Sensible Gun Safety

[MDlaxfan76]

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

A fair question that is deserving of a productive discourse. I can't say I can point to many examples of that happening! It basically comes down to personal choices and our personal liberty regarding making the choices that feel right to ourselves.

There is certainly a different mindset to someone with a revolver that holds 5-8 cartridges and someone with magazines (I won't go there on the standard vs. high capacity here). I have a real problem with what you allude to as "spray and pray" mindset, which today's law enforcement is being taught. If you fire a single shot, you magdump. The training required and screening for being a barista at Starbucks is more rigorous than that of many law enforcement agencies, especially local and county branches. I am not about defunding the police, but instead retraining the mindset regarding when and why a police involved shooting occurs. Deescalation training and alternative approaches to detaining a suspect would seem like public resources well spent. That video clip of some guy without legs in a wheelchair wielding a knife being mag dumped to death instead of detained almost seemed like some sort of fictional "gotcha" Saturday Night Live skit, it is so surreal.

Have a great day, gents. Off for a trail ride.

Enjoy the trail.

I'm not sure you addressed the question beyond law enforcement. The more relevant issue is why any Tom, Dick, Sally can obtain these weapons easily, store them unsecured, carry them wherever, whenever they want, use them without required training and for no purpose other than what, 'fun'?

I get it that "personal liberty" is the argument, but when does 'public safety' trump "personal liberty"? We regulate and restrict all sorts of "personal liberty" in a civilized society, why not these sorts of weapons?

[NattyBohChamps04]

No you have it wrong yet again. You pasty faced white gun hating liberals will address the ban the AR-15 issue all day long. When I bring up the issue of illegal weapons and what to do about them y'all go total 1960s Duck and Cover. I have a question for y'all. Who kills more people every year in the USA? People with legally owned AR-15s or criminals in possession of illegal weapons?? Y'all are willing to move heaven and earth to prevent one form of gun violence. Preventing that other and most deadly form of gun violence takes you to places your very uncomfortable with.

No you have it wrong yet again. You pasty faced white gun-violence ignoring conservatives don't want to address any of the illegal gun problems. We've talked about it in circles here. Who wants to make people keep their guns locked up? pasty faced liberals. Who wants harsher sentences if your guns are used illegally? pasty faced liberals. Suicide makes up more than half of gun deaths. Who wants an increase in mental health services? pasty faced liberals.

You want to do jack squat and have demonstrated it here for years. Including no practical solution to the inner city gun deaths you love to fake wringing your hands about. Great job man.

[kramerica.inc]

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

A fair question that is deserving of a productive discourse. I can't say I can point to many examples of that happening! It basically comes down to personal choices and our personal liberty regarding making the choices that feel right to ourselves.

There is certainly a different mindset to someone with a revolver that holds 5-8 cartridges and someone with magazines (I won't go there on the standard vs. high capacity here). I have a real problem with what you allude to as "spray and pray" mindset, which today's law enforcement is being taught. If you fire a single shot, you magdump. The training required and screening for being a barista at Starbucks is more rigorous than that of many law enforcement agencies, especially local and county branches. I am not about defunding the police, but instead retraining the mindset regarding when and why a police involved shooting occurs. Deescalation training and alternative approaches to detaining a suspect would seem like public resources well spent. That video clip of some guy without legs in a wheelchair wielding a knife being mag dumped to death instead of detained almost seemed like some sort of fictional "gotcha" Saturday Night Live skit, it is so surreal.

Have a great day, gents. Off for a trail ride.

Enjoy the trail.

I'm not sure you addressed the question beyond law enforcement. The more relevant issue is why any Tom, Dick, Sally can obtain these weapons easily, store them unsecured, carry them wherever, whenever they want, use them without required training and for no purpose other than what, 'fun'?

I get it that "personal liberty" is the argument, but when does 'public safety' trump "personal liberty"? We regulate and restrict all sorts of "personal liberty" in a civilized society, why not these sorts of weapons?

MD, I agree with you. I also assume you care equally about any Tom Dick and Sally in the streets of Baltimore obtaining illegal weapons, storing them unsecured, carrying them wherever, whenever they want, using them without required training, and for no purpose other than...crime? Protection? Part of Illegal drug trade?

I have no problem with gun laws. But lets make sure we spend some time actually enforcing the laws on the books and perhaps ramp up the penalties for bad behavior and really punishing the bad actors and people who do the things you mentioned and act carelessly and dangerously with guns. Not just the people who MIGHT be acting badly.

[NattyBohChamps04]

The main legal need for semi-auto guns is unfortunately for self-defense. Not much need otherwise.

This is the sticky wicket where what one person's definition of a need is affects another person's rights. I respect your take, but you can be assured about one-third of the nation's adult population will disagree with you, and the common and lawful use protections apply.

The only thing we can maybe do regarding gun regulation that doesn't violate 2A is regulate ammo in a meaningful way. Or figure out how to get 2/3 of the states on board with limiting the 2nd.

Ammunition has been defined in courts as an arm. Someone who only has ammo, and not a firearm, owns arms. It is considered part and parcel of the right to keep and bear arms. Carrying this thought through the First Amendment it would be like saying "Well, you have free speech! But you can't use paper, ink, printing presses, internet service, have a website, have a TV network, or radio, or drop leaflets from a balloon. It would be considered a de facto ban on free speech.

I was talking about needs, not rights. There are very few situations where you actually need a semi-auto gun. Self defense (home invasions, wildflife attacks, etc) is pretty much the only need I can think of. And you can proactively avoid most of those situations. Feel free to add your own thoughts as far as the need for a semi-auto handgun or rifle.

We already have legal regulations on ammo (and guns). NFA tax stamps, destructive devices, etc. High explosive ammo is a DD and requires a tax stamp for each round. So yes, in your free speech analogy, we're already saying you legally can't have certain paper, ink, printing presses, and more, either flat out or without going through extra steps, background checks, etc.

I'm personally waiting on the whole brace rulings, but I'm probably gonna have to set up a trust and file a form 1 for one of my pistols. It's also funny to me that a safety device (suppressor) is so highly regulated here but not in many parts of Europe. Makes shooting so much more enjoyable. But I don't mind jumping through the hoops.

[MDlaxfan76]

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

A fair question that is deserving of a productive discourse. I can't say I can point to many examples of that happening! It basically comes down to personal choices and our personal liberty regarding making the choices that feel right to ourselves.

There is certainly a different mindset to someone with a revolver that holds 5-8 cartridges and someone with magazines (I won't go there on the standard vs. high capacity here). I have a real problem with what you allude to as "spray and pray" mindset, which today's law enforcement is being taught. If you fire a single shot, you magdump. The training required and screening for being a barista at Starbucks is more rigorous than that of many law enforcement agencies, especially local and county branches. I am not about defunding the police, but instead retraining the mindset regarding when and why a police involved shooting occurs. Deescalation training and alternative approaches to detaining a suspect would seem like public resources well spent. That video clip of some guy without legs in a wheelchair wielding a knife being mag dumped to death instead of detained almost seemed like some sort of fictional "gotcha" Saturday Night Live skit, it is so surreal.

Have a great day, gents. Off for a trail ride.

Enjoy the trail.

I'm not sure you addressed the question beyond law enforcement. The more relevant issue is why any Tom, Dick, Sally can obtain these weapons easily, store them unsecured, carry them wherever, whenever they want, use them without required training and for no purpose other than what, 'fun'?

I get it that "personal liberty" is the argument, but when does 'public safety' trump "personal liberty"? We regulate and restrict all sorts of "personal liberty" in a civilized society, why not these sorts of weapons?

MD, I agree with you. I also assume you care equally about any Tom Dick and Sally in the streets of Baltimore obtaining illegal weapons, storing them unsecured, carrying them wherever, whenever they want, using them without required training, and for no purpose other than...crime? Protection? Part of Illegal drug trade?

I have no problem with gun laws. But lets make sure we spend some time actually enforcing the laws on the books and perhaps ramp up the penalties for bad behavior and really punishing the bad actors and people who do the things you mentioned and act carelessly and dangerously with guns. Not just the people who MIGHT be acting badly.

of course it's the negative end result of easy access to weapons that is my concern, not lawful acts. Any gun used to commit an illegal act is the issue, not whether the gun was originally purchased legally or not...or whether the last user obtained it illegally or not...it's the usage of the weapon that is the concern.

But how do we reduce these acts? Yes, mental health, poverty, decriminalization of drug trafficking...but when we're talking about assault weapons I think a big part is the restriction on easy access, unsafe storage, etc.

[a fan]

I find shooting to be relaxing, challenging, and satisfying, and it invites an ongoing "journey toward mastery" mindset. There are obviously many genre's of shooting one can engage in, each with its own fan base, and unique challenges and rewards. The act of cleaning and maintenance is something I've always found enjoyable, like anyone changing the oil on a 70's muscle car like my dad used to do might feel. I like tinkering, and doing so with a glass of merlot and some jazz. Passing on the requisite knowledge, safety and respect to the next generation is an important part of the custodial responsibilities of any serious firearm owner.

There's few things more fun that hitting what you're aiming it if you have an ounce of competitive nature in you. And my dad wouldn't take us hunting if we didn't clean our "tools" when we were done. Cleaning and caring for your tools.....regardless of what they are, is indeed mediative. Completely agree with you.

When I was a VERY young hunter.....12 yo......when anyone dared show up with anything other a bolt action rifle for hunting stuff on the ground? They'd get mocked without mercy. It was a serious gun culture that took training, safety, and skill seriously.

It was viewed as the same thing with a guy with the $1000 skis, and the $1 turns: you shouldn't NEED anything more than a shot, maybe two to bring your prey down.

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

You ever watched The Deer Hunter?? One shot was that prophetic line about shooting a deer that carried over to the horrific end of the movie.

Yes! It's like Apocalypse Now for me....I can only watch it about once a decade. Too intense for me. Such great movies!

[cradleandshoot]

I find shooting to be relaxing, challenging, and satisfying, and it invites an ongoing "journey toward mastery" mindset. There are obviously many genre's of shooting one can engage in, each with its own fan base, and unique challenges and rewards. The act of cleaning and maintenance is something I've always found enjoyable, like anyone changing the oil on a 70's muscle car like my dad used to do might feel. I like tinkering, and doing so with a glass of merlot and some jazz. Passing on the requisite knowledge, safety and respect to the next generation is an important part of the custodial responsibilities of any serious firearm owner.

There's few things more fun that hitting what you're aiming it if you have an ounce of competitive nature in you. And my dad wouldn't take us hunting if we didn't clean our "tools" when we were done. Cleaning and caring for your tools.....regardless of what they are, is indeed mediative. Completely agree with you.

When I was a VERY young hunter.....12 yo......when anyone dared show up with anything other a bolt action rifle for hunting stuff on the ground? They'd get mocked without mercy. It was a serious gun culture that took training, safety, and skill seriously.

It was viewed as the same thing with a guy with the $1000 skis, and the $1 turns: you shouldn't NEED anything more than a shot, maybe two to bring your prey down.

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

You ever watched The Deer Hunter?? One shot was that prophetic line about shooting a deer that carried over to the horrific end of the movie.

Yes! It's like Apocalypse Now for me....I can only watch it about once a decade. Too intense for me. Such great movies!

I'm glad you get it. I can't watch The Deer Hunter anymore.

[DMac]

There's few things more fun that hitting what you're aiming it if you have an ounce of competitive nature in you.

Squirrels in a big black walnut tree at about 105 yards with a 30-30 (Winchester lever action...very sweet rifle). Makes for great barn cat food after they drop 15-20 feet from a branch. Patience, gotta wait for 'em to stop hopping around for a minute. Very fun stuff (very rarely miss).

[a fan]

There's few things more fun that hitting what you're aiming it if you have an ounce of competitive nature in you.

Squirrels in a big black walnut tree at about 105 yards with a 30-30 (Winchester lever action...very sweet rifle). Makes for great barn cat food after they drop 15-20 feet from a branch. Patience, gotta wait for 'em to stop hopping around for a minute. Very fun stuff (very rarely miss).

You're WAAAAAY out of my league. I wasn't much of a hunter, so most of my shooting was with a double barrel 20 gauge.

We'd walk the Eastern Colorado prairies for grouse or doves. If we didn't see anything, my dad would pull clay pigeons out of the trunk, and that's when the brotherly competition came out. More than a couple times, the younger brother (me) pouted the whole ride home because he couldn't match his brother.

[cradleandshoot]

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

A fair question that is deserving of a productive discourse. I can't say I can point to many examples of that happening! It basically comes down to personal choices and our personal liberty regarding making the choices that feel right to ourselves.

There is certainly a different mindset to someone with a revolver that holds 5-8 cartridges and someone with magazines (I won't go there on the standard vs. high capacity here). I have a real problem with what you allude to as "spray and pray" mindset, which today's law enforcement is being taught. If you fire a single shot, you magdump. The training required and screening for being a barista at Starbucks is more rigorous than that of many law enforcement agencies, especially local and county branches. I am not about defunding the police, but instead retraining the mindset regarding when and why a police involved shooting occurs. Deescalation training and alternative approaches to detaining a suspect would seem like public resources well spent. That video clip of some guy without legs in a wheelchair wielding a knife being mag dumped to death instead of detained almost seemed like some sort of fictional "gotcha" Saturday Night Live skit, it is so surreal.

Have a great day, gents. Off for a trail ride.

Enjoy the trail.

I'm not sure you addressed the question beyond law enforcement. The more relevant issue is why any Tom, Dick, Sally can obtain these weapons easily, store them unsecured, carry them wherever, whenever they want, use them without required training and for no purpose other than what, 'fun'?

I get it that "personal liberty" is the argument, but when does 'public safety' trump "personal liberty"? We regulate and restrict all sorts of "personal liberty" in a civilized society, why not these sorts of weapons?

I guess everybody has a different opinion on how to have fun. Apparently IYO fun needs to controlled and regulated in accordance to your personal opinion. Got it!!! You have fun blasting ducks out of the sky. Do the ducks suffer as much as the tin cans and silhouette targets? Have you ever asked the ducks how they feel about being blasted out of the sky? They might not think it is alot of fun on their end.

[DMac]

There's few things more fun that hitting what you're aiming it if you have an ounce of competitive nature in you.

Squirrels in a big black walnut tree at about 105 yards with a 30-30 (Winchester lever action...very sweet rifle). Makes for great barn cat food after they drop 15-20 feet from a branch. Patience, gotta wait for 'em to stop hopping around for a minute. Very fun stuff (very rarely miss).

You're WAAAAAY out of my league. I wasn't much of a hunter, so most of my shooting was with a double barrel 20 gauge.

We'd walk the Eastern Colorado prairies for grouse or doves. If we didn't see anything, my dad would pull clay pigeons out of the trunk, and that's when the brotherly competition came out. More than a couple times, the younger brother (me) pouted the whole ride home because he couldn't match his brother.

First time I hit one out in that tree (it's across a field the Mennonite neighbor farms) I really couldn't believe it. A squirrel's not very big at 100 yds to begin with and this guy was flattened out on a branch. A Red Tail had taken a swoop down and this guy flattened out and froze on that branch. They flatten out like a pancake, hug that branch and hang on and don't move, and man do they blend right in. I could rest my rifle on a branch on the other side of the field, put him in the crosshairs but thought there's N*F*W you can hit that, there's just too little to hit and zero room for error. Think I'm safe in saying it was nearly fifteen minutes of putting him in the crosshairs but not pulling the trigger, again, just no way I'm hitting that. Those things freeze for a loooong time when a hawk is in the hood. Finally thought, what the hell difference does it make, just pull the trigger and I did. Really couldn't believe it when he came falling down from that branch. I was absolutely hooked at that point, wanted to see squirrels in that tree when I went out there (redneck son's little Ponderosa) and I haven't missed that shot very many times. Put it in the crosshairs, trust your gun, be steady. That 30-30 is a crazy accurate gun at a pretty good distance. Never did any bird hunting or skeet shooting. One time at one of those skeet courses down in Texas, wasn't very good at it. Those people take that stuff kind of seriously down there.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

A fair question that is deserving of a productive discourse. I can't say I can point to many examples of that happening! It basically comes down to personal choices and our personal liberty regarding making the choices that feel right to ourselves.

There is certainly a different mindset to someone with a revolver that holds 5-8 cartridges and someone with magazines (I won't go there on the standard vs. high capacity here). I have a real problem with what you allude to as "spray and pray" mindset, which today's law enforcement is being taught. If you fire a single shot, you magdump. The training required and screening for being a barista at Starbucks is more rigorous than that of many law enforcement agencies, especially local and county branches. I am not about defunding the police, but instead retraining the mindset regarding when and why a police involved shooting occurs. Deescalation training and alternative approaches to detaining a suspect would seem like public resources well spent. That video clip of some guy without legs in a wheelchair wielding a knife being mag dumped to death instead of detained almost seemed like some sort of fictional "gotcha" Saturday Night Live skit, it is so surreal.

Have a great day, gents. Off for a trail ride.

Enjoy the trail.

I'm not sure you addressed the question beyond law enforcement. The more relevant issue is why any Tom, Dick, Sally can obtain these weapons easily, store them unsecured, carry them wherever, whenever they want, use them without required training and for no purpose other than what, 'fun'?

I get it that "personal liberty" is the argument, but when does 'public safety' trump "personal liberty"? We regulate and restrict all sorts of "personal liberty" in a civilized society, why not these sorts of weapons?

I think the problem for many people is about numbers. What I'll share which I did in my lengthy post before is not intended to raise hackles, nor in my opinion make me deserving of censure along the lines of "JFC, you don't care schoolchildren are being slaughtered?". In terms of Tom, Dick and Sally, there are if we just parcel out AR-15 ownership 25,000,000 Americans, owning 44,000,000 rifles. And while some owners are stupid, and do some less than responsible stuff, the number of AR-15s used criminally for committing mass murder atrocities total 50 to date in the annals of the approximately 200 Mass Public Shootings in America since 1966. As you have pointed out, there is a trend in the more recent say 20 years of more such rifles being utilized. As I have pointed out there is research that a notable factor of contagion/copycat correlates with this rise, along with new societal factors such as powerful prescription medicines, social changes, and other things. We may need to agree to disagree on the relative lethality of AR-15s versus the other handguns, shotguns and rifles of differing calibers and mechanical capabilities which have been utilized in the commission of these crimes. The article I had posted a link to regarding the AR's lethality confirms what most of us familiar with firearm ballistics know: AR-15 rounds trend toward the lower third-ish end of the power spectrum. Another way to say it is there are tons of OTHER non AR-15 firearms eminently capable of being deployed by monsters to commit horrific criminal atrocities. It's certainly been a banner week, with the NYT's ammo article Sunday and ghoulish WaPo article yesterday, for keeping the AR-15 in the crosshairs of anti-gun interests. What anyone who believes ballistic reality understands, the WaPo article could have just as easily been written and printed with posted photographs of "non AR-15 utilized" mass public shootings crime scenes, titled "Look at how non-AR-15 firearms can kill innocent people" and absolutely and of course the heart string tugging and soul sapping reality of the carnage would have been sickeningly similar and sad to any person with a heart, conscience and soul. Mass Public Shootings, statistically (again, don't shoot the messenger) are what statisticians term "Black Swan Events". Despite the headlines, and amount of oxygen they take up in the criminal violence and murder room, they are outliers. This does not forgive the perpetrators nor does it help those whose lives are taken, and their loved ones and communities left to pick up pieces and try to move on from something which there is no healing from. So where am I endeavoring to end up? With a wish for a call for action strategy which focuses on the root causes and known toolkit which can, has, and will off ramp and intercept these monsters before they are able to pick up...anything. How making criminals out of 25,000,000 law abiding American adults is going to stop monsters from being monsters I do not know. A new documentary, behind a paywall, came out last week. The trailer can be watched on YouTube. Search for "Infringed Promo Parkland" should you care to take a peek. It features a father who's daughter was killed in one of the most egregious cases of "why the actual F aren't we using the toolkit we have?" mass public shootings of all time. About 100 offramp/interception opportunities in the YEARS leading up to that gut wrenching act. Whether I have addressed your question above, I don't know. I just can't get the math to work for a mass infringement when so few rifles are being utilized criminally, and so many tools exist which are gathering dust.

Should anyone be interested on "Contagion", this article is one I find to be well reasoned and enlightening.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Given that....why should we be supplying these multi-round rifles to anyone? To what end? We might as well make Bows that fire four arrows at a time, if you ask me.

Those rifles that the "gun-grabbers" want off our streets are basically saying: I have no skill with this gun, and not only am I going to miss, I don't care what else that I"m not aiming at gets hit.

Why isn't THIS part of the conversation for folks who take their shooting with any seriousness?

Just curious what your thoughts are, because it's baffled me.

A fair question that is deserving of a productive discourse. I can't say I can point to many examples of that happening! It basically comes down to personal choices and our personal liberty regarding making the choices that feel right to ourselves.

There is certainly a different mindset to someone with a revolver that holds 5-8 cartridges and someone with magazines (I won't go there on the standard vs. high capacity here). I have a real problem with what you allude to as "spray and pray" mindset, which today's law enforcement is being taught. If you fire a single shot, you magdump. The training required and screening for being a barista at Starbucks is more rigorous than that of many law enforcement agencies, especially local and county branches. I am not about defunding the police, but instead retraining the mindset regarding when and why a police involved shooting occurs. Deescalation training and alternative approaches to detaining a suspect would seem like public resources well spent. That video clip of some guy without legs in a wheelchair wielding a knife being mag dumped to death instead of detained almost seemed like some sort of fictional "gotcha" Saturday Night Live skit, it is so surreal.

Have a great day, gents. Off for a trail ride.

Enjoy the trail.

I'm not sure you addressed the question beyond law enforcement. The more relevant issue is why any Tom, Dick, Sally can obtain these weapons easily, store them unsecured, carry them wherever, whenever they want, use them without required training and for no purpose other than what, 'fun'?

I get it that "personal liberty" is the argument, but when does 'public safety' trump "personal liberty"? We regulate and restrict all sorts of "personal liberty" in a civilized society, why not these sorts of weapons?

I think the problem for many people is about numbers. What I'll share which I did in my lengthy post before is not intended to raise hackles, nor in my opinion make me deserving of censure along the lines of "JFC, you don't care schoolchildren are being slaughtered?". In terms of Tom, Dick and Sally, there are if we just parcel out AR-15 ownership 25,000,000 Americans, owning 44,000,000 rifles. And while some owners are stupid, and do some less than responsible stuff, the number of AR-15s used criminally for committing mass murder atrocities total 50 to date in the annals of the approximately 200 Mass Public Shootings in America since 1966. As you have pointed out, there is a trend in the more recent say 20 years of more such rifles being utilized. As I have pointed out there is research that a notable factor of contagion/copycat correlates with this rise, along with new societal factors such as powerful prescription medicines, social changes, and other things. We may need to agree to disagree on the relative lethality of AR-15s versus the other handguns, shotguns and rifles of differing calibers and mechanical capabilities which have been utilized in the commission of these crimes. The article I had posted a link to regarding the AR's lethality confirms what most of us familiar with firearm ballistics know: AR-15 rounds trend toward the lower third-ish end of the power spectrum. Another way to say it is there are tons of OTHER non AR-15 firearms eminently capable of being deployed by monsters to commit horrific criminal atrocities, and they have been in 75% of Mass Public Shootings.

It's certainly been a banner week, with the NYT's ammo article Sunday and ghoulish WaPo article yesterday, for keeping the AR-15 in the crosshairs of anti-gun interests. What anyone who believes ballistic reality understands, the WaPo article could have just as easily been written and printed with posted photographs of "non AR-15 utilized" mass public shootings crime scenes, titled "Look at how non-AR-15 firearms can kill innocent people" and absolutely and of course the heart string tugging and soul sapping reality of the carnage would have been sickeningly similar and sad to any person with a heart, conscience and soul. Here is a commentary by a guy who has a very good podcast. He is pro 2A, but has guests on his show who are anti 2A and in favor of gun bans. He shows how someone can be mature, civil, thoughtful and respectful when "waging arguments". It's a rarity in any discourse - you name the topic - in American life today. His WaPo analysis:

https://thereload.com/analysis-the-wash ... er-photos/

Mass Public Shootings, statistically (again, don't shoot the messenger) are what statisticians might term "Black Swan Events" in terms of criminal homicide in America year in year out. The sensationalist headlines and amount of oxygen Mass Public Shootings "hog up" in press, political, social and lobbying interests arena, are wildly disproportionate to their occurrence. That sounds awful and insensitive to even posit and type, but brings up two valid questions: Why so much oxygen for Mass Public Shootings? Why so little oxygen for the other? The last published year of the FBI Criminal Justice Division (2019 - hey get going FBI and update!) there were 14,000 murders. 10,000 were by firearm. Breakdown by known type: 6,500 by handgun, 1,500 by bladed weapons, 600 by hands, fists, feet, 400 by hammers, and 364 by ALL rifles. With regard to Mass Public Shootings, this does not forgive the perpetrators nor does it help those whose lives are taken, and their loved ones and communities left to pick up pieces and try to move on from something which there is no healing from. It does point to at least the need for conversations regarding why so much oxygen and policy and keenly desired restrictions pointed in one place - where an overwhelming number of owners of a particular weapon type are law-abiding and have never committed a crime - and so little oxygen expended elsewhere where the vast majority of criminal homicidal violence, and violence with a firearm, are being perpetrated? When one side of an issue is wildly and vehemently "passionate" and "emotional" in what I perceive is an "oxygen disproportion" manner, it makes my personal "What is really going on here?" radar start to go beep, beep, beep. I realize even admitting that proves I'm that right wing wing nut conspiracy theory prepper you guys know I really am, but as I've said, I have a curious mind and like to try to think and research about things I'm keenly interested in. You should see my research on truffles!

So where am I endeavoring to end up? With a wish for a call for action strategy which focuses on the root causes and known toolkit which can, has, and will off ramp and intercept these monsters before they are able to pick up...ANYTHING, AR or otherwise. How making criminals out of 25,000,000 law abiding American adults is going to stop monsters from being monsters I do not know. A new documentary, behind a paywall, came out last week. The trailer can be watched on YouTube. Search for "Infringed Promo Parkland" should you care to take a peek. It features a father whose daughter was killed in one of the most egregious cases of "Why the actual F aren't we using the toolkit we have?" mass public shootings of all time.

He is shown popping off his AR-15, and he's angry about - the nearly 100 missed offramp/interception opportunities in the YEARS leading up to that gut wrenching act which took his daughter from him. Unconscionable failures by school administrators, law enforcement, and mental health professionals allowed Parkland to happen. And that same sad and maddening truth exists for the majority of Mass Public Shootings. Maine is already destined to become a sickeningly textbook example of failed intervention opportunities. The offramp toolkit sat gathering dust, while a monster who was telegraphing his intent went unchecked. Military, Law Enforcement, Social Services, Family. All knew. None acted. How many ding, ding, dinging early warning signs should it take until the vigorous utilization of the languishing Anti Mass Public Shooting toolkit becomes the number one focus in the consciousness of the public, policy makers, and press?

Whether I have addressed your question above, I don't know. I just can't get the math to work for a mass infringement when so few rifles are being utilized criminally, and so many tools exist which are gathering dust that could - via post incident assessment research - stop the majority of Mass Public Shootings before ANY caliber shot from ANY type of firearm is ever fired.

Should anyone be interested on "Contagion", this article is one I find to be well reasoned and enlightening:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Thought a focused discussion on one thing which bothers me in the search for answers and solutions to the Mass Public Shooting vessel (which is a tiny vessel) of America's criminal homicidal violence container. Why can't a bipartisan bill be pushed through and signed by the president - it should take all of 24 hours start to finish - which strips Mass Public Shooters (dead or alive, as well as those off ramped and intercepted who were planning/leaking/telegraphing intent) of their HIPPA protections? This is a public health crisis, so let's treat it as such. The problem? The last 25+ years of changes resulting in our now twisted medical establishment & insurance framework, the mental health and psychiatry "industry", and the meteoric rise of what I like to think of as the "pharmaceutical industrial complex" (Aka "Assault Pharma").

We do animal testing to make sure lipstick is safe. But we can't do human testing and lose our minds regarding "privacy is sacrosanct" in order to get information about the animal perpetrators of these crimes in which mental health is implicated in a vast majority of cases?

Of course not, when hundreds of billions of PROFITS annually are at stake - and politicians and wealthy owners and shareholders (such as those here will likely find in their private banking investment and 401k accounts) are at the trough. I've dug into this granular aspect of the "what is CAUSING mass public shooters to shoot" using my curious brain and it strikes me as something that needs further research, better understanding, and %$#*! immediate attention.

We all remember years ago reading about the controversy over black box warnings, as SSRI's were being correlated with a spate of suicides, suicidal ideation, violent fantasies, and hallucinatory psychoses. The guy in Maine was hearing voices telling him to kill while on a military base, FFS!

I haven't read this book, but I had heard about it and at least found a review of it. I know, lazy indolent research. Guilty. Anyways, it is interesting to me and I'll probably give it a go. The reviewer gets to homicide and suicide a ways down in the review.

https://www.positivehealth.com/review/d ... sed-denial

Anyways, just throwing this one out there for consideration and comment. Have a good weekend, gents.

[MDlaxfan76]

yeah, it's really more powerful prescription medications. I guess we have more of these in America than in any other developed country...

I've asked numerous times with no answer what aspect of one's enjoyment of handling an AR-15 or similar high capacity 'assault' weapon would be lost if the use and storage was confined to well regulated gun ranges?

There are other weapons better suited for hunting, others better suited for home and personal protection, even others better suited for precision target sport, so what are we really talking about?

What aspect of one's enjoyment of guns would be lost if safe gun storage was legally required? What aspect is lost if ALL gun sales must be registered?

ETC.

You know what would be lost?
Profits from sales of these weapons.

Nice boost in the business of running gun ranges, though. Gun safe sales would benefit, too.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

I've asked numerous times with no answer what aspect of one's enjoyment of handling an AR-15 or similar high capacity 'assault' weapon would be lost if the use and storage was confined to well regulated gun ranges?

I'm not trying to dodge answering. It's a highly personal question, and subjective, and for 25,000,000 law-abiding citizens (broken record here) you're going to get myriad answer vectors for primary and secondary reasons regarding enjoyment. Personally, shooting outdoors, not at ranges, and in most cases on public lands is my most meaningful enjoyment for a firearm shooting, including with an AR-15. And I understand many feeling a need for "Why", but that's not how things work for all of the personal liberty choices we all exercise daily in this country in every single act and choice we make from the moment we awaken, dress, eat, work, play, move, and interact, until we lay our heads down on our pillow at night.

There are other weapons better suited for hunting, others better suited for home and personal protection, even others better suited for precision target sport, so what are we really talking about?

Well, "better suited" is subjective, and presumes everyone else must assess a personal and free choice the way you do.

What aspect of one's enjoyment of guns would be lost if safe gun storage was legally required?
Let's turn our minds back to when firearm safety was taught generationally in homes, schools, Boy Scouts, clubs. Safe storage and handling were "laws". I have an issue with the way firearm ownership is being portrayed these days as some sort of social and mental defect. Instead of pointing out the responsibilities inherent to firearm ownership, there appears to be a concerted effort to undermine the education, safety, and utilization "laws" in place and in practice for hundreds of years. Call me a paranoid tin foil hat wearing nut job, but it seems like an entire younger generation is being condition to be fearful of and loath firearms and thus by proxy firearm owners. Safe storage is smart. Creating a "safe storage subsidy" or "free storage devices" within a government "Safe Firearm Usage Education and Storage" department would be something I would applaud. Let's demystify and de-demonize firearm ownership, and get the public educated.

What aspect is lost if ALL gun sales must be registered?

Hot button legally & constitutionally. Not enough time or coffee to even scratch the surface. Understand and acknowledge the question.

ETC.

You know what would be lost?
Profits from sales of these weapons.

Nice boost in the business of running gun ranges, though. Gun safe sales would benefit, too.

In terms of running gun ranges, I am not sure if you realize America's range infrastructure is tiny in comparison to the amount of firearm owners and firearms, and is crumbling, and under attack from communities and policies designed to put them out of business and prevent new ranges from being opened. I will encourage you to google around on that. Three out of four ranges I've ever visited I wouldn't ever return to, nor even begin to feel confident they could so much as handle the storage of a Red Ryder BB gun.

The sales/profit of AR-15 question is valid. It is the most popular sporting rifle in America. I just did some quick Googling. Don't hold me to the results. Annually the firearm industry in America is estimated to make about $9 billion in profits. Sales (not profits) for the past DECADE of all AR-15 rifles have totaled $1 billion. So, unless I'm mistaken, there is a whole lot of profits of the firearm industry that have nothing to do with AR-15s. Let's not forget that the AR platform design going back to origins was to be inexpensive, easy to clean, modular, and easy to maintain inexpensively. It's a low profit margin item for firearm dealers.

Quick aside (which you folks know I like): Big Pharma made $110 billion in profits last year and paid $2 billion in taxes. I got that from google so don't hold me to it.

You bring up valid questions, and I respect your right to do so. What has always been apparent to me related to anything guns is how the more one looks and gathers information, the more complicated, nuanced, sometimes confusing the data can be, and how this nearly always this incites a science versus emotion cage fight, with special interests on both sides as the promoters.

[DMac]

MDlax wrote

I've asked numerous times with no answer what aspect of one's enjoyment of handling an AR-15 or similar high capacity 'assault' weapon would be lost if the use and storage was confined to well regulated gun ranges?

Hell raising. I'd bet the majority who like to play with AR15s (or similar high capacity assault weapons) would quickly tire of firing ranges. Too many rules, they want to see how much damage they can do, targets downrange aren't going to do that. What can I rip up, tear up and blow up with this thing is more the mentality, IMO. Throw a few of these out there when playing and you've got yourself a fun day.
https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/sonic-b ... 576a08da39

[youthathletics]

MDlax wrote

I've asked numerous times with no answer what aspect of one's enjoyment of handling an AR-15 or similar high capacity 'assault' weapon would be lost if the use and storage was confined to well regulated gun ranges?

Hell raising. I'd bet the majority who like to play with AR15s (or similar high capacity assault weapons) would quickly tire of firing ranges. Too many rules, they want to see how much damage they can do, targets downrange aren't going to do that. What can I rip up, tear up and blow up with this thing is more the mentality, IMO. Throw a few of these out there when playing and you've got yourself a fun day.
https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/sonic-b ... 576a08da39

Have this going on almost every Saturday behind our place.

[MDlaxfan76]

I've asked numerous times with no answer what aspect of one's enjoyment of handling an AR-15 or similar high capacity 'assault' weapon would be lost if the use and storage was confined to well regulated gun ranges?

I'm not trying to dodge answering. It's a highly personal question, and subjective, and for 25,000,000 law-abiding citizens (broken record here) you're going to get myriad answer vectors for primary and secondary reasons regarding enjoyment. Personally, shooting outdoors, not at ranges, and in most cases on public lands is my most meaningful enjoyment for a firearm shooting, including with an AR-15. And I understand many feeling a need for "Why", but that's not how things work for all of the personal liberty choices we all exercise daily in this country in every single act and choice we make from the moment we awaken, dress, eat, work, play, move, and interact, until we lay our heads down on our pillow at night.

There are other weapons better suited for hunting, others better suited for home and personal protection, even others better suited for precision target sport, so what are we really talking about?

Well, "better suited" is subjective, and presumes everyone else must assess a personal and free choice the way you do.

What aspect of one's enjoyment of guns would be lost if safe gun storage was legally required?
Let's turn our minds back to when firearm safety was taught generationally in homes, schools, Boy Scouts, clubs. Safe storage and handling were "laws". I have an issue with the way firearm ownership is being portrayed these days as some sort of social and mental defect. Instead of pointing out the responsibilities inherent to firearm ownership, there appears to be a concerted effort to undermine the education, safety, and utilization "laws" in place and in practice for hundreds of years. Call me a paranoid tin foil hat wearing nut job, but it seems like an entire younger generation is being condition to be fearful of and loath firearms and thus by proxy firearm owners. Safe storage is smart. Creating a "safe storage subsidy" or "free storage devices" within a government "Safe Firearm Usage Education and Storage" department would be something I would applaud. Let's demystify and de-demonize firearm ownership, and get the public educated.

What aspect is lost if ALL gun sales must be registered?

Hot button legally & constitutionally. Not enough time or coffee to even scratch the surface. Understand and acknowledge the question.

ETC.

You know what would be lost?
Profits from sales of these weapons.

Nice boost in the business of running gun ranges, though. Gun safe sales would benefit, too.

In terms of running gun ranges, I am not sure if you realize America's range infrastructure is tiny in comparison to the amount of firearm owners and firearms, and is crumbling, and under attack from communities and policies designed to put them out of business and prevent new ranges from being opened. I will encourage you to google around on that. Three out of four ranges I've ever visited I wouldn't ever return to, nor even begin to feel confident they could so much as handle the storage of a Red Ryder BB gun.

The sales/profit of AR-15 question is valid. It is the most popular sporting rifle in America. I just did some quick Googling. Don't hold me to the results. Annually the firearm industry in America is estimated to make about $9 billion in profits. Sales (not profits) for the past decade of all AR-15 rifles have totaled $1 billion. So, unless I'm mistaken, there is a whole lot of profits of the firearm industry that have nothing to do with AR-15s. Let's not forget that the AR platform design going back to origins was to be inexpensive, easy to clean, modular, and easy to maintain inexpensively. It's a low profit margin item for firearm dealers.

Quick aside (which you folks know I like): Big Pharma made $110 billion in profits last year and paid $2 billion in taxes. I got that from google so don't hold me to it.

You bring up valid questions, and I respect your right to do so. What has always been apparent to me related to anything guns is how the more one looks and gathers information, the more complicated, nuanced, sometimes confusing the data can be, and how this nearly always this incites a science versus emotion cage fight, with special interests on both sides as the promoters.

So, usage on "public lands" is enjoyable for AR-15 usage.."personal liberty"....so.. "freedumb". That's what is lost by restricting usage to well regulated gun ranges?

"Hot button legally and constitutionally"; that's the answer to what is lost if ALL gun sales must be registered? Freedumb argument.

Better suited is "subjective"? Really? I haven't heard any sort of compelling argument that an AR-15 or similar high capacity "assault" weapon is better suited for hunting or precision target sport. Nope, nada.

One could make an argument that an AR-15 has advantages for home protection if one's home was under assault by numerous armed offenders, a "warfare" situation, just as it is better suited for mass murder events or warfare generally, but not for "enjoyment" other than the sensation of being able to destroy numerous targets very fast...do it in a well regulated gun range...but oh yeah, freedumb argument again.

You sound like an employee of the firearm industry. Maybe you're not, but you've definitely been drinking their koolaid.

More than $11 Billion in gun store sales. And that doesn't include the resale at gun shows. The industry overall is close to $30 Billion in the US, but much of that is military as well.

The industry itself claims some even higher numbers. I'm certainly no expert as to what the exact numbers are but there was huge growth in the industry after 2008: https://shootingindustry.com/discover/u ... oday-2023/

Wanna talk about the Pharma industry? Interesting topic, but at least that industry is in the business of healthcare. Different topic thread as to whether that industry is properly regulated, etc. Very dumb argument that prescription medications are turning Americans into mass murderers but not in other countries.

Your primary argument (other than freedumb) is "enjoyment". Better to compare to entertainment industry. Movies, games, etc. But what other entertainment industry segment produces products designed to kill?

As to my idea of restricting usage of these weapons to well regulated gun ranges and the boon it would be for entrepreneurs in that industry, sounds like you agree with me that there would be a very substantial demand if usage and storage was restricted to such. Sure, your local upscale suburban or urban neighborhood is not likely to be welcoming to gun ranges, and with low demand currently, the current industry is filled with some lowlife businesses. But imagine what demand would be if restricted to well run, well regulated, safe and secure businesses. Yes, those businesses would need to be located in places that require a bit of travel (i.e. like those "public lands") where such usage doesn't bother the neighbors. Yup. Can't use those weapons legally in those local urban and suburban residential neighborhoods anyway.

And sure, government subsidies for safe storage might be a good way to couple fines and even removal of gun ownership privileges if such care is not taken. Especially appropriate for those with less than high affluence, make it easy and affordable to store guns safely. I'm also saying that these "assault style" weapons should only be stored in a government regulated facility, not in the home.

Meanwhile, if you want to shoot outdoors, mostly on public lands, continue to do so as a registered, well trained, licensed gun owner. Just not with assault style weapons. Breathe that fresh air.

IMO, we need to shift our gun culture in America away from misguided "freedumb" notions of a "right" to gun usage being a "privilege". Privileges need to be earned through proper training, ongoing demonstration of care and safety, and may be subject to fine for minor errors and removed if such are offended egregiously. You and I and a fan, and indeed most gun owners would have relatively little difficulty in earning and maintaining such privileges, just as we would have little difficulty in earning the privilege of driving a car, or with additional training, driving a truck tractor trailer.

You are concerned with young people being turned off by guns? Might the gun industry lose some profits?
Yup.

But, if you legitimately want to teach young people how to respect gun usage, then make it respectable. Make it much safer, much less of the special threat guns have in America versus the rest of the developed world. Make it a privilege that one earns.

[MDlaxfan76]

MDlax wrote

I've asked numerous times with no answer what aspect of one's enjoyment of handling an AR-15 or similar high capacity 'assault' weapon would be lost if the use and storage was confined to well regulated gun ranges?

Hell raising. I'd bet the majority who like to play with AR15s (or similar high capacity assault weapons) would quickly tire of firing ranges. Too many rules, they want to see how much damage they can do, targets downrange aren't going to do that. What can I rip up, tear up and blow up with this thing is more the mentality, IMO. Throw a few of these out there when playing and you've got yourself a fun day.
https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/sonic-b ... 576a08da39

Yup, a lot of ways to enjoy "hell raising", but this is one that should be discouraged generally. Of course, there could also be gun ranges where there's a "hell raising" component available, yet safely managed and maintained.