The Gun Owner’s thread

[Frank Drebin 5,654]

I would like to see us enforce our existing laws regardless of some perceived equities.  That will save a lot more lives than banning AR 15s.  Let's do that first before passing more laws.

[wild_turkey 3,184]

These shootings are premeditated.  They can just find someone that is 21, pay them cash and use their cards (straw buyers).  Not a god damned thing in the bill even attempts to address such simple measures to get around it.  

1. At the very least, that is one extra hurdle for someone to go through on their path to becoming a mass shooter. Maybe, just maybe, that homicidal 18-20 year old won’t have a person in their life who will agree to purchase a semi-automatic rifle for them, no questions asked. A lot of these shooters seem to be introverts who are acting in complete isolation. Even if that stops 1 shooting every 5 years, isn’t that worth it?

2. What is the downside to raising the age? Serious question. Are you honestly worried about 18-20 year olds not being able to get an AR-15? This same age group can’t be trusted to legally buy beer in this country, but we are concerned about their ability to get semi-automatic weapons?

[fattyflattie 4,638]

43 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

Come on now, the mini 14 isn’t skurry looking to people that aren’t told different. Most of them have wood furniture and that means it can’t be bad, because it’s classy.

First time that’s ever been muttered.   
 

 

[BabaYaga 15,327]

3 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

A lot of these shooters seem to be introverts who are acting in complete isolation

Aren't almost all of them reported as having lived at home with their parents?

The downside is that it's an illusion.  You HOPE it might stop a single shooting in half a decade?  Great.  Hope's not a plan.  This gang banging cock-bag was living at home, kicked out of the military after only a few months, had multiple reports of abuse and LE involvement, and was probably on all kinds of watch lists, and needed a spanish-speaking interpreter to communicate.  The downside is that this is a band aid on arterial spray.  

[BHMCruiser 1,818]

10 hours ago, 686 said:

Tikka T3 in stainless steel for deer rifle and maybe T3 in a light chambering or T1 (rimfire)for small game. They are great actions, and can be upgraded when they’re older if they want (prefit aftermarket barrels, stocks, chassis, etc.). I follow hunting rifle trends and the Tikka T3 is basically displacing the Remington 700 as the “high quality bolt action that shoots great out of the box, and can be easily modified/customized easily later if so desired”.

A vintage Remington 1100 or 870 in left hand used to be a great shotgun option, but the used market on them has gone up a bunch (like over $1k) since Remington has been screwing around / going bankrupt and people are snatching up / investing in the good older guns.

Good recs thank you. I love the 870 but left handed is unobtainium. I also would love a left-handed Model 42 but I may as well wish for a magic unicorn. 

I won't have a 700. I don't think they are safe and I don't trust them. I'm sure the vast majority are perfectly fine but I personally witnessed the safety discharge malfunction on one and we were very lucky the person holding the gun was practicing safe firearm handling at the time or somebody could have been killed. 

[BabaYaga 15,327]

24 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I am not opposed to red flag laws

Red flag laws are akin to "common sense" reforms.  They make a good sound bite, then wither when you shine a light on them and the details come out.  Red flag laws without a very detailed and robust due process mechanism and recourse steps will be weaponized within hours.  Years back I had to let a guy go that was a big hunter, so we talked animals, guns, places, etc.  I later caught him casing the work parking lot and my neighborhood.  Guaran-fucking-t he'd have flagged me if the option was there.....sending me down a weeks if not months rabbit hole to "prove my innocence"

[BabaYaga 15,327]

4 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I won't have a 700. I don't think they are safe and I don't trust them. I'm sure the vast majority are perfectly fine but I personally witnessed the safety discharge malfunction on one and we were very lucky the person holding the gun was practicing safe firearm handling at the time or somebody could have been killed. 

There are a bunch of sites that break down the nuances or various gun manufacturers by make, model, and most importantly production years.  Remington QC has gone to shit.  Their earlier lines for the 870 and 700 are much better.  You just have to know which years to avoid.  I have two pre-64 Winnies that sent me off in that direction...trying to make sure there was nothing weird or problematic about either.   

[BHMCruiser 1,818]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

There are a bunch of sites that break down the nuances or various gun manufacturers by make, model, and most importantly production years.  Remington QC has gone to shit.  Their earlier lines for the 870 and 700 are much better.  You just have to know which years to avoid.  I have two pre-64 Winnies that sent me off in that direction...trying to make sure there was nothing weird or problematic about either.   

The 700 issue covered nearly the whole production of that rifle and was only fixed by retrofitting a new safety as part of a recall. 

Remington QC is objectively terrible. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

There are a bunch of sites that break down the nuances or various gun manufacturers by make, model, and most importantly production years.  Remington QC has gone to shit.  Their earlier lines for the 870 and 700 are much better.  You just have to know which years to avoid.  I have two pre-64 Winnies that sent me off in that direction...trying to make sure there was nothing weird or problematic about either.   

I don't get the prices on 700's lately.  I understand it in theory, but miss me with a vintage $2,750 BDL. Same goes for 1100's and 1187's.  Nostalgic, sure.  But there's going to be some traders holding them at peak prices.  

eta: I'm always looking for CDL or custom shop model 7's, though, because they are bad ass.  

Edited May 9, 2023 by fattyflattie

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

37 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

The 700 issue covered nearly the whole production of that rifle and was only fixed by retrofitting a new safety as part of a recall. 

Remington QC is objectively terrible. 

That's not QC, that's engineering.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

QC has probably been checking to make sure they fire fire without pulling the trigger, just like the drawings say to make them.

[Jkwellborn 6,748]

Wait….you’re contending that .223 is not a “caliber greater than .22?” Seriously? You…of all people…know what “caliber” means.

I mean, .22 LR and .22 WMR are the calibers. .223 is a caliber that’s a .22 caliber.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,578]

11 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Or work with me, they don’t understand the most basic things about common firearms.  Must have spent all that time studying for the one that fires explosive, decapitating projectiles from one barrel, but not the next, entirely dependent on the stock being made of wood.  Not going to lie, I’d probably focus on magic like that, too. 

 

2 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

Come on now, the mini 14 isn’t skurry looking to people that aren’t told different. Most of them have wood furniture and that means it can’t be bad, because it’s classy.

@Jkwellborn and @Frank Drebin - there's actually something to this. the Mini-14 and a multitude of other functionally equivilent weapons aren't the weapon of choice for mass shooters, The AR-15 is. It's got product-market fit, and people like Salvador Ramos choose it. Most mass shooters involved in big mayhem incidents aren't deeply knowledgeable about guns or highly  experienced shooters, or even fully rational actors. Functional equivalence is not full equivalence - Corvette drivers are not Lambo drivers. 

2 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

Exactly what I have done.  Has made this website much better. 

Frank, I get it. But the fact is that big gun violence episodes impact gun owners - our access to guns and ammo, prices, convenience, the social climate we move about in etc. If the mall isn't a safe space, this isn't either. And frankly if we are going to bitch about gun grabbers not knowing enough about the subject matter (and I do that too), we are doing ourselves no favors by avoiding the subject. 

 

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Red flag laws are akin to "common sense" reforms.  They make a good sound bite, then wither when you shine a light on them and the details come out.  Red flag laws without a very detailed and robust due process mechanism and recourse steps will be weaponized within hours. 

No offense but that's really not the case with any of the laws in practice in 19 states. It's just not a slippery slope. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Lat22 4,018]

2 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

Come on now, the mini 14 isn’t skurry looking to people that aren’t told different. Most of them have wood furniture and that means it can’t be bad, because it’s classy.

I bet I haven’t fired mine since 1987. 

[aggie08 21,553]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

The shooting where the perp stole the credit card of his age appropriate parents that he used to buy the rifle?  That shooting?

Wait, wut? Are you under the impression that gun shops verify age and identity based on the credit card used? Are you serious? Is that a thing? If so, how is that a thing? You can't buy beer by giving the cashier your parent's credit card in lieu of, you know, proper legal identification. For the record, the Uvalde shooter waited until he was 18 for a reason; he had tried unsuccessfully before he was of legal age.

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Red flag laws are akin to "common sense" reforms.  They make a good sound bite, then wither when you shine a light on them and the details come out.  Red flag laws without a very detailed and robust due process mechanism and recourse steps will be weaponized within hours.  Years back I had to let a guy go that was a big hunter, so we talked animals, guns, places, etc.  I later caught him casing the work parking lot and my neighborhood.  Guaran-fucking-t he'd have flagged me if the option was there.....sending me down a weeks if not months rabbit hole to "prove my innocence"

So you're against red flag laws because of some hypothecical scenario that you've concocted in your head about some random ex-employee reporting you for literally nothing and winding up on a no-fly list for the rest of your life, no further questions asked? Is that what happens in the states that do have red flag laws? Red flag laws that would be designed specifically to keep guns out of the hands of someone like this with obvious as fuck flags:

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

This gang banging cock-bag was living at home, kicked out of the military after only a few months, had multiple reports of abuse and LE involvement, and was probably on all kinds of watch lists, and needed a spanish-speaking interpreter to communicate.  

Christ, man. And you also wouldn't support proof of safe storage requirements or restrictions on 30-round magazines. That's all fine and dandy, but you at least understand the impossible uphill battle the the rest of society is facing, yes? Try to squeeze by the most minor reform, and it's "a toothless bill written by people who don't know guns that won't address any of the loopholes just for the sake of 'muh feelz'" (that still won't get passed, mind you). Anything slightly beyond that, and we're on the slippery slope where everyone's coming to your door to confescate your guns. There's no middle ground that you--and certainly not the gun lobby--will ever realistically accept.

 

I won't post again on this thread because I respect your guys' time enough to have a place on this forum where your penis size isn't called into question by lazy drive-by posters. I also like lurking this thread because it's one of the few places where you can honestly say, "You know what, I like guns. It's a fun hobby. I participate in it legally and responsibly, so fuck off" without having to formulate some generic response about protection, hunting, or safeguards against government tyranny. But you have to at least see where some of the anger comes from.

Edited May 9, 2023 by aggie08

[BabaYaga 15,327]

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense but that's really not the case with any of the laws in practice in 19 states. It's just not a slippery slope. 

The states that include some of the worst crime regions in the country, especially as it pertains to gun violence?  Those states?

[BabaYaga 15,327]

13 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

But you have to see where at least some of the anger comes from.

We know where the anger comes from.  You think only one side is angry?  Do you really think that?  You feel that you have to do "something" and completely disregard any pushback about this proposed solutions and immediately dive right into the mud with lines such as "dancing on the graves of dead children"....then wonder why the dialogue isn't productive.  

[Frank Drebin 5,654]

Refusing to enforce existing laws results in a lot more dead kids than AR15s. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

20 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I won't post again on this thread because I respect your guys' time enough to have a place on this forum where your penis size isn't called into question by lazy drive-by posters. I also like lurking this thread because it's one of the few places where you can honestly say, "You know what, I like guns. It's a fun hobby. I participate in it legally and responsibly, so fuck off" without having to formulate some generic response about protection, hunting, or safeguards against government tyranny. But you have to at least see where some of the anger comes from.

Appreciate it.  You can read thru the thread and see the people who regularly participate in it aren't happy, either.  Disagreements on how to "fix" it, sure. But there are no "gun nuts" on this thread.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,578]

17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The states that include some of the worst crime regions in the country, especially as it pertains to gun violence?  Those states?

We have laws against murder, and yet people get murdered. Should we make murder legal? Red flag laws don't address gun crime in any general way. They address, specifically, legal access to guns by people found through due legal process to be in a mental health crisis or expressing the intention to commit acts of violence or self-harm.  The bar is very high.

8 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Refusing to enforce existing laws results in a lot more dead kids than AR15s. 

No doubt, but a many of the reforms that aren't progressing are mechanisms to enforce existing laws - red flag laws being a good example. 

[Captainant 27,823]

14 hours ago, Herbie Hancock said:

This one makes me shake my head. You literally spend 60% of your posts on this website extolling the horribleness of our society, yet when someone wants to carry a firearm for personal protection because they fucking agree with you that our world has gone to shit, you deride them for it. Fascinating.

Lol reminded me of this classic

 

[wild_turkey 3,184]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Aren't almost all of them reported as having lived at home with their parents?

The downside is that it's an illusion.  You HOPE it might stop a single shooting in half a decade?  Great.  Hope's not a plan.  This gang banging cock-bag was living at home, kicked out of the military after only a few months, had multiple reports of abuse and LE involvement, and was probably on all kinds of watch lists, and needed a spanish-speaking interpreter to communicate.  The downside is that this is a band aid on arterial spray.  

I was being extremely conservative with that question, and I was asking you, IF it stops ONE mass shooting over the next 5 years, would it be worth it? You still haven't answered.

For me, it would clearly be worth it. I think most reasonable people would agree. Stopping ONE mass shooting every 5 years at the expense of 18-20 years old not being able to legally purchase an AR-15 seems like a no-brainer.

I'm assuming you don't feel that way since you won't answer the question. You will instead dodge the question and shift the argument to something else, or say that this is all hypothetical and wishful thinking, therefore we shouldn't even attempt to solve this problem and should just accept that our laws are stuck the way they are and that our mass shooting situation is hopeless.

[BHMCruiser 1,818]

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

That's not QC, that's engineering.

I meant on all their products. After Cerberus got Remington, the product quality plummeted. Compare a new model 870 to a 20 year old Express. They aren't even in the same universe in terms of quality and craftsmanship. 

[BabaYaga 15,327]

19 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

IF it stops ONE mass shooting over the next 5 years, would it be worth it?

This is such an absurd line of thinking it's laughable.  It does perfectly encapsulate this grasping at straws approach and utterly ignores how feckless the law is written and how easily circumvented it will be.  it does nothing to address the logical conclusion of straw buyers, online transactions, and a myriad of other ways to side step this lazy piece of legislation that "if" works, might stop a shooting in a way we can't quantify.  

 

[General Specific 3,271]

No offense but that's really not the case with any of the laws in practice in 19 states. It's just not a slippery slope. 

Until it isn’t! Let’s not pretend that red flag laws are the end all be all, they clearly are not. They are mildly effective at best, and have failed in some cases. Different state have different implementations.

Google articles and studies shows this in multiple links. Some academics, activists and one side of the debate seem to point to “They’re Great”. While other academics, studies and the other side show partial effectiveness.

Which is the beginning of the slippery slope in order to fix the glitch. Government services being what they are, what could possibly go wrong!

[fattyflattie 4,638]

14 hours ago, 686 said:

Tikka T3 in stainless steel for deer rifle and maybe T3 in a light chambering or T1 (rimfire)for small game. They are great actions, and can be upgraded when they’re older if they want (prefit aftermarket barrels, stocks, chassis, etc.). I follow hunting rifle trends and the Tikka T3 is basically displacing the Remington 700 as the “high quality bolt action that shoots great out of the box, and can be easily modified/customized easily later if so desired”.

Friend of mine rebarreled his 7mm Tikka last year, and is out to 800 with it regularly.  The original barrel, years ago, took about 15 different loads before he finally found one that was worth a shit.  In fact, it was shelved for years and years and then picked back up when he got more into long range stuff.   I don't own one, but Bergara (sp?) seem to be highly regarded as sub $1000 rifles that are accurate and well made?  Would seem to be a good placeholder for the 700 if they continue to catch on. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,578]

26 minutes ago, General Specific said:

Until it isn’t! Let’s not pretend that red flag laws are the end all be all, they clearly are not. They are mildly effective at best, and have failed in some cases. Different state have different implementations.

Google articles and studies shows this in multiple links. Some academics, activists and one side of the debate seem to point to “They’re Great”. While other academics, studies and the other side show partial effectiveness.

Which is the beginning of the slippery slope in order to fix the glitch. Government services being what they are, what could possibly go wrong!

I'm sorry, but you're sort of doing what gun grabbers do - talking about something you don't seem to know much of anything about beyond some ideological caricature.
Nobody is pretending that red flag laws are a panacea. They are, again, a highly targeted mechanism that addresses a single problem set. So you imagine that it's a slippery slope because it's not a panacea for all problems involving gun violence and therefore the flaws lie in the specificity of the target. But that's not true - "the glitch," as it were, pertains to mental health and domestic violence, that's not a gun problem. That's a mental healthcare problem in the context of the least cost effective healthcare system in the western world, or, a law enforcement problem in the context of a social problem. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[General Specific 3,271]

I'm sorry, but you're sort of doing what gun grabbers do - talking about something you don't seem to know much of anything about beyond some ideological caricature.
Nobody is pretending that red flag laws are a panacea. They are, again, a highly targeted mechanism that addresses a single problem set. So you imagine that it's a slippery slope because it's not a panacea and therefore the flaws lie in the specificity of the target. But that's not true - "the glitch," as it were, pertains to mental health and domestic violence, that's not a gun problem. That's a mental healthcare problem in the context of the least cost effective healthcare system in the western world, or, a law enforcement problem in the context of a social problem. 

Uh, what?

Most here can read, and several (search red flag laws pros and cons), if not most of those articles point out that the red flag laws have their issues. Perfection is the enemy of progress? A swing and a miss!

I’m saying that the government, has yet to provide a service, or law they can’t screw up. Red flag laws would be no different. Especially in today’s charged environment.

So we are onto something here with regards to the mental/criminal element. Guns aren’t the problem. We got that going for us, which is nice!

[wild_turkey 3,184]

Until it isn’t! Let’s not pretend that red flag laws are the end all be all, they clearly are not. They are mildly effective at best, and have failed in some cases. Different state have different implementations.

Google articles and studies shows this in multiple links. Some academics, activists and one side of the debate seem to point to “They’re Great”. While other academics, studies and the other side show partial effectiveness.

We’re having multiple mass shootings per week. What’s wrong with implementing “mildly effective” or “partially effective” strategies? Can we only do things that are proven to be 100% effective?

If you had cancer and your doctor offered you a treatment that was partially effective, vs no treatment at all, would you be interested in the treatment?

[Smax 3,800]

.

[Anastasis 23,489]

1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

If you had cancer and your doctor offered you a treatment that was partially effective, vs no treatment at all, would you be interested in the treatment?

It's a good analogy. But, as with a treatment decision, the real benefits have to measured against the harms and potential harms. If the treatment is going to buy me 3 months in terms of survival, but is going to cost me $10k a month, cause me to have explosive shits every day and impact the QOL for those last three months, I might pass. Things like increasing the age for SA long rifles I think come out favorable.  Red flag laws, I think it depends on the particular details. And we can go on down the list of proposals. Both benefits are harms will have to be assessed by the 1s and different people may reasonably reach different conclusions.  

Edited May 10, 2023 by Anastasis

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

Red flag laws will also lead to fewer people seeking out treatment for mental health.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,578]

5 hours ago, General Specific said:

Uh, what?

Most here can read, and several (search red flag laws pros and cons), if not most of those articles point out that the red flag laws have their issues. Perfection is the enemy of progress? A swing and a miss!

I’m saying that the government, has yet to provide a service, or law they can’t screw up. Red flag laws would be no different. Especially in today’s charged environment.

So we are onto something here with regards to the mental/criminal element. Guns aren’t the problem. We got that going for us, which is nice!

This is a bad take. And it’s boring. We shouldn’t be enforce existing law because government screws stuff up. Got it.
 

You should go argue with the gun grabbers in the CR. That’s your speed.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[wild_turkey 3,184]

6 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

This is such an absurd line of thinking it's laughable.  It does perfectly encapsulate this grasping at straws approach and utterly ignores how feckless the law is written and how easily circumvented it will be.  it does nothing to address the logical conclusion of straw buyers, online transactions, and a myriad of other ways to side step this lazy piece of legislation that "if" works, might stop a shooting in a way we can't quantify.  

You still didn't answer the question. You seem incapable of that. If increasing the age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21 would prevent one mass shooter event every 5 years, do you think that would be worth it? Why or why not?

You seem hell-bent on deflecting to this assumption you have made that 100% of mass shooters who would be affected by this change will have a person they can turn to who would be willing to purchase the weapon for them. I think that's an entirely false assumption. Some of these mass shooters clearly act in isolation, do not seem to have a broad social network, and live at home with their parents. Who exactly would they be asking to buy this gun for them? Their parents? And you think 100% of those parents will do this without asking any questions about it? That's insanity, but you already know that, and you are being intentionally obtuse or naive when you claim this.

[General Specific 3,271]

This is a bad take. And it’s boring. We shouldn’t be enforce existing law because government screws stuff up. Got it.
 
You should go argue with the gun grabbers in the CR. That’s your speed.

It’s not a take. It may be poor reading comprehension, hell it may even be poor communication on my part.

The government already is selective of what laws to enforce now. And that is the point. Hell, we even have over zealous agencies making up shit. Who voted for them, and those laws help how? How will it help those that need it? As you said upthread, it’s not the guns.

If we were fighting obesity, we shouldn’t restrict spoons and forks right?

[ChickenNuggets 1,635]

Been thinking about this for a while... New gun laws won't change the fact that we have 400 million guns in this country already and frankly, we've had hundreds of millions of guns in households for decades without the kind of mass shootings we're seeing...

What I think we need is a societal fix. We have to tone down the political rhetoric within our society and realize that those with opposing views aren't necessarily awful, hateful, irredeemable people, just fellow citizens with differences of opinion. So many of these mass shooters seem to be pushed deep into their echo chambers until violence becomes their only path out (in their twisted minds). 

Social media and demonizing opposing political beliefs seems to be what's changed in this country... not access to guns, relaxed laws, or access to mental health.

Just my humble two cents.

And this won't be exciting to politicians cause they can't pass a bill on this solution or raise money off it... It's something we as American citizens need to do better. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

52 minutes ago, ChickenNuggets said:

Been thinking about this for a while... New gun laws won't change the fact that we have 400 million guns in this country already and frankly, we've had hundreds of millions of guns in households for decades without the kind of mass shootings we're seeing...

What I think we need is a societal fix. We have to tone down the political rhetoric within our society and realize that those with opposing views aren't necessarily awful, hateful, irredeemable people, just fellow citizens with differences of opinion. So many of these mass shooters seem to be pushed deep into their echo chambers until violence becomes their only path out (in their twisted minds). 

Social media and demonizing opposing political beliefs seems to be what's changed in this country... not access to guns, relaxed laws, or access to mental health.

Just my humble two cents.

And this won't be exciting to politicians cause they can't pass a bill on this solution or raise money off it... It's something we as American citizens need to do better. 

Good post. Likely impossible, but I agree. Hundreds of millions of firearms will never hurt anything than a piece of paper, if they are even fired at all.  

[Parliament 14,334]

8 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

I meant on all their products. After Cerberus got Remington, the product quality plummeted. Compare a new model 870 to a 20 year old Express. They aren't even in the same universe in terms of quality and craftsmanship. 

Thank God Ruger got Marlin. Their new stuff gets good reviews.  A bit expensive, but that's how it works.

[cabowabo 4,514]

God damn, you fuckers go start a gun fanatics gun control debate thread in the Cloak Room. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

4 hours ago, Smax said:

.

Discussing measures that could or could not be effective is one thing in this thread, but posting cloak roomy memes is another entirely. There are plenty of threads for that stuff. 

But since you mentioned children, I have noticed that @Brisketexan never responded to the fact that his assertion about guns being the number one cause of death for children being misinfomation. It's ok to admit that you were suckered in by an emotionally charged headline and didn't take the time to properly vet the claims. Ill even admit that I got the percentages I cited from a reddit thread and haven't checked them out for myself yet. We all, well most of us, have day jobs and families and can't spend every waking hour chasing down exactly what is and isn't fact, which is one of the big reasons why misinformation can be so dangerous. If I get some time, I'll try and confirm that those numbers are accurate, but between work, select soccer for the oldest, coaching three year old soccer for the middle, and trying to reign in the youngest who apparently just wants to watch the world burn, I've already got a pretty busy schedule.

[fattyflattie 4,638]

50 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

God damn, you fuckers go start a gun fanatics gun control debate thread in the Cloak Room. 

I've got two bids in the winning position at the moment.  Hopefully updating with cool shit in the next 18 hours. 

[Parliament 14,334]

8 hours ago, cabowabo said:

God damn, you fuckers go start a gun fanatics gun control debate thread in the Cloak Room. 

Not so bad when you ignore some people.

[BabaYaga 15,327]

11 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

You still didn't answer the question. You seem incapable of that. If increasing the age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21 would prevent one mass shooter event every 5 years, do you think that would be worth it? Why or why not?

You seem hell-bent on deflecting to this assumption you have made that 100% of mass shooters who would be affected by this change will have a person they can turn to who would be willing to purchase the weapon for them. I think that's an entirely false assumption. Some of these mass shooters clearly act in isolation, do not seem to have a broad social network, and live at home with their parents. Who exactly would they be asking to buy this gun for them? Their parents? And you think 100% of those parents will do this without asking any questions about it? That's insanity, but you already know that, and you are being intentionally obtuse or naive when you claim this.

Because age limits of 21 stop so many kids from obtaining alcohol...and unlike alcohol, you can obtain guns online with a credit card.  This little fantasy scenario where you are giving assurances that it will work is absurd.  These are not crimes of passion, they are planned out, premeditated attacks often planned over months if not longer.  

[BabaYaga 15,327]

11 hours ago, ChickenNuggets said:

we've had hundreds of millions of guns in households for decades without the kind of mass shootings we're seeing...

Ding, ding, fucking ding!

[Brisketexan 105,432]

10 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Discussing measures that could or could not be effective is one thing in this thread, but posting cloak roomy memes is another entirely. There are plenty of threads for that stuff. 

But since you mentioned children, I have noticed that @Brisketexan never responded to the fact that his assertion about guns being the number one cause of death for children being misinfomation. It's ok to admit that you were suckered in by an emotionally charged headline and didn't take the time to properly vet the claims. Ill even admit that I got the percentages I cited from a reddit thread and haven't checked them out for myself yet. We all, well most of us, have day jobs and families and can't spend every waking hour chasing down exactly what is and isn't fact, which is one of the big reasons why misinformation can be so dangerous. If I get some time, I'll try and confirm that those numbers are accurate, but between work, select soccer for the oldest, coaching three year old soccer for the middle, and trying to reign in the youngest who apparently just wants to watch the world burn, I've already got a pretty busy schedule.

I confess that the final figure ("number one cause of death") is misleading due to the inclusion of 19 yr olds.  However, that also is semantics that misses the forest for the trees.  In every single other western nation, firearms doesn't even register as a cause of death for children.  It's down there with death by shark attack and death by piano falling from a building.

We have an absurdly high number of Americans, and American children, killed by firearms, in comparison to every other comparable country.  

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Because age limits of 21 stop so many kids from obtaining alcohol...and unlike alcohol, you can obtain guns online with a credit card.  This little fantasy scenario where you are giving assurances that it will work is absurd.  These are not crimes of passion, they are planned out, premeditated attacks often planned over months if not longer.  

The Uvalde shooter TRIED to obtain an AR before he turned 18, and failed.   In other words:

1) we already HAVE an age-limit law (it's set at 18, instead of 21)

2) it deterred this particular shooter from obtaining the weapon he wanted until he was past the legal age

Age limit laws work.  No, nothing is perfect.  If he was super-determined, and smart and clever and experienced like the people on this thread, he could get around it.  But it's relevant to note that the people we're talking about here are NOT all of those things.  They are mentally shitty dumbasses, for the most part.  They do things that are easy, not things that are difficult.

Age limit laws work.  We've seen them work.

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Ding, ding, fucking ding!

Incorrect, or at the very least, way incomplete.

We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of firearms in the US in recent years:

While at the same time, the number of households with a gun has declined:

Fewer people own more guns.  And the prevalence of the AR variants has skyrocketed.  I remember when the first person I knew to get an AR happened -- it was around 1992.  It was really interesting, and unique.  Now?  They're freaking everywhere.  I can't go to the range without there being multiple guys cooking off rounds with an AR.

Our firearms facts and culture have changed dramatically over the past 20-30 years.  And not for the better, at all.

As for the semantics as to the proposed law at the Texas lege, cool, cool.  You all know what the simple goal is -- make it materially harder for broken-brained young men to acquire an AR or other mag fed semi-auto.  It is already hard for them to do so if they are under 18.  Literally change that number to 21.  That's all we're trying to do on the age limit front.

As for red flag laws, as noted above, they already exist in multiple jurisdictions.  Hell, the Sutherland Springs shooter was NOT supposed to be able to obtain firearms, but the Air Force fucked up and didn't put him in the system.  Right there, a cousin of the proposed red flag laws likely would have prevented THAT massacre.

And of course, we can tackle the low-hanging fruit of suicides with safe storage laws (again, won't solve them all, but will reduce the hell out of them).

None of these things -- not one -- is happening in Texas or will happen, because people like the folks on this thread -- gun owners like me -- somehow find a reason to oppose every single one of them.  Why is that?  And why don't y'all realize that gun owners are utterly alienating themselves and an activity/practice that we truly enjoy and want to keep (shooting sports) every time we extend a middle finger to the rest of society?  Importantly, read the last graph cited above.  Fewer than 1/3 of households are gun-owner households.  We're the minority.  Telling the majority "fuck off" is not a smart long-term strategy.  At some point or another, they will lose patience with us, use their greater numbers, and shove whatever they want down our throats.  Maybe we ought to try an approach that makes us decent partners and participants in civil society instead of being belligerents?  I mean, I know what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears -- we are fully committed to the path we're on.  It ends poorly.  And whether you'll admit it here or not, you know that's true.

 

[83Horn 1,648]

14 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

If increasing the age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21 would prevent one mass shooter event every 5 years, do you think that would be worth it? Why or why not?

A couple honest questions; 1) How many of these mass shootings are committed by 18-20 year olds?, 2) If just one 18-20 year old would be able to use a semi-automatic rifle to stop just one home invasion, armed robbery, assault, etc., would it be worth it to you?

[BabaYaga 15,327]

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The Uvalde shooter TRIED to obtain an AR before he turned 18, and failed

Remind us again what the eventual outcome was?

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If he was super-determined, and smart and clever and experienced like the people on this thread, he could get around it.

Like he did?

 

58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fewer people own more guns.

This is a giant red herring.  Are these shooters obtaining guns from families that have dozens if not hundreds of guns?  These are prepared, premeditated attacks often planned over months if not years.  Almost all the guns were obtained legally.  The opposition to these laws is that they will accomplish next to nothing.  The worst gun violence across the country are in cities with the strictest gun laws.  In Chicago alone the former mayor presided over more than 2,700 gun deaths.  That's one god damn city.  Or that they won't either obtain them illegally or simply switch to pistols?  You capping the age on those too?   

[Bozo_Casanova 26,578]

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is a giant red herring.  Are these shooters obtaining guns from families that have dozens if not hundreds of guns?  These are prepared, premeditated attacks often planned over months if not years.  Almost all the guns were obtained legally.  The opposition to these laws is that they will accomplish next to nothing.  The worst gun violence across the country are in cities with the strictest gun laws.  In Chicago alone the former mayor presided over more than 2,700 gun deaths.  That's one god damn city.  Or that they won't either obtain them illegally or simply switch to pistols?  You capping the age on those too?   

The Chicago thing is instructive. It's not just one city. It's mostly one area of one city, with a gang problem, where the people involved are in illegal possession of weapons - almost always handguns.  So, according to you, should the laws that prohibit them from gun possession be repealed, or are they an important tool for law enforcement?

The people committing large scale mass shootings are legally obtaining AR-15s, often buying them within days of the event, despite usually displaying behaviors in the days and weeks prior to the events that present a "red flag" to the people around them - suicidal ideation, expressions of violent intentions, etc. Do you think tools should be available to law enforcement in Texas to identify those "red flags" and assess their fitness to possess weapon platforms capable of causing a mass casualty event? 

@ChickenNuggets makes a good point - this is mostly a social problem and would not stop gun violence altogether. It may even only have a mild effect. But to me, the value of legally disarming people in mental health crisis or a recent history of family violence is pretty self-evident common sense, and worth mentioning that it's essentially non-controversial. Even a majority of Republican gun owners agrees. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 105,432]

Baba….he DIDN’T get around the age restriction. He waited it out:

“The gunman in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history bought two AR-style rifles legally just after his 18th birthday — days before his assault on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.”

In short, the age limit WORKED.

[BabaYaga 15,327]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Baba….he DIDN’T get around the age restriction. He waited it out:

“The gunman in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history bought two AR-style rifles legally just after his 18th birthday — days before his assault on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.”

In short, the age limit WORKED.

It worked?  Really