General What gun regulations do you support?

[Never_Rolled]

Gray squirrels are native, so there's no shooting them in city limits. Outside of that, you'd need a hunting license.

We use pellet guns for green iguanas and all the other invasive reptiles.

Killed one (gray tree rat) on my patio with a German Diana (RWS) pellet gun. Had to pick it up with a shovel and put it in a garbage bag and hose down the blood. More of a PITA than I thought.

Come at me bro!

 

[Filthy]

I think you are confusing weapons and firearms. I do not own any weapons. If you are just generalizing the word weapons then we ALL have hundreds of weapons in our homes.

No infringements on an individual's right to keep or bear any armament.

thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

 

[sparkuri]

My view is that guns are awesome toys, maybe one of the most fun toys a grown up can play with. Most people who I know who own guns own them because of this fact.

I literally do not know a single person that fits this description.
We hunt elk, quarter it, use almost every piece but the head for food. These are higher caliber eg .308 ,30-06.
Sidearms are for street protection, scatter guns are home protection, and Ar's are for medium range practice against, yep, tyranny, or mass chaos & family protection.
They are the most useful tool if shtf regarding protection, and accurate as hell.
We clean & sight them when time allows.
I know no one that thinks of them as a "toy", other than in gest when one says "check out my new toy", as they would a ski-doo or new car.

I shoot my AR once a year either in the forest for sighting or at a range blowing up tannerite or flash bombs we make.

Bullets are expensive.
I find zero thrill in pulling a trigger, I just see money flying out a barrel.

This post & POV is ...I dunno, scary, in that it can dictate policy if believed.
Then we get what we've always got with tyranny and protests worldwide.
Molotov cocktails & leftover fireworks that do nothing to change anything.

There's a reason countries maintain nukes & military.
The exact same reason private citizens maintain thier firearms.
The threat of M.A.D.

 

[Never_Rolled]

I literally do not know a single person that fits this description.
We hunt elk, quarter it, use almost every piece but the head for food. These are higher caliber eg .308 ,30-06.
Sidearms are for street protection, scatter guns are home protection, and Ar's are for medium range practice against, yep, tyranny, or mass chaos & family protection.
They are the most useful tool if shtf regarding protection, and accurate as hell.
We clean & sight them when time allows.
I know no one that thinks of them as a "toy", other than in gest when one says "check out my new toy", as they would a ski-doo or new car.

I shoot my AR once a year either in the forest for sighting or at a range blowing up tannerite or flash bombs we make.

Bullets are expensive.
I find zero thrill in pulling a trigger, I just see money flying out a barrel.

This post & POV is ...I dunno, scary, in that it can dictate policy if believed.
Then we get what we've always got with tyranny and protests worldwide.
Molotov cocktails & leftover fireworks that do nothing to change anything.

There's a reason countries maintain nukes & military.
The exact same reason private citizens maintain thier firearms.
The threat of M.A.D.

I always feel better going home with ammo I intended to use at the range. I collect ammo like stocks. I have about 5k rounds all different cals. I buy in bulk on sale. The only thing I've bought the wasn't on sale and hard to find was 6.8spc I was an early adopter. Happy about that one not so much on my 40 cal stuff. 40 cal guns aren't worth shit now.

 

[sparkuri]

I always feel better going home with ammo I intended to use at the range. I collect ammo like stocks. I have about 5k rounds all different cals. I buy in bulk on sale. The only thing I've bought the wasn't on sale and hard to find was 6.8spc I was an early adopter. Happy about that one not so much on my 40 cal stuff. 40 cal guns aren't worth shit now.

That's cool, although I feel a bit differently about .40 use.
God forbid anything were ever to hit the fan, most LE use .40 cal, so if one of them were hurt or hit/unable to use their ammo, I could, either to protect them or myself.
This is the only reason my next sidearm will be an LE compatible. 40 cal.
I carry 9mm & .45 & have plenty of ammo, home defense rounds for both, & hundreds of rounds for each of brass "plink" fmj.
I've got a thousand rounds of steel .223 for my 5.56, but might as well throw that shit out before it causes any more damage than it already has.
I bought it for $300 for sighting, but it's shit.
Now nothing but the best goes in that.
Got "armor piercing", tracer, etc.
I use my Cabela's card, then use my points on ammo once a year.

 

[Never_Rolled]

That's cool, although I feel a bit differently about .40 use.
God forbid anything were ever to hit the fan, most LE use .40 cal, so if one of them were hurt or hit/unable to use their ammo, I could, either to protect them or myself.
This is the only reason my next sidearm will be an LE compatible. 40 cal.
I carry 9mm & .45 & have plenty of ammo, home defense rounds for both, & hundreds of rounds for each of brass "plink" fmj.
I've got a thousand rounds of steel .223 for my 5.56, but might as well throw that shit out before it causes any more damage than it already has.
I bought it for $300 for sighting, but it's shit.
Now nothing but the best goes in that.
Got "armor piercing", tracer, etc.
I use my Cabela's card, then use my points on ammo once a year.

I also carry a .40 (G27) but regret it. I can change a few things and make it a 9mm. (G26) but for some reason I don't. I have never shot steel BTW. You could just sell it and be glad you got rid of it. Someone will want it, they always do.

 

[kneeblock]

The problem with this conclusion is it's very obviously an emotional reaction and not a pragmatic one. I find it generally concern that the further restriction crowd says "Well, we need to ban "ABC" and I guess work on the root causes if we have time to get around with it." Banning firearms to solve a homicide problem is a facile approach.

I'm also curious how you would define a "Hunting" rifle or shotgun.

What I'm saying is the body politic has shown that it has no interest in taking any meaningful action to deal with the root causes. Powerful interests, in this country at least, have poured money into making sure we do very little about inequality, poverty, and trauma. They've neutered access to screening, care, and ongoing support for mental health issues, have deprioritized education which might help change some folks outlook and eligibility for opportunity, and have basically pushed an ideology of every man for himself and if you can't figure out how to make it work, you're screwed. Then those same interests also tell people they can play with any toy they want, so long as they pay top dollar, including those that have little purpose outside killing.

So I agree limiting firearm access is a crude and minimal gesture, but it's not based on feelings, it's based on realpolitik. It's based on the fact that the best we can do is at least limit one corporate sector from enjoying unlimited prosperity the same way we did to the tobacco industry, albeit in ways that still allow them to function in capitalism. You have the benefit of living in a comparatively much more civilized country, so I think it might be hard to understand why and how the underlying is so far off the agenda in the US.

 

[Filthy]

What I'm saying is the body politic has shown that it has no interest in taking any meaningful action to deal with the root causes. Powerful interests, in this country at least, have poured money into making sure we do very little about inequality, poverty, and trauma. They've neutered access to screening, care, and ongoing support for mental health issues, have deprioritized education which might help change some folks outlook and eligibility for opportunity, and have basically pushed an ideology of every man for himself and if you can't figure out how to make it work, you're screwed. Then those same interests also tell people they can play with any toy they want, so long as they pay top dollar, including those that have little purpose outside killing.

So I agree limiting firearm access is a crude and minimal gesture, but it's not based on feelings, it's based on realpolitik. It's based on the fact that the best we can do is at least limit one corporate sector from enjoying unlimited prosperity the same way we did to the tobacco industry, albeit in ways that still allow them to function in capitalism. You have the benefit of living in a comparatively much more civilized country, so I think it might be hard to understand why and how the underlying is so far off the agenda in the US.

imagine a world where people don't do what you say to do just because you said to do it.

How are we doing at 'limiting the prosperity' of drug dealers and prostitutes? Don't confuse driving a business in to the black market with placing a limitation on it's prosperity. I'd say the opposite is true. Eric Garner is dead because he was participating in the tobacco black market and ran afoul of selective (and aggressive) enforcement.

Now imagine that with firearms instead of cigarettes.

 

[Splinty]

I literally do not know a single person that fits this description.

It's probably at the top of my reason for owning them.
Not the only one but definitely the underlying reason I find it a great hobby.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

What I'm saying is the body politic has shown that it has no interest in taking any meaningful action to deal with the root causes. Powerful interests, in this country at least, have poured money into making sure we do very little about inequality, poverty, and trauma. They've neutered access to screening, care, and ongoing support for mental health issues, have deprioritized education which might help change some folks outlook and eligibility for opportunity, and have basically pushed an ideology of every man for himself and if you can't figure out how to make it work, you're screwed. Then those same interests also tell people they can play with any toy they want, so long as they pay top dollar, including those that have little purpose outside killing.

So I agree limiting firearm access is a crude and minimal gesture, but it's not based on feelings, it's based on realpolitik. It's based on the fact that the best we can do is at least limit one corporate sector from enjoying unlimited prosperity the same way we did to the tobacco industry, albeit in ways that still allow them to function in capitalism. You have the benefit of living in a comparatively much more civilized country, so I think it might be hard to understand why and how the underlying is so far off the agenda in the US.

Here's what you don't realize. Everytime an American kills a large group of people the ratchet clicks one notch tighter on gun owners here. The incumbent party is importing your problems and running on a a platform of handgun and AR15 confiscation. When we implemented gun control measures not too far from what you're suggesting we were told "Trust us and you'll see it'll fix everything." It fixed nothing. Not only did it fix nothing but they keep going back to the same well trying to fix the same problems they were supposed to have addressed 20 some years ago. It's easy for you to propose solutions that don't effect you because you aren't the one being marginalized by society and forced to the edges.

 

[Filthy]

Some Folks: Why would anyone need a military-style weapon?

Same Folks: OMG GUYS THE FEDGOV IS RUNNING CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!

 

[tang]

You don't need a driver's license to own a car, you only need a driver's license to operate a car on public roads.



How did you arrive at the 50 caliber conclusion?

The process of getting the license is to screen people, like the process of enlisting in the military, you don’t let any average shmoe in it.

I was talking about 50 caliber from high-powered rifle, not pistol round. In the military, 50 caliber weapons are used for anti-armor purpose, there is no need for that for civilians.

You can probably take down a bear with 45, 7.62x54, or 30-06, what else would you need a higher caliber than those?

 

[Wild]

I'm of the opinion that firearm handling training, and being able to pass a background check is a good idea. Beyond that the idea that a person is "too dangerous" to be trusted with a firearm would also imply they're probably too dangerous to be roaming free in society.

This with extensive background checks.

 

[Filthy]

This with extensive background checks.

which of the mass shooters would have been stopped by 'more extensive' background checks?
Not being an asshole this time, just can't think of any...either they stole the gun or they passed the background checks, IIRC.

 

[Filthy]

The process of getting the license is to screen people, like the process of enlisting in the military, you don’t let any average shmoe in it.

I was talking about 50 caliber from high-powered rifle, not pistol round. In the military, 50 caliber weapons are used for anti-armor purpose, there is no need for that for civilians.

You can probably take down a bear with 45, 7.62x54, or 30-06, what else would you need a higher caliber than those?

LoL at using the military entrance screening as your example...

it's not anti-armor, it's anti-material. My marksmanship instructor used his to disable everything from mobile rocket launchers to fuel tankers in the first Gulf War...when the Sheriff's office has a Bearcat, the citizens should have .50 cals.

 

[Never_Rolled]

LoL at using the military entrance screening as your example...

it's not anti-armor, it's anti-material. My marksmanship instructor used his to disable everything from mobile rocket launchers to fuel tankers in the first Gulf War...when the Sheriff's office has a Bearcat, the citizens should have .50 cals.

I would love to have a Barrett. The closest I have come is I have a couple of their 6.8 mags.

 

[sparkuri]

It's probably at the top of my reason for owning them.
Not the only one but definitely the underlying reason I find it a great hobby.

I literally know one person that fits that description.

 

[Wild]

which of the mass shooters would have been stopped by 'more extensive' background checks?
Not being an asshole this time, just can't think of any...either they stole the gun or they passed the background checks, IIRC.

Yeah I dont know either. And I'm not sure how deep they could go on background checks. I mean, how do you determine someone is a nut job, or a radical, thru a background check? So I don't know what the answer is. A part of me wants to say ban assault rifles sales to the public, but a part of me feels like that would take us down a very slippery slope.

 

[Hauler]

A part of me wants to say ban assault rifles sales to the public

What do we mean by assault rifles?
Any rifle with a magazine?

 

[Wild]

What do we mean by assault rifles?
Any rifle with a magazine?

I'm not well versed enough with guns (don't own any), so all I can go off of is what I hear about in these mass shootings.

 

[Hauler]

I'm not well versed enough with guns (don't own any), so all I can go off of is what I hear about in these mass shootings.

The media loves the term "assault rifle" but it has a very vague definition.
They treat it like porn vs art: "I know it when I see it"

But the vast majority of them have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Hauler]

I'm not well versed enough with guns (don't own any), so all I can go off of is what I hear about in these mass shootings.

I wonder which one of these weapons gets fingered for being an "assault weapon":

or...

 

[Wild]

The media loves the term "assault rifle" but it has a very vague definition.
They treat it like porn vs art: "I know it when I see it"

But the vast majority of them are coming from a very uneducated viewpoint.

In my very educated opinion when it comes to firearms, I'm thinking any fully auto gun that allows people to be mowed down by the dozens. But again, I feel like that would lead us down a very slippery slope...where first it would be a ban on this, then something else, then something else, etc, etc. We can't have that either.

 

[Wild]

I wonder which one of these weapons gets fingered for being an "assault weapon":

or...

The bottom one. Now educate on the two.

 

[Never_Rolled]

In my very educated opinion when it comes to firearms, I'm thinking any fully auto gun that allows people to be mowed down by the dozens. But again, I feel like that would lead us down a very slippery slope...where first it would be a ban on this, then something else, then something else, etc, etc. We can't have that either.

So much wrong here I don't feel like even explaining.