Current Events > ITT: A gun-control advocate learns about guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

I think if you wish to own a pistol they shouldn't be allowed outside of the home. If you want home self-defense that's fine but you can't be doing home self-defense when you're not home so you don't need it other places. The penalty for catching people with a pistol outside the home should be severe like felony not misdemeanor. Also 15 round magazines which is the most common is way too much. Revolvers should easily do the trick. If you can't take down a home invader in six even if you had more rounds you're probably going to get shot back before you'd empty the clip....

Bolt-actions are really the only hunting rifle you need. If you want to go quail hunting you can use double barrels. You do not need to fire more than two shots and if you can't catch things like quail in two then you aren't good enough to be handling a gun in the first place.

Purely sticking to hunting (and not discussing right to defend yourself from human attackers outside the home), this is not true. If you live in bear country, it is desirable to carry something like a .454 casull revolver for grizzly defense. So purely from the standpoint of hunting or even just hiking, there is an extremely valid reason to have handguns outside of the home.

An as far as the revolver vs home invader goes, you're counting on there being one home invader which is the best case scenario. I would want more than 6 rounds if i had to deal with multiple home invaders.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

It's a pretty weak argument but it's a cathartic one when you have no actual rebuttal to effective gun control propositions.

its a very sound argument outside the japan one. and that one can be coughed up to their honor culture and a massive 99% conviction rate on crimes with uber harsh penalties.

theres also a LOT more at play. the US has poor available healthcare, social programs, rampant drug and gang issues, poverty, homelessness, wider social gap, larger political divide, larger racial divide and culture clashes all wrapped up in a massive land mass and 50% of the worlds firearms all of which dwarfs most european countries in comparison (with the exception of france who now has double the homeless). theres so much else to consider about the problem. just the fact that we have 2.3x the homicide rate of the UK NOT including firearms shows theres a lot of underlying problems.

the thought that gun control worked there so it should easily work here is ludicrous.

DifferentialEquation posted...

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

I think if you wish to own a pistol they shouldn't be allowed outside of the home. If you want home self-defense that's fine but you can't be doing home self-defense when you're not home so you don't need it other places. The penalty for catching people with a pistol outside the home should be severe like felony not misdemeanor. Also 15 round magazines which is the most common is way too much. Revolvers should easily do the trick. If you can't take down a home invader in six even if you had more rounds you're probably going to get shot back before you'd empty the clip....

Bolt-actions are really the only hunting rifle you need. If you want to go quail hunting you can use double barrels. You do not need to fire more than two shots and if you can't catch things like quail in two then you aren't good enough to be handling a gun in the first place.

Purely sticking to hunting (and not discussing right to defend yourself from human attackers outside the home), this is not true. If you live in bear country, it is desirable to carry something like a .454 casull revolver for grizzly defense. So purely from the standpoint of hunting, there is an extremely valid reason to have handguns outside of the home.

Yeah this is very true and something anti-gunners never take seriously enough.

People who live in urban areas seem to not take into account what farmers and people who live in rural areas have to account for.

Bears, wolves, boars etc. Even Moose or Deer can be threats.

One of the many reasons why people calling for all out gun bans have not thought it through

Offworlder1 posted...

@UnfairRepresent

A straight pull AR-15 is not going to be effective as a home defense weapon, those kids sure as shit would not have been able to use it effectively. If this were the era of bolt actions then it could work but we are far past those days and the time it takes to cycle the round could be the difference between life or death and that is not at all worth it.

Dead kids is a horrible thing but saying a shit tier gimped gun will work for home defense is just as bad.

Why do you keep @ing me when I'm actively posting in the topic.

Anyway I don't agree. I disagree with you that mass shootings are "A price we just have to pay" for the "cool" guns.

And I think the rest of the world is keenly demonstrating that over and over.

"This one kid might not have shot these 3 thugs as well if he didn't have this weapon, therefore we don't need basic gun control and it's okay for lunatics to massacre schoolboys." to me is almost the definition of a non-sequitur and it is something you absolutely would not accept in an argument about any other subject.
---

I've fired rifles, shotguns, and handguns, but I support gun control. It's not a lack of education or anything. I just think most people are idiots...
---

Why not an excise tax on semi-autos?
There's already a flat excise on guns and ammo, and Seattle's gun tax was declared constitutional last year.

We already have basic gun control and what you suggest is draconic gun control fucking up a good weapon and making it practically useless and not a valid means of self defense.

Instead of fucking with guns perhaps the people who are unhinged and have serious issues should be addressed cause they will find another means of killing when guns are gimped. The only people who will still be fucked are good people and there is no reason for that.

There is obviously an issue with the mental state of certain people in the US as they are the ones who are going on these sprees not regular joe/jane gun owner.
---

Dark_Spiret posted...

its a very sound argument

Not really.

Crimes had already more than doubled before the UK even consoliated it's gun laws.

And then when it implimented it's real 88 ban, the semi-automatic and pump-action centre-fire rifles we were talking about, crime declined sharply in the following years.

It's also been going down since 2003 and there's been no massacres.

For starters I don't believe in correleation = causation to begin with. But there isn't even a correleation.

And even if we ignore that and pretend there was. Okay, so where's the missing link. The UK bans hand-guns and semi-automatic rifles. Several people still own guns, sane people still can buy them. Meanwhile lunatics and thugs are stabbing each other in the street.

1. Why would they not be doing this if they had semi-automatic AR-15s?

2. Wouldn't it be even worse if these lunatics DID have semi-automatic AR-15s?

I mean you guys are arguing that it's good people in America have them because they are so efficent at killing, then in the same breath arguing that gangs in England would be less violent if they had AR-15s instead of butchers knives.

That's not a strong argument. Either by the numbers or by common sense. Its just searching for something comforting when you want to justify an opinion that can't be backed by facts
---

If we're going with lever/bolt/pump style weapons as the cutoff, I can agree we oughtta just go with the ones that were built to do it effectively in the first place.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Why not an excise tax on semi-autos?
There's already a flat excise on guns and ammo, and Seattle's gun tax was declared constitutional last year.

For what purpose? Why do you think the government collecting an extra tax is going to fix any of the problems?
---

Offworlder1 posted...

Instead of fucking with guns perhaps the people who are unhinged and have serious issues should be addressed cause they will find another means of killing when guns are gimped.

The rest of the world does not reflect this.
Offworlder1 posted...

There is obviously an issue with the mental state of certain people in the US as they are the ones who are going on these sprees not regular joe/jane gun owner.

No the issue is that the US is the only nation in the world with such a crazy amount of guns in circulation, such a large population and yet such crappy gun laws.

Where any nutcase can buy a gun and then kill 17 people with ease.

You can't do that in any other civilized nation except Switzerland and that's a small rich nation.

"Mental health" is a scapegoat. Not a valid counter to gun laws. And again, you already know this.

If it wasn't about guns and was about something you didn't personally feel invested in, you would not accept such weak logic
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Why not an excise tax on semi-autos?
There's already a flat excise on guns and ammo, and Seattle's gun tax was declared constitutional last year.

For what purpose? Why do you think the government collecting an extra tax is going to fix any of the problems?

Yes, actually. Some asshole kid is going to have to scrape up a bit more cash before he goes and shoots up a school.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Why not an excise tax on semi-autos?
There's already a flat excise on guns and ammo, and Seattle's gun tax was declared constitutional last year.

That seems like an inconvenience to reasonable gun owners that is of absolutely zero deterrent to someone who is about to kill themselves or go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Now a time delay in getting it via tough licensing procedure or an extensive background check, that's an inconvenience to a shooter (and also a potential chance to get busted). Money is probably not the object.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Why not an excise tax on semi-autos?
There's already a flat excise on guns and ammo, and Seattle's gun tax was declared constitutional last year.

That seems like an inconvenience to reasonable gun owners that is of absolutely zero deterrent to someone who is about to kill themselves or go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Now a time delay in getting it via tough licensing procedure or an extensive background check, that's an inconvenience to a shooter (and also a potential chance to get busted). Money is probably not the object.

Yeah, the end game of nearly every shooter is death

Losing money won't stop them
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Why not an excise tax on semi-autos?
There's already a flat excise on guns and ammo, and Seattle's gun tax was declared constitutional last year.

That seems like an inconvenience to reasonable gun owners that is of absolutely zero deterrent to someone who is about to kill themselves or go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Now a time delay in getting it via tough licensing procedure or an extensive background check, that's an inconvenience to a shooter (and also a potential chance to get busted). Money is probably not the object.

So... an actual tax stamp process?

When more crazy nutcases keep going on shooting sprees it actually is a valid arguement. Poor parenting, social media, thin skinned snowflakes, more bullying, and more insanity seems like a mental health issue to me.

You can claim it is not the case all you want but when this shit did not happen as often until the 90s.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

I think if you wish to own a pistol they shouldn't be allowed outside of the home. If you want home self-defense that's fine but you can't be doing home self-defense when you're not home so you don't need it other places. The penalty for catching people with a pistol outside the home should be severe like felony not misdemeanor. Also 15 round magazines which is the most common is way too much. Revolvers should easily do the trick. If you can't take down a home invader in six even if you had more rounds you're probably going to get shot back before you'd empty the clip....

Bolt-actions are really the only hunting rifle you need. If you want to go quail hunting you can use double barrels. You do not need to fire more than two shots and if you can't catch things like quail in two then you aren't good enough to be handling a gun in the first place.

Purely sticking to hunting (and not discussing right to defend yourself from human attackers outside the home), this is not true. If you live in bear country, it is desirable to carry something like a .454 casull revolver for grizzly defense. So purely from the standpoint of hunting, there is an extremely valid reason to have handguns outside of the home.

Yeah this is very true and something anti-gunners never take seriously enough.

People who live in urban areas seem to not take into account what farmers and people who live in rural areas have to account for.

Bears, wolves, boars etc. Even Moose or Deer can be threats.

One of the many reasons why people calling for all out gun bans have not thought it through

Offworlder1 posted...

@ UnfairRepresent

A straight pull AR-15 is not going to be effective as a home defense weapon, those kids sure as shit would not have been able to use it effectively. If this were the era of bolt actions then it could work but we are far past those days and the time it takes to cycle the round could be the difference between life or death and that is not at all worth it.

Dead kids is a horrible thing but saying a shit tier gimped gun will work for home defense is just as bad.

Why do you keep @ ing me when I'm actively posting in the topic.

Anyway I don't agree. I disagree with you that mass shootings are "A price we just have to pay" for the "cool" guns.

And I think the rest of the world is keenly demonstrating that over and over.

"This one kid might not have shot these 3 thugs as well if he didn't have this weapon, therefore we don't need basic gun control and it's okay for lunatics to massacre schoolboys." to me is almost the definition of a non-sequitur and it is something you absolutely would not accept in an argument about any other subject.

Don't mention me. I've got nothing to do with your stupid fucking discussion.

Having the "ing" username has to be the worst possible thing since the mentions got introduced
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Right now the entire argument seems to be "We can't do that because I don't like it." and considering that logic means large amounts of kids dying all the time every year for no reason, you can understand why hostility is brewing.

We can do it, but nobody seems to want to outside of judicial fiat.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

Wut,

You don't need to amend the Consitution to do anything that has been proposed that I am aware of.

You seem to be conflating "Common sense gun control ideas with proven ironclad track records and logic" with "Banning all guns ever"

Banning semi-automatic weapons IS against the Constitution, as is mental health restrictions.
---

Offworlder1 posted...

Getting a full auto pistol, class 3 license takes too long and is way too expensive for most nutcases. An AR-15 is in almost every gun shop in the USA, and much cheaper then full auto anything.

@P4wn4g3

I don't get why you are mentioning me saying the same thing.
---

its high noon
---

I'd say a semi-auto rifle is far more effective as a home defense weapon than a pistol. Whether it is more effective than a 12-gauge shotgun, I don't know yet.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again now. I own both a 9mm pistol and an AR-15. I'll grab the AR-15 first every time in a home defense scenario.
---

Pistols, shotguns, and AR-25s have a place as a home defense weapon, all depends on the way your house is set up, how well you can maneuver in your home, and if its just you or also family members learning the weapon.

I personally favor a shotgun or pistol for my home since those are better suited for what I can do in my home. Have tried with the AR-15 but get snagged on some corners due to it being too long for some areas.

Pistol is the easiest to maneuver with where I am but the shotgun works very well too.
---

Offworlder1 posted...

I personally favor a shotgun or pistol for my home since those are better suited for what I can do in my home. Have tried with the AR-15 but get snagged on some corners due to it being too long for some areas.

My dad has suggested, on numerous occasions, that I get a Taurus Judge for home defense. It's a .45 five-chamber revolver that accepts 410 shells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Judge

Questionmarktarius posted...

My dad has suggested, on numerous occasions, that I get a Taurus Judge for home defense. It's a .45 five-chamber revolver that accepts 410 shells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Judge

That's a gimmick Revolver.

You might as well get a 12 gauge Pump Shotgun with a 10 round tube
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

My dad has suggested, on numerous occasions, that I get a Taurus Judge for home defense. It's a .45 five-chamber revolver that accepts 410 shells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Judge

That's a gimmick Revolver.

You might as well get a 12 gauge Pump Shotgun with a 10 round tube

Fuck it, I'm building a coil gun.

I might get a lever or bolt action rifle someday. Seems like that'd do the trick for anyone who tried to fuck with my house and that's all I have interest in.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I might get a lever or bolt action rifle someday. Seems like that'd do the trick for anyone who tried to fuck with my house and that's all I have interest in.

Note that a bolt action Carcano rifle exploded Kennedy's head.

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I might get a lever or bolt action rifle someday. Seems like that'd do the trick for anyone who tried to fuck with my house and that's all I have interest in.

Are you concerned about scenarios where you miss the first shot or the first shot doesn't take down the attacker (and the attacker will likely have a semi-auto handgun), or the case where there are multiple attackers each with a semi-auto of their own?
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I might get a lever or bolt action rifle someday. Seems like that'd do the trick for anyone who tried to fuck with my house and that's all I have interest in.

Are you concerned about scenarios where you miss the first shot or the first shot doesn't take down the attacker (and the attacker will likely have a semi-auto handgun), or the case where there are multiple attackers each with a semi-auto of their own?

Have you ever fired a bolt action?
I've shot the exact same model Carcano that Oswald had, and it cycles stupid fast.

DifferentialEquation posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I might get a lever or bolt action rifle someday. Seems like that'd do the trick for anyone who tried to fuck with my house and that's all I have interest in.

Are you concerned about scenarios where you miss the first shot or the first shot doesn't take down the attacker (and the attacker will likely have a semi-auto handgun), or the case where there are multiple attackers each with a semi-auto of their own?

Not particularly, tbh. I don't live in a particularly dangerous area nor do I ever plan on doing so -- I feel pretty confident that my highest risk is some fucker looking for an easy target who would be deterred just by the threat of getting shot.

Plus, if I bothered to get a gun, I'd bother to git gud.
---

I recommend you go to a range that allows renting rifles and try some out and see which one you like the most. Its what I have done in the past, how I figured out which semi auto pistols I liked.

Love my Walther, H&K, and S&W the most.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

I might get a lever or bolt action rifle someday. Seems like that'd do the trick for anyone who tried to fuck with my house and that's all I have interest in.

Are you concerned about scenarios where you miss the first shot or the first shot doesn't take down the attacker (and the attacker will likely have a semi-auto handgun), or the case where there are multiple attackers each with a semi-auto of their own?

Have you ever fired a bolt action?
I've shot the exact same model Carcano that Oswald had, and it cycles stupid fast.

Yes, not a Carcano but I have fire bolt actions. I wouldn't want to have a bolt action if there are 2 (or more) invaders with semi-auto pistols. I wouldn't even want it vs one.
---

TIL people don't just 'know' that there's single, double, bolt action etc

Never really thought about how living in a gun-stacked household effected me
---