About America And Guns.

[Scrooge]

A shotgun? Seriously? I want to take out an intruder, not a wall. But why would you advocate a shotgun (which has less control of shot location) than a handgun or rifle?.

Yes seriously. With a shotgun you don't have to worry about aiming as you do with a pistol or rifle. If you would take a course on home security and defense any instructor worth their salt would tell you the same thing. If you have issues with shotguns a 410 is always a nice option. It takes less time to pull a 410 pistol than a shotgun and is just as affective.

 

[Jesster]

Yes seriously. With a shotgun you don't have to worry about aiming as you do with a pistol or rifle. If you would take a course on home security and defense any instructor worth their salt would tell you the same thing. If you have issues with shotguns a 410 is always a nice option. It takes less time to pull a 410 pistol than a shotgun and is just as affective.

The 410 option is what I went with. I'm experienced enough with firearms to go with other options, but I don't want to have to worry about it in a stressful situation. Revolvers are about as simple as you get, too.

 

[Scrooge]

The 410 option is what I went with. I'm experienced enough with firearms to go with other options, but I don't want to have to worry about it in a stressful situation. Revolvers are about as simple as you get, too.

And that is the thing; stress. I always marvel when I hear some say they will do this or that. It is extremely stressful situation. Stress can change everything. That is why at the very least even if we have experience with guns we should practice shooting and run through scenarios. There are many ranges that have mock setups to run through. They themselves can be stressful and throw most off their game until they are use to them. Thanks for your input Jesster.

 

[oldbadger]

@Stanyon one genuine bronze 18th century cannon. And not a model you'll notice, but a cannon in its own right.
Posh kids got these to fire, and because the breeching tackles could break the guns could fly off when fired, never to be found until hundreds of years later by metal detectorists.

It's the most pleasing thing to have on my desk.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you think that the arm-teachers suppporters are all crazies.
Interesting.

You lack precision of speech.
Let me correct that.
Those who'd arm all teachers & bus drivers (per your specific claim are indeed "crazies".
The mainstream reasonable suggestion is to allow trained teachers to voluntarily be armed.
Is this difference so difficult to face?

And I don't believe that there are millions of ban-all-guns folks in the US. Don't believe it. Don't believe it.

But you so quickly believe that your claim is supported by millions?

I have put up evidence that millions were in support of arm-teachers proposals.
You haven't provided a jot of evidence to show that MILLIONS of folks want ALL guns banned. So far you've shown ONE person. Let's see those millions who want target shooting, vermin shooting, hunting, etc etc banned.
Weak stuff.

What's weak is your newfound obsession with quantifying the number of crazies.
You try to present fringe opinions found on the internet as representative of pro-gun
rights types. Such mischief avoids discussing more reasonable gun control measures.
I note that you don't address what I actually favor, preferring to oppose something
more convenient (a straw man).

Your demand for evidence is deflection.
Are you uncomfortable for getting called on an irresponsible claim?
Why avoid discussing the proposal that trained teachers volunteer to be armed in school?

 

[esmith]

Thanks.........

QUESTION:-
Do you use a chronograph to measure the muzzle velocity of bullets?
Yonks ago I reloaded shotgun cartridges but I could never achieve the same velocities.
Are you getting satisfactory results from reloads?

No, not worried about muzzle velocity with practice ammunition since range is normal less than 25 yards (pistol/revolver) and will not carry reloaded ammunition for personal defense due to possible legal problems doing so. I reloaded shotgun shells for trap when I was shooting that sport and relied on pattern indication to see where I was at. Always kept my loads below the maximum velocity per spec data from reloading guide. If shooting in competition I used manufactured ammunition to insure compliance if challenged. Reloading rifle ammunition for hunting (when I did hunt) I relied on where my rounds were hitting at various ranges (sighted in a 200 yards and then looked a bullet impact at shorter and longer known ranges. Tried different bullet manufactures for performance in my rifles for trajectory but really didn't care about muzzle velocity there. Just how the different rounds behaved.

 

[oldbadger]

No, not worried about muzzle velocity with practice ammunition since range is normal less than 25 yards (pistol/revolver) and will not carry reloaded ammunition for personal defense due to possible legal problems doing so. I reloaded shotgun shells for trap when I was shooting that sport and relied on pattern indication to see where I was at. Always kept my loads below the maximum velocity per spec data from reloading guide. If shooting in competition I used manufactured ammunition to insure compliance if challenged. Reloading rifle ammunition for hunting (when I did hunt) I relied on where my rounds were hitting at various ranges (sighted in a 200 yards and then looked a bullet impact at shorter and longer known ranges. Tried different bullet manufactures for performance in my rifles for trajectory but really didn't care about muzzle velocity there. Just how the different rounds behaved.

Thank you.
Question. I do not understand how or why there might be legal difficulties if you would use reloads in a gun for defence.
Is this to do with lead bullets?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you.
Question. I do not understand how or why there might be legal difficulties if you would use reloads in a gun for defence.
Is this to do with lead bullets?

Not to step on Esmith's answer, but I can give some reasons.....
Our legal environment is such that one must avoid (to the extent one can)
any appearances of wanting or planning to kill or harm another person.
Lawyers advise us to prepare for self defense, but nothing murderous or gruesome.
Sample advice: Don't practice on targets shaped like people.

If one reloaded one's own ammunition, even if it's no deadlier than store bought stuff,
the numerous choices (powder type, powder weight, bullet type, bullet weight) give
more things for a prosecutor to impugn than simply buying something off the shelf.
Each choice can be spun as indicating wrongful motives.
This is why I don't load my Glock #22 magazine to full capacity, & part reason that
I carry with the chamber empty.
One must be extremely careful about all possible consequences.

Btw, I know the local prosecutor, who is very anti-concealed carry, & will vigorously
prosecute anyone who shoots in self defense. It's a political thing.
(Btw, he prosecuted my serial killer computer guy.)

 

[oldbadger]

You lack precision of speech.
Let me correct that.
Those who'd arm all teachers & bus drivers (per your specific claim are indeed "crazies".
The mainstream reasonable suggestion is to allow trained teachers to voluntarily be armed.
Is this difference so difficult to face?

Lovely sidestep there. Beautiful mover you are.

But you so quickly believe that your claim is supported by millions?

Yep. Absolutely.
Anybody with sense can figure that if the NRA is adjusting position that this must be because it perceives one huge mass of millions of voters who would support some 'tighter gun control'
Please don't adjust my post into 'total gun ban', that would show a weak level of response imo.

What's weak is your newfound obsession with quantifying the number of crazies.
You try to present fringe opinions found on the internet as representative of pro-gun
rights types. Such mischief avoids discussing more reasonable gun control measures.

If you keep sidestepping like this you're going to win the RF waltzer of the year award.

Millions of US voters must surely be in support of more gun controls after the Las Vegas mass murders.

I note that you don't address what I actually favor, preferring to oppose something
more convenient (a straw man).

Millions of 'gun-control' sympathisers in the USA ..... not one straw man among 'em.

Your demand for evidence is deflection.

You mentioned millions of folks for a GUN BAN.
I challenged. You failed to produce.
Please stop whining.

Are you uncomfortable for getting called on an irresponsible claim?

What, that millions of US voters favour tighter gun controls? No discomfort here.

Why avoid discussing the proposal that trained teachers volunteer to be armed in school?

Teachers won't be taking assault rifles to school!
It's assault rifles under the microscope just now.
Forget the 'arm teachers' side-step.

 

[Revoltingest]

What, that millions of US voters favour tighter gun controls? No discomfort here.

Now you're switching one claim for another.

Teachers won't be taking assault rifles to school!

You're introducing yet another strange new claim to argue against now?

Forget the 'arm teachers' side-step.

It seems that you're playing word whack-a-mole to avoid real issues.

 

[esmith]

Thank you.
Question. I do not understand how or why there might be legal difficulties if you would use reloads in a gun for defence.
Is this to do with lead bullets?

What @Revoltingest put forth is an excellent answer. However, it is not the prosecutor that you have to worry most of the time if you shoot someone in self-defense but if you are sued in civil court the opposing lawyer will make the arguments that the @Revoltingest brought forward

 

[leibowde84]

sdfsdfsdfsd

Here we go again with the straw men....."cowboys"...."wild west"....mis-defining "assault rifle".
Where's @Skwim when I need him to exhibit Revoltingest's Law, ie,
gun control arguments always devolve into someone shouting "Tiny penis!".
For the OP:
Try to understand why we like the 2nd Amendment, & our preference for armed self defense.
But if you just make up things like the OP, you're only preaching to the echo chamber.
Good way to collect frubals though.

Why do you think that assault rifles should be legal?
Do you also think that automatic weapons should be legal?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you think that assault rifles should be legal?

As a matter of law, they're exactly the class of weapons envisioned by the Constitution's authors,
ie, militarily capable small arms. (Of course, this capability has increased over the centuries.)
From a practical standpoint, the current restrictions upon them (making'm legal for those who qualify).
are reasonable, IMO.

Do you also think that automatic weapons should be legal?

Assault rifles are capable of fully automatic operation (by definition), so see above.

 

[esmith]

Why do you think that assault rifles should be legal?
Do you also think that automatic weapons should be legal?

My turn also @Revoltingest
First what is your definition of an "assault rifle" . Is it a firearm that is "scary"? Is it a firearm that has a magazine? Just curious. Then what is your objection to those firearms that people incorrectly label as "assault weapons"
Second automatic weapons are still legal, it's just that civilians can not own fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986.
Third, do I think automatic weapons should be available to anyone that can legally own a firearm and the answer is yes. Would I own one? No I can hardly afford the ammunition that my wife and I use in our firearms. But if I could, sure why not. I don't have any plans of using one on people, but once in a while it might be interesting to take one out to the range and run a few rounds through it. However, be advised a fully automatic weapon is not very accurate. Commonly called "spray and pray", that is why most military rifles are selective fire; they are more accurate.

 

[leibowde84]

As a matter of law, they're exactly the class of weapons envisioned by the Constitution's authors,

Why do you think that them being "militarily capable small arms" makes them "exactly the class of weapons envisioned by the Constitution's authors"? High-powered assault rifles and automatic weapons didn't even exist, so they couldn't have been what the authors were envisioning. And, obviously, as you admitted, militarily capable small arms have changed drastically since the 2nd amendment was written, so why would that term even be relevant?

Back in the late 1700s, the weapons used for war and the weapons used for hunting/self-protection were the same. So, why would militarily capable small arms be the line?

 

[leibowde84]

First what is your definition of an "assault rifle" . Is it a firearm that is "scary"? Is it a firearm that has a magazine? Just curious. Then what is your objection to those firearms that people incorrectly label as "assault weapons"

Assault Rifle
noun

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

This is the meaning I am referring to. The only caveat I would make is that automatic rifles that are gerry-rigged to be semi-automatic (a.k.a. technically legal) would qualify as such.

"Scariness" has no relevance. And, unless you are specific about what weapons you are referring to when you say, "firearms people incorrectly label as assault weapons", I can't be reasonably expected to provide any kind of answer. So, please specify what you are referring to.

Second automatic weapons are still legal, it's just that civilians can not own fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986.

I sincerely appreciate you bringing this fact up. After reading your post, I did some of my own research on the subject. I incorrectly thought that automatic weapons were illegal in the U.S., but they most certainly are not. If you have the money, which, obviously, the Vegas shooter did, it isn't that difficult to get a machine gun.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/
I really don't see the purpose of automatic weapons being legally available to civilians. We now know that reasonable gun regulations are perfectly legal and constitutional, as they do not infringe a person's right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment certainly does not guarantee civilians to be able to purchase every weapon, if they can afford it. It merely guarantees our right to own a weapon. If you are able to buy a gun, your right to bear arms is not infringed according to the SCOTUS. There is no requirement to make all firearms available.

So, that means that there must be sufficient reasoning to make automatic weapons available to the public. Can you provide your reasoning as to why you think it is necessary for the public interest? What makes automatic weapons necessary in addition to semi-automatic weapons? Often I hear the slippery slope argument, but that is obviously fraudulent reasoning whenever it is used, as it doesn't address the actual question ... it is merely a side-step to avoid even talking about it.

Third, do I think automatic weapons should be available to anyone that can legally own a firearm and the answer is yes. Would I own one? No I can hardly afford the ammunition that my wife and I use in our firearms. But if I could, sure why not. I don't have any plans of using one on people, but once in a while it might be interesting to take one out to the range and run a few rounds through it. However, be advised a fully automatic weapon is not very accurate. Commonly called "spray and pray", that is why most military rifles are selective fire; they are more accurate.

So, are you saying that it being used as a hobby is reason enough to make it available to civilians? What comes to mind is drugs. Drugs can be used safely and in good health. I know many people from my younger days who used drugs at concerts, were safe, healthy, never got addicted or anything, and stopped using them when they got older. I know many, many successful, honorable, dedicated and driven people who smoke marijuana regularly. Yet, federally, it is the same classification as heroin, while automatic weapons are not. Actually, cocaine and crystal meth are schedule 2 drugs, but that is beside the point. Are you in favor of legalizing marijuana federally for the same reason? That some people are able to use it safely?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you think that them being "militarily capable small arms" makes them "exactly the class of weapons envisioned by the Constitution's authors"?

What usage do you think the authors had in mind with the 2nd Amendment?
Hint: Not duck hunting.

High-powered assault rifles and automatic weapons didn't even exist, so they couldn't have been what the authors were envisioning.

Don't think in terms limited to the technology of the times.
Consider freedom of the press...
Was it about printed words on paper, or about communication of ideas & news?
The original intent was the latter. This is why you & I can foment revolution here.
Similarly, guns were to be capable of military usage, hence reference to the "militia".
So if its about the purpose rather than the technology of the day, then assault rifles
comport with the 2nd Amendment.

You could try amending it to eliminate scary weapons. If successful, you'd have a
compelling legal argument.

And, obviously, as you admitted, militarily capable small arms have changed drastically since the 2nd amendment was written, so why would that term even be relevant?

Admitted?
I've not been reluctant....in case you had that in mind.

I interpret the Constitution based upon original intent, thus technological
changes should be seen in the light of how things function.

Back in the late 1700s, the weapons used for war and the weapons used for hunting/self-protection were the same. So, why would militarily capable small arms be the line?

The authors' intent behind the Constitution.
Divergence between hunting & military weapons over the century does not change its original intent.

 

[leibowde84]

What usage do you think the authors had in mind with the 2nd Amendment?
Hint: Not duck hunting.

I think they had in mind that, as long as a well-regulated militia was necessary to make sure that other nations (like Britain) or our own Federal Government didn't impede our rights and/or take over. I just don't see that as being the case anymore ... or, at least, I don't see how gun ownership protects us from government actors. Can you explain that to me? Why do you think a well-regulated militia is still necessary to the security of our free state?

Don't think in terms limited to the technology of the times. Consider freedom of the press...
....was it about printed words on paper, or about communication of ideas & news?
The original intent was the latter. Similarly, guns were to be capable of military usage,
hence the term "militia". So if its about the purpose rather than the technology of the
day, then assault rifles comport with the 2nd Amendment.
You could try amending it to eliminate scary weapons.
If successful, you'd have a compelling legal argument.

You wouldn't argue that free speech on radio, TV & the internet isn't protected by the 1st
Amendment, would youi?

Good point. I see the purpose of the 1st amendment. I don't see why a well-regulated militia is still necessary in our country.

Admitted?
I've not been reluctant....in case you had that in mind.

I interpret the Constitution based upon original intent, thus technological
changes should be seen in the light of how things function.

Fair enough.

The authors' intent behind the Constitution.
Divergence between hunting & military weapons over the century does not change its original intent.

Ok.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think they had in mind that, as long as a well-regulated militia was necessary to make sure that other nations (like Britain) or our own Federal Government didn't impede our rights and/or take over. I just don't see that as being the case anymore ... or, at least, I don't see how gun ownership protects us from government actors. Can you explain that to me? Why do you think a well-regulated militia is still necessary to the security of our free state?

Have you noticed that when military conflicts occur in other countries, small arms are
still always involved? I offer this as evidence that they still play a role.
This could change, but a constitutional amendment doesn't go away just because it's been
effectively obsolete, eg, the 3rd's restrictions on government quartering soldiers in private homes.

Good point. I see the purpose of the 1st amendment. I don't see why a well-regulated militia is still necessary in our country.

Things could change such that it would be useful.
History shows that countries generally fall some day.

 

[oldbadger]

ion.

Now you're switching one claim for another.

There has only been one claim..... that assault rifles need tighter controls.

You're introducing yet another strange new claim to argue against now?

No

It seems that you're playing word whack-a-mole to avoid real issues.

You're backed up over this one.
......hundreds and hundreds of grievously injured, scores of murdered, and the NRA obviously feels that the voters who would support further gun control are rising.

You play about with your terms such as 'millions for gun ban' or Star wants NRA folks executed, or all those other sidesteps, obstructions, re-directions, but you can't lead anybody away from the simple fact that masses and masses of US voters are gonna be supporting tighter gun controls.

Why.... any reasonable person would.....