We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[dgaddis]

Respectfully, "whataboutism" isn't a useful position.

It's a lot easier for all of us to say what we don't agree with than to prescribe what should be done.

Care to take a shot at the latter option?

In regard to Biden. He's a politician. He's happy to test this position at this point in the campaign and adapt later. In any case - What does his position have to do with what I posted?

I honestly don’t know what to do. But as far as what Biden has to do with what you said, you said “no one is coming to take your guns” but that’s exactly what he’s currently saying he’ll do...at least he says he’s coming for assault weapons, which again, I don’t know how that’s defined exactly. But most victims of gun violence aren’t even killed by “assault weapons” (which most people picture as AK/AR style rifles). Most are killed by pistols. Technically the Dayton shooter used a pistol.

According to this chart from 2010-2014 more people were killed by shotguns than by rifles, but you never hear anyone wanting to ban shotguns. Even ol’ Biden has said no one can take his shotgun. Knives killed way more than shotguns and rifles combined.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

[dgaddis]

Enjoy your firearms.
Go make noise and play pretend.
Cowboys and indians.
Or some war reenactment stuff.
I'm out of this thread.

The only gun I own is a Red Rider Carbide Action BB gun. It won’t even put a hole in an empty soda can unless you’re within ~15ft of the thing.

I’m just offering another perspective since most folks on this forum lean left (including myself). We don’t want an echo chamber/bubble right? Diversity is good and all that right?

[TTX1]

The comparisons and veers to other things (my bicycles, meals at The French Laundry, a shirt from Jermyn Street,) are fine. At this point I expect them as a counterpoint. So my question for these people with the antique firearms all the way up to those who collect WMD's might be better phrased by asking, why do you need the bullets?

Sorry, my response to this point was hidden in a needlessly lengthy and somewhat pedantic series of analogies.

The explanation for a majority of these WMD owners and advocates is: There is no rational explanation. They can't give you an answer you'll find satisfying.

Why do some people have WWII half tracks? A: Because they can.

ARs and all the rest are really no different. With very few exceptions, no matter what these guys say, the only true answer is: Because they can.

It's a tautological argument that needs to end.

[TTX1]

I honestly don’t know what to do. But as far as what Biden has to do with what you said, you said “no one is coming to take your guns” but that’s exactly what he’s currently saying he’ll do...at least he says he’s coming for assault weapons, which again, I don’t know how that’s defined exactly.

Listen to your own link. I took ~ 3 minutes.

His position is: Outlaw sales of new automatics and provide a buy back program. I heard nothing about mandatory confiscation or "coming for your guns".

Go watch your own link and listen closely, please. This is exactly the cognitive dissonance that must end in order to make progress.

As for the biometric thing... I think it's a bit much, probably a negotiating position. "OK, we'll give up mandatory biometrics on all new guns, but we must have comprehensive background checks on new purchases"

Let's focus on what's achievable and resist the distractions.

Background checks are achievable. Restrictions on new AR purchases are achievable. Adopting the policies that are similar to what's been done before in this very country, as well as Australia, etc., are achievable.

[dgaddis]

Listen to your own link. I took ~ 3 minutes.

His position is: Outlaw sales of new automatics and provide a buy back program. I heard nothing about mandatory confiscation or "coming for your guns".

First, and very importantly, there is no talk of automatics in the whole three minutes - the talk is of “assault weapons”. Automatics are already virtually illegal.

As far as mandatory confiscation:
0:15 in - assault weapons should be “illegal to be sold or owned”
1:15 - when asked what about people who say a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns - “Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon. They should be illegal, period.”

So if they’re illegal to own, “period”, exactly what does that mean for all the assault weapons already out there?

And again, what exactly is an assault weapon? And that’s a sincere question, I don’t know a lot about guns.

[Corso]

And again, what exactly is an assault weapon? And that’s a sincere question, I don’t know a lot about guns.

I'll take a swing: assault weapon would be a rifle initially made for military use-to kill people. (or in MA- if it looks like a military weapon, even if it's not automatic).

Different from a rifle made for hunting animals.

Would say a Glock or SigSauer (hand gun) be considered an assault weapon? By my wide definition above, I guess so.

It will get complicated quickly.

[choke]

Sorry, my response to this point was hidden in a needlessly lengthy and somewhat pedantic series of analogies.

The explanation for a majority of these WMD owners and advocates is: There is no rational explanation. They can't give you an answer you'll find satisfying.

Why do some people have WWII half tracks? A: Because they can.

ARs and all the rest are really no different. With very few exceptions, no matter what these guys say, the only true answer is: Because they can.

It's a tautological argument that needs to end.

I'll disagree. I served in the USMC and during that time became familiar with the M16A2. I thought it was a fine weapon and once I was discharged I purchased an AR15. Why? Because it was accurate and I was very comfortable with the way it worked. I would think that is the case for a lot of veterans. It's also very versatile....it's easy to change from the standard caliber to a larger one by swapping the upper receiver. The AR type rifle is one of, if not the, most popular rifles in use in the US. Edited to add: I no longer hunt but if I did, I would have no problem using an AR with a different upper receiver.

And again, what exactly is an assault weapon? And that’s a sincere question, I don’t know a lot about guns.

And there's the $64,000 question. The previous Federal "assault weapons ban" was a joke IMO. It defined an "assault weapon" as a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine that had two or more of the following; folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, grenade launcher. Manufacturers simply took the same rifle, changed a few items and it was no longer an "assault weapon"...i.e. remove the flash hider and install a thumbhole stock. The politicians love to tell you how good it was but even the FBI said that it did essentially nothing to reduce crime. As has been said, "assault weapons" are not the first choice for most people committing crimes.

[Colinmclelland]

guns.JPG

In the rest of the world there wouldn't be any calls for more research...

We don't have a right to bear arms in Australia, but people still have guns for sport shooting, hunting, farming etc and the right to have those guns is heavily regulated. Just because you don't have a right doesn't mean you can't own a gun.

This is funny/not funny at the same time.

Attachment 112758

[Matthew Strongin]

And again, what exactly is an assault weapon? And that’s a sincere question, I don’t know a lot about guns.

You know how some people refer to motorcycles as "bikes" and some people refer to bicycles as "bikes?" It's like that. Assault rifles, as defined in the common lexicon (like in the dictionary) is both a military rifle capable of either automatic or semi-automatic fire AND a semi-automatic rifle that resembles the military weapon. 2A supporters and AR lovers like to take a pedantic stance and berate anti-gun lefties for mischaracterizing the weapons that are commonly being the defacto choice of mass shooters. And anti-gun lefties are latching onto the scary term to rally support because it's a whole fucking lot easier to get people amped about banning assault rifles than it is to have a nuanced debate over what aspects of guns and gun ownership should be regulated for the greater good. And while people get lost in the swirl of semantics, the lack of common nomenclature, and, most dishearteningly (as demonstrated in this thread) a large gulf in perspective as to what the actual problem is, we continue to show the world that if there's one thing we're good at in the U, S, of A, it's putting holes in each other. So, and not to sound like a dick, this whole conversation here and out in the real world would go a lot better if people would stop harping on the labels we use and start focusing on the characteristics of what makes some guns particularly well suited to inflicting maximum damage to maximum targets.

Also, for what it's worth, my grandfather (an expert marksman) trained me to shoot and care for a variety of firearms. I grew up shooting, really enjoyed it and got damn good, if I may say so. I get the desire to collect (my collecting vices aren't restricted to bikes) and the enjoyment of shooting. But the data is pretty clear. The USA is unique among our peers in this problem and something needs to be done.

[jclay]

It's real simple; either we remove autos and semi-autos from the civilian population or we'll continue to have mass shootings. The sooner we begin that journey the sooner we'll get to the imperfect but vastly better end.

The only way it would work is if we were able to remove virtually all center-fire semi-automatics from civilian society.

As to semi autos? Get them out of the population or know that we will live with the demonstrated and obvious consequences which will only get worse as stressors increase.

-- aginst the fuc-ing law period... to own a weapon of mass-destruction for any reason... no way to rationalize a reason..

Disparaging others over the use of “assault weapon”, or arguing over what is/isn't an “assault weapon”, is used as chaff and to derail any and all discussions by those want to keep them. It also introduces ambiguity and the ability to modify the appearance of firearms in order to circumvent regulations, as other have pointed out.

In some posts I specified “centerfire” as that covers the seriously powerful cartridges, as opposed to rimfire cartridges like conventional .22 cal (as in 22 short and long rifle). But even that introduces ambiguity and there are some pretty hot rimfire cartridges in other calibers. And if a ban on centerfire semi autos was actually brought into being you can bet that we'd see the development of major calibers in rimfire very quickly.

So let's make it easy, based on functionality and implicit rate of fire: Total ban on civilian possession of all auto, select-fire and semi-automatic firearms.

That leaves wheelguns (revolvers), bolt action and pump action weapons. That's plenty of firepower for hunting, target shooting and home/personal defense; and those should be heavily regulated as they are in other advanced countries.

Neither are likely to happen any time soon, if ever, but to my mind that's the way to frame things and is the sensible course to take if we're serious about tackling the problem.

[rwsaunders]

I’ll chime in for a bit regarding the injury and death statistics from the CDC’s 2017 annual report and I’ll admit that it’s a bit disturbing when you do the math. 2,813,503 of our 326,213,213 fellow Americans died in 2017...1.22% of the deaths were firearms related. Firearm deaths totaled 39,773 in 2017...(60% suicide, 37% assault, 3% accident).

The charts below go into greater detail, but for the “highlights”, we roughly lost 854,390 people to heart disease, 599,108 to cancer, 121,404 to Alzheimer’s disease, 73,990 to drug overdoses, 47,173 to suicide (23,854 related to firearms), 40,231 to car accidents and 35,823 to alcohol abuse...the balance of the causes of death are in the charts.

I don’t understand the hesitancy to regulate an industry that contributes in one way or another, to the deaths of a measurable amount of the US population, year after year. In simpler terms as I am a simple person, we don’t allow people to get behind the wheel of a car without a formal process of registration, training, examination, licensing and insurance dictating the process. I need a photo ID to drive a car and I have to renew my registration every year, right? Even with those controls in place, 40,231 people still managed to die in automobile accidents in 2017.

I really don’t understood the rationale for how one can own and operate a firearm without a similar process in place and I have hope that the majority of firearms owners agree with this position and join in forcing our politicians to take action.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/n...r68_09-508.pdf

[Rich Beaudoin]

Why aren't law abiding citizen allowed to own nuclear missiles ? That's a clear breach of their 2nd amendment and civil liberty rights.

That would certainly help a ‘well regulated militia’ and I’ve had this discussion many times.
Why can’t we drive armored cars with turret guns? Isn’t that our constitutional right?
My brother is what many people would consider a gun nut (owns an AR15, carries a Glock, owns many others).
Despite growing up in the same house and only two years apart, he feels like the world is so dangerous that he needs to be armed at all times. I have never felt I’ve needed a gun here or abroad (I’ve lived and travelled extensively in North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia). He must think I’m like Mister Magoo unknowingly missing death at every step.
He is a smart and nice guy, but I’m afraid that he could crack like any of us under enough pressure.
I’ve jokingly suggested he wear an explosive vest as a crime deterrent.

[monadnocky]

So let's make it easy, based on functionality and implicit rate of fire: Total ban on civilian possession of all auto, select-fire and semi-automatic firearms.

with all true respect, and in the interest of dialogue... this would include ban on .17 hornady semi auto rat shooters? .22 Ruger Mk III target pistols? Semi-auto upland bird shotguns?
As I've stated before, I think any limitation must involve a combination of action AND caliber... action alone does not encompass the destructive power of a firearm.

[jclay]

with all true respect, and in the interest of dialogue... this would include ban on .17 hornady semi auto rat shooters? .22 Ruger Mk III target pistols? Semi-auto upland bird shotguns?
As I've stated before, I think any limitation must involve a combination of action AND caliber... action alone does not encompass the destructive power of a firearm.

Yes. It's simpler and in so being, more ironclad. Pump, bolt and revolver actions can take care of farm/field necessities, home defense concerns, and sport shooting.

That little .17 Hornet centerfire is a surprisingly fast and powerful cartridge. If smaller bore semi actions are legal we'd immediately see very hot loads made for them. While certainly not in the world of .223 and such, they are more lethal than folks commonly think.

But none of this will happen, not until a whole lot more innocents are slaughtered. People want their toys.

[mzilliox]

You know how some people refer to motorcycles as "bikes" and some people refer to bicycles as "bikes?" It's like that. Assault rifles, as defined in the common lexicon (like in the dictionary) is both a military rifle capable of either automatic or semi-automatic fire AND a semi-automatic rifle that resembles the military weapon. 2A supporters and AR lovers like to take a pedantic stance and berate anti-gun lefties for mischaracterizing the weapons that are commonly being the defacto choice of mass shooters. And anti-gun lefties are latching onto the scary term to rally support because it's a whole fucking lot easier to get people amped about banning assault rifles than it is to have a nuanced debate over what aspects of guns and gun ownership should be regulated for the greater good. And while people get lost in the swirl of semantics, the lack of common nomenclature, and, most dishearteningly (as demonstrated in this thread) a large gulf in perspective as to what the actual problem is, we continue to show the world that if there's one thing we're good at in the U, S, of A, it's putting holes in each other. So, and not to sound like a dick, this whole conversation here and out in the real world would go a lot better if people would stop harping on the labels we use and start focusing on the characteristics of what makes some guns particularly well suited to inflicting maximum damage to maximum targets.

Also, for what it's worth, my grandfather (an expert marksman) trained me to shoot and care for a variety of firearms. I grew up shooting, really enjoyed it and got damn good, if I may say so. I get the desire to collect (my collecting vices aren't restricted to bikes) and the enjoyment of shooting. But the data is pretty clear. The USA is unique among our peers in this problem and something needs to be done.

this, if i havent already said it previously in this thread, the pedantic crap people spout as humble brags about gun knowledge is so boring. lets focus on what the actual problem is. the problem is we have a dysfunctional social relationship to guns in this country that serves nobody at all but gun companies, and people are dying senselessly while others live in constant fear as a result. Whats great or free about either of those things? if someone sees the problem as something different, lets discuss that as well.

[thollandpe]

FBI finds another one, preemptively:



Ohio Man Threatened to Shoot Federal Agents, the F.B.I. found AR-15-style rifles and 10,000 rounds

[sk_tle]

They mention a man, I see a kid who just wiped his mum's milk out of the corner of his mouth.

[Matthew Strongin]

lets focus on what the actual problem is. the problem is we have a dysfunctional social relationship to guns in this country that serves nobody at all but gun companies, and people are dying senselessly while others live in constant fear as a result.

This morning there was a shooting on the group ride I regularly do on Wednesdays. I'm coming down with a cold so I decided to do an easy spin this morning instead, but when I got down to Key Biscayne the roads were shut down.

Miami Herald Article

Details are still unclear, but an altercation between a guy who often rides his motorcycle alongside the group taking photos and videos and one of the cyclists led to the cyclist being shot and in critical condition and the motorcyclist being detained. The fact that one of them was carrying while going out to enjoy a summer morning and that the altercation escalated to a shooting says a lot about our dysfunctional relationship with guns.

[colker]

I understand people have died to preserve freedom and that´s how HIstory has been written BUT... freedom is not watching kids die because an idiot decided to promote apocalypse. You can´t prevent this guy from buying guns under "i want it so i can have it" legislation. This guy is not a criminal... he is just on the verge of losing it and You won´t know untill it happens. One can chose not to watch kids die so the right to shoot big guns is preserved; that´s freedom too.
I understand the american idea is having what you want and not only what you need. It made for a great civilization and a barrier for tiranny. Otoh there should be limits to "want"... The limits are here. Environment is dying. Life is threatened. If our ancestors didn´t preserve their lives and famlies we would not be here.

[jclay]

Sand then I'm greeted by this: Revealed: Republican lawmaker aided group training young men for 'biblical warfare' | World news | The Guardian

Don't know what to say, just shaking my head.