump pitched them a softball.

If you have ever bought a gun in your life, you'd know they already do that.

Weird flex but ok?

I actually have bought a gun (.357 magnum from Taurus) and enjoyed the hell out of shooting it on the range.

Therefore I know how unenforced these laws are. Straw purchasing and gunshow loopholes are rampant.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you have ever bought a gun in your life, you'd know they already do that. When you fill out the 4473 when you purchase a firearm, they ask you those questions and answering "yes" to them means the dealer will not sell you a firearm. If you try to lie and say no, the dealer will still run a background check on you (that's why they ask for your drivers license or other state ID when buying a gun) and it will come up. At that point, not only will you not be allowed to purchase the gun, but you will be arrested since it is a felony to lie on a 4473.

Wow, with all those restrictions it's a wonder that questionable people don't buy guns from sources other than dealers. Oh, wait.

To be technically correct, your first sentence should have been "If you have ever bought a gun in your life from a gun dealer, you'd know..." If you buy your guns from a college student putting himself through school without loans that makes a run to Arizona one weekend a month and brings back trunk full of guns that he wants 'for his own use' when he buys them but has 'gotten tired of' by the time he gets home there's a whole lot less paperwork.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Okay, but that argument could be used for just about any right. Particularly those guaranteed in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. How many guilty criminals have gotten off scot-free to go commit other crimes because their Constitutional rights were violated at some point in the criminal justice process? Does that mean we should start curtailing everyone's 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights just to make sure guilty criminals are easier to convict? Of course it doesn't.

No, I don't think so, either. That's a much longer conversation, though, probably worthy of a semester-long college class. I'd have to think about how to write a concise response.

You also have to ask yourself if gun control is really something you are willing to fight for. Because if you claim to be worried about people dying, then continuing down the road of increasing regulations on guns is going to cause a lot of deaths. Hell, there are already stories starting to crop up of deaths related to the attempted enforcement Red Flag laws that have been passed in some states because police seem to think it's a better idea to kick someone's door in in the middle of the night instead of sending an officer to try to enforce the law peacefully.

Also, the notoriously passive gun community is starting to wake up and is becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to gun control measures. There was just an armed protest in Pittsburgh in which all the protestors brought their firearms, locked and loaded, to oppose the new gun control measures proposed by their mayor. The protest went off without any reported violence (something leftist protestors can't claim), but armed protests is not something 2nd Amendment supporters usually do. At least not on a large scale. The fact that gun owners are starting to do stuff like that is what we in the Army would have called escalation of force. The first step in escalation of force was a verbal warning, which the 2nd Amendment supporters did for decades by writing to politicians and staging unarmed protests. The next step in escalation of force was a verbal warning while showing your weapon. That's the step the 2nd Amendment supporters are starting to move into. The next step after that is a warning shot. The final step, of course, being the use of lethal force on the target.

I'm taking the time to explain that to you because of the question I'm about to ask: Do you really think gun control is so important that you are willing to let things progress to that final step of escalation of force? Because that is what's going to happen. We aren't Australia. And while you may eventually get your way in the end, there's going to be a lot of dead bodies on both sides before the issue is settled one way or the other. So again I ask: Do you think the inevitable conflict and bloodshed that will tear this country apart is worth it?

So you're getting at one of the basic issues I have with guns: They're tools of lethal violence, ergo, anyone who owns one is prepared to use lethal violence for whatever they feel warrants it. The fact that gun owners will shoot to kill, should they decide that doing so is appropriate, isn't news, and it doesn't discourage my interest in stricter gun control and fewer guns, it's the reason for my interest in stricter gun control and fewer guns. I think there's some circular reasoning in asking me to back down from my position on gun ownership because the people who own guns might just go ahead and prove that I was right to be concerned in the first place.

That's not a complete answer to your question, though, as to whether lethal force is itself a satisfying, appropriate, or effective answer to the threat of lethal force. Basically, the answer to that is 'no', but ther Mainly, I have an issue with people's judgment, and because there are frequently other options. Even in a situation where a soldier or police officer has no better option, it usually means the situation was mishandled somewhere along the line. In the case of owning guns for the purpose of defending ourselves against a tyrannical government, for example, we'd have already dropped the ball by allowing such a government in the first place. (I guess I also question the efficacy of guns against a tyrannical government, should such a government arise despite our best efforts. I think if the aforementioned Palestinians had rifles, for example, even more of them would be dead. If a full-on shooting war is all that's left, the situation has reached its nadir and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.)

The "Red Flag" laws you mention are a thorny issue, because of the problems we have with criminal justice and law enforcement in this country. We've seen multiple instances of Black men and boys being gunned down because a police officer merely claims the victim had a gun. As it happens, Jason Van Dyke is being sentenced today for the (2nd-degree) murder of Laquan McDonald, and there's a possibility he could be given parole. I'd love to be able to say with confidence that Van Dyke will get an appropriate sentence, but our criminal justice system is so untrustworthy right now that I'm genuinely on tenterhooks. So, yes, Red Flag laws concern me, for their potential for abuse, and for their potential to create yet another situation in which a police officer can escalate to lethal violence, or even be required to.

 

[Commodore]

I actually have bought a gun (.357 magnum from Taurus) and enjoyed the hell out of shooting it on the range.

How do you like it overall though? Does it seem to you like it is a generally well-made firearm? I ask because I've been looking at Taurus for a pistol (not a .357 though since I'm not a fan of higher caliber pistols) due to their affordability, but opinions on their products seem to be quite mixed.

I've been meaning to ask you the above, but life has been a little busy for me lately. New job is pretty demanding.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How do you like it overall though? Does it seem to you like it is a generally well-made firearm? I ask because I've been looking at Taurus for a pistol (not a .357 though since I'm not a fan of higher caliber pistols) due to their affordability, but opinions on their products seem to be quite mixed.

I've been meaning to ask you the above, but life has been a little busy for me lately. New job is pretty demanding.

I don't own it any longer but it was a barrel of fun (pun intended). The build was pretty solid and it had a hammer lock to serve as a safety. The action was also solid enough that I wasn't afraid of accidental discharge though to be honest it was probably a bit too tough on my trigger finger without cocking it first - at which point the action was feather-light. I also really enjoyed that I could use .38 special rounds in place of .357 as they are much cheaper and about as much fun to shoot. I actually miss shooting it but not enough to buy another one at this point.

It was also easy to clean (and to verify it is safe before hand) but that's as much to do with it being a revolver as it does with the build quality. All that said I probably only put 200 rounds through it so I'm not sure how indicative my experiences with it are with regards to build quality as it got much less use than is typical I think.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, I'm not taking a position that hunting is inherently unethical or anything, just that hunting with a gun leaves me unimpressed as a sport.

Similar position here. If you want to shoot an animal and eat it fair enough.
Pest control also that's important here.

Claiming it's a sport though. Target shooting is a sport. There's a definite skill involved in hunting but once found the animals don't seem to have much of a chance.

 

[cardgame]

How do you like it overall though? Does it seem to you like it is a generally well-made firearm? I ask because I've been looking at Taurus for a pistol (not a .357 though since I'm not a fan of higher caliber pistols) due to their affordability, but opinions on their products seem to be quite mixed.

I've been meaning to ask you the above, but life has been a little busy for me lately. New job is pretty demanding.

There's a reason Taurus has such a bad reputation. I used my stepdad's Taurus 9mm at the range and it jammed at least twice on three out of three magazines. Not just simple jams clearable by the slide action either, had to dig in there to pull the casing out two times. I would expect revolvers to be much less prone to jamming, but I wouldn't bother with their magazine-fed pistols.

And then there's this frickin' absurdity

 

[Sommerswerd]

I just read an article about a county in North Carolina which passed a resolution declaring itself a "sanctuary" for guns/gun rights.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article227784574.html

One article about the same subject I've read claimed it was a response to "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants.