The Gun Owner’s thread

[BabaYaga 15298]

27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So, according to you, should the laws that prohibit them from gun possession be repealed, or are they an important tool for law enforcement?

Repealed?  We going to straw this up?  No - with the proliferation of illegal guns and limited ability for LEO to respond and help, greater access to the citizens needs to be granted for them to protect themselves and their families.  

[Herbie Hancock 7347]

Goddammit you stupid fucks I hate you. All of you.

[4th and 5 4914]

sounds like something a mass shooter would say

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

47 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Repealed?  We going to straw this up?  No - with the proliferation of illegal guns and limited ability for LEO to respond and help, greater access to the citizens needs to be granted for them to protect themselves and their families.  

In that case, should greater access include those in mental health crisis or people with a recent history of domestic violence or stated violent intentions? 
This isn’t a trick question. I’m trying to understand your POV.

[BabaYaga 15298]

57 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Goddammit you stupid fucks I hate you. All of you.

Mea cupla - take this shit to the CR, myself included.  To make amends, this weekend my neighbor is taking his new toy out for a spin at my place and he has buckets of ammo to burn.  Here's the pic. 

She's an old gal, born in 1943.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

24 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 

She's an old gal, born in 1943.

Oh hey, A Mini-14!

I kid, I kid

[BHMCruiser 1813]

That's an excellent firearm. Not a hunk of crap, you know, like a Mini-14.

[BabaYaga 15298]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

That's an excellent firearm. Not a hunk of crap, you know, like a Mini-14.

He's going full Band of Brothers.  We both have Garands, 1911's and next he wants a Thompson

[BabaYaga 15298]

Caveat, I was reading up on "modern" .30 carbine rounds.  The original ball ammo was basically crap.  A little better than a 9mm, but not much more.  Out of the longer barrel and modern projectiles, the ballistics of the carbine and terminal effects are not that far off from a .357 magnum, with a slightly smaller projectile (110gr)

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Mea cupla - take this shit to the CR, myself included.  To make amends, this weekend my neighbor is taking his new toy out for a spin at my place and he has buckets of ammo to burn.  Here's the pic. 

She's an old gal, born in 1943.

My brother and I inherited a bunch of really nice rifles and shotguns, couple of pistols.  Some really cool sporterized custom stuff, lots of custom wood on everything.  The M1 is the only one we "fought" over, if you will (not really fought).  But it cost me a bunch of other stuff to get it out of his hands and into my safe.  General Motors.  Fantastic rifle.  We used to have buckets and buckets of ammo we'd fire off as kids, but now, its $$$$ for the good stuff.   What a fantastic rifle.    

[fattyflattie 4639]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

At a minimum, this chart needs the population at each decade included.  I understand it wont match, but we are over 100% more populous from one end of the chart to the other.  In 1990, we had 250m people, and 200m guns, 1.25 per person.   425m guns between 335m people, 2023 numbers, is 1.28 per.  

[Brisketexan 105139]

29 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

At a minimum, this chart needs the population at each decade included.  I understand it wont match, but we are over 100% more populous from one end of the chart to the other.  In 1990, we had 250m people, and 200m guns, 1.25 per person.   425m guns between 335m people, 2023 numbers, is 1.28 per.  

Absolutely, per capita numbers are relevant.  Finding the exact data (and looking at it in multiple ways) isn't necessarily easy, but here's a basic set of numbers showing the per capita numbers going up (and crossing the rubicon around 2008....when...WHO was elected?  Yeah, I remember the 2008 freakout well).

  

Edited May 10, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

4 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

That's an excellent firearm. Not a hunk of crap, you know, like a Mini-14.

Not mine but like mine

[Anastasis 23469]

30 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not mine but like mine

Same with wood and stainless but full stock and not a folder. I’ve never shot the thing, it’s just been sitting in the safe for a few years now.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Same with wood and stainless but full stock and not a folder. I’ve never shot the thing, it’s just been sitting in the safe for a few years now.  

You should absolutely shoot yours. Mine was full stock, I added the folder - Samson uses the original Ruger design under license, and they also make one for the 10/22.

[fattyflattie 4639]

43 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not mine but like mine

I'm not trying to rile you up, but I don't see a difference between that and a (non-cosplayed up) AR.  Paint that wood black and it's leaning heavy towards the tacticool line. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

57 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm not trying to rile you up, but I don't see a difference between that and a (non-cosplayed up) AR.  Paint that wood black and it's leaning heavy towards the tacticool line. 

It’s a product-market fit thing.
Mini-14s are for ranchers, bank robbers, French and South African mercs, and the A-Team. AR-15s are for mass shooters, cosplayers, people who enjoy clearing jams, fatties, and guys who shave their forearms.

(disclaimer: I own both)

Edited May 11, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

What about an AR built on a fighting lower?

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

14 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What about an AR built on a fighting lower?

Hot

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

*Fightlite lower. Didn't notice that autocorrect changed it until just now.

[Fondren & Main 6718]

8 hours ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Goddammit you stupid fucks I hate you. All of you.

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

(disclaimer: I own both)

Lol. Me too. 

[Armybrat 40844]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not mine but like mine

Not like mine (owned by my son now). 
He added an Accu-strut to it a few years ago. 
Fun gun to shoot.

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Armybrat

[General Specific 3261]

Lol. Me too. 

Raising hand!

[wild_turkey 3159]

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

If you are a gun owner and you are unwilling to participate in conversations about gun control and strategies to prevent the wrong people in society from acquiring guns, then you fall somewhere between being naive about the current status of your hobby and being flat out complicit in the next mass shooting.

This conversation has spilled into this thread for the exact reason that some of you want to celebrate guns while conveniently ignoring their risks and the harms they pose to society. There should no longer be a safe space for people to do that. This is the price of gun ownership, and we have arrived here because people have ignored the problem or fought against potential solutions for far too long.

I own 2 guns fwiw, and I am strongly in favor of tightening the laws around gun ownership.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

That's fair. So why exactly do you think that 18-22 year olds should be denied constitutional rights, yet still be required to register for the draft? What other constitutional rights can they be denied? There is a well established federal legislative history of disallowing FFL holders from selling certain guns, handguns specifically, to them, but still allowing private transfers. Now, this is relevant because that was allowed because it was not believed that it was constitutional to completely deny them the right to acquire a handgun. However with the expansion of the commerce clause, it was believed to be justified to deny them FFL transfers. Getting further into legislative history, when the NFA of 1934 was being debated in congress, they originally wanted to include handguns in the list of firearms that would be subject to the law. However, they felt this would not pass constitutional muster and dropped them so that it would not risk SCOTUS striking the whole thing down. At the time, the commerce clause had not been expanded, so it was passed under Congress's authority to levy taxes. Of course, this was before the second amendment had been incorporated under the fourteenth amendment to the states, something which has not been challenged given that that only happened in 2010. Given the fate of other laws that tax civil rights which have been incorporated under the fourteenth amendment, it could very well be that the transfer tax goes bye bye as well. Anyhow, that's a lot of words to say that there is a long legislative history of allowing certain restrictions, but not outright bans, on certain firearms for certain people who have not been denied their rights through due process. There have been lower court cases, and the results are fairly predictable if you follow that stuff, but there is no real established law. The real question is do you want to establish it with the current court?

Maybe the better tactic would be to disallow those transfers through FFL's while still allowing private transfers. You could even throw in a universal background check system for all private transfers that would be akin to the one Senator Coburn proposed in 2013, except run by the state instead of the federal government. If you have to, make it optional for five years to test it out and get enough votes to pass and then see what the results are before trying to make it mandatory. I would suspect that a system like that would be used for the vast majority of private transfers between strangers.

Also, write better bills. Bozo's Mini-14's only saving grace, beyond it's terrible accuracy, is that it is to expensive for angsty teen incels. But something like this:

Or this:

Is not likely at all to be used in a mass shooting event. Yet the bill discussed previously would ban them. And probably also an freaking Ruger 10/22, which is the most popular and practical .22 long rifle guns made in the modern era. 

For real, write better bills that are actually well thought out instead of coming up with some crap that couldn't even pass a cursory review by someone knowledgeable on the subject and is likely to get struck down in the courts.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Also, if you made universal background checks under the Coburn model mandatory after a five year trial period, you could incorporate a red flag law with it that would prevent transfers to those who have been flagged with proper due process instead of outright taking any firearms they already own away from them. This would also prevent fresh 18 year olds from acquiring guns, without preventing current gun owners from being afraid to seek help with mental health because of the risk of losing their rights. So a veteran who is experiencing PTSD wouldn't have to worry about whether or not their therapist is an activist anti gun type who might lean towards confiscating their guns just because they have nightmares about Afghanistan. 

[Parliament 14260]

11 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Not like mine (owned by my son now). 
He added an Accu-strut to it a few years ago. 
Fun gun to shoot.

 

For no justifiable reason, I want a Mini 14.  A 90's vintage.  Also a Mini 30.  Again, just because.

[Armybrat 40844]

The one in my pic is an early 1980s production…. With the disparaged “pencil barrel”. 
That’s why the Accu-strut was needed.

[YGIFS 19450]

On 5/8/2023 at 9:09 PM, Fondren & Main said:

I simply made a post stating to call your reps if you want something done and was swiftly chided for it.  Amazing the balls some of you people have when you’re behind a fucking keyboard.

Amazing your complete lack of balls when you’re not carrying.  

[Fondren & Main 6718]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

Amazing your complete lack of balls when you’re not carrying.  

Seek psychiatric help.  You're clearly in need of it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

4 hours ago, Parliament said:

For no justifiable reason, I want a Mini 14.  A 90's vintage.  Also a Mini 30.  Again, just because.

You want a post 2007-08, the "new" models don't have the accuracy issues the old ones have. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

13 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yet the bill discussed previously would ban them. And probably also an freaking Ruger 10/22, which is the most popular and practical .22 long rifle guns made in the modern era. 

No, again, HB2744 would not ban either of them, or ban anything at all. 

 

14 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

This would also prevent fresh 18 year olds from acquiring guns, without preventing current gun owners from being afraid to seek help with mental health because of the risk of losing their rights. So a veteran who is experiencing PTSD wouldn't have to worry about whether or not their therapist is an activist anti gun type who might lean towards confiscating their guns just because they have nightmares about Afghanistan. 

This is pure, silly conjecture. Your imaginary activist therapist can't just decide to have somebody's guns confiscated. In most cases only law enforcement and sometimes family even have standing to petition the courts. Then there's typically a hearing where the petitioners must present their evidence, then IF the weapons are taken there are more hearings and more process after where the burden is on the state to show why they are continuing to holding the weapons. 
 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

9 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, again, HB2744 would not ban either of them, or ban anything at all. 

 

This is pure, silly conjecture. Your imaginary activist therapist can't just decide to have somebody's guns confiscated. In most cases only law enforcement and sometimes family even have standing to petition the courts. Then there's typically a hearing where the petitioners must present their evidence, then IF the weapons are taken there are more hearings and more process after where the burden is on the state to show why they are continuing to holding the weapons. 
 

On your first point, I meant to say that it would ban them for those under 21. To suggest that a legal adult who can be drafted into or volunteer for the army should not have the right to a freaking Ruger 10/22, which is probably the most popular rimfire rifle in the US by sales, is a little overboard. It's not exactly the choice of mass shooters by any stretch, and nor would it be effective for them.

To your second point,

Quote

Under Senate Bill 170, one of the four bills signed by Polis on Friday, the list of people who can petition a judge to order a gun seizure now includes health care providers, mental health providers, district attorneys and teachers.

So, yes, in some cases, they can. Whether it is successful or not could be up in the air, as they do have what on the surface appears to be a decently designed law. But they may also get into a situation where the evidence is the professional opinion of the person who initiated the whole thing, which can easily allow for personal biases.

However, this article throws up a few red flags, yet conveniently doesn’t really delve into the data behind them.

Quote

But at times, the people pursuing orders were more worried about someone’s irresponsible use of firearms, rather than any apparent intent to kill.

While we all agree that people should exercise their civil rights responsibly, attempting to strip someone of them for that reason seems a bit orwellian. What other civil rights should we be allowed to strip from others because we don't think they are exercising them responsibly?

Quote

Black people were somewhat disproportionately the subjects of petitions, making up about 9 percent of respondents whose race could be determined from court documents, compared to 6 percent of the state’s population. Those figures are influenced by heavier usage of ERPO in Denver, where Black people make up about 10 percent of the population and about 18 percent of ERPO cases.

So their implementation seems to be a bit racist, with black people being almost twice as likely as white people in some jurisdictions to be stripped of their rights.

Quote

Across Colorado, about 80 percent of requests from law enforcement resulted in a year-long ‘red flag’ order. In comparison, only about 17 percent of those filed by individuals had that outcome.

This is also concerning. The article lists possible reasons, such as individuals not having proper representation to make them stick, but the fact that a group of people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy time and time again has such a disproportionate success rate should raise some questions. 

Quote

Some individual cases also appear to have been frivolous or malicious. Private citizens have occasionally filed petitions against family members, public figures and even government offices without stating any legal reason a person’s guns should be taken. Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams has faced three “red flag” petitions, all unsuccessful.

In those cases, the courts have generally rejected the request with a form letter.

So that thing you claim doesn't happen actually does happen. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that it isn't successful. And that's fair. But how many of those frivilous cases have been pursued by the law to enforce penalties on those false accusers? I'm guessing the number is something close to the number of cases that are pursued against people living on their form  4473. Which is close to zero. I would like to see some statistics on that if anybody can find them.

 

There is plenty of evidence out there that these laws have the potential to be abused, and gun owners can have a legitimate concern about it. This is why I suggested the model I suggested. It allows for the law to be tailored to meet those suggestions and gain more trust from gun owners and develop a system that everybody except the most fringe elements can work with. The alternative is to keep saying there is nothing to worry about while nothing ever happens.

[royiv 9317]

On 5/10/2023 at 11:25 AM, BabaYaga said:

Repealed?  We going to straw this up?  No - with the proliferation of illegal guns and limited ability for LEO to respond and help, greater access to the citizens needs to be granted for them to protect themselves and their families.  

[Anastasis 23469]

Bozos mini is cosplaying as an AC556. I mean I get it. I like it.  But that is also truth. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

On 5/10/2023 at 12:52 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh hey, A Mini-14!

I kid, I kid

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

On your first point, I meant to say that it would ban them for those under 21. To suggest that a legal adult who can be drafted into or volunteer for the army should not have the right to a freaking Ruger 10/22, which is probably the most popular rimfire rifle in the US by sales, is a little overboard. It's not exactly the choice of mass shooters by any stretch, and nor would it be effective for them.

Agreed, but a couple of things on this.
First, it's not clear that the bill would restrict .22LR for 18-20 year olds. I do understand the technicalities involved here, but having talked to some of the staff involved they appear to have been using commonplace language intentionally, i.e. that a .223 or 5.56 would be widely understood to be  "greater than" .22. I could live with that, but I'm not a fan of imprecision in legislative construction, because an equally valid reading would be that .223 and 5.56 are NOT greater than .22.  A better bill would age restrict semi-automatic rifles that fire centerfire cartridges. 

Second, if they are drafted or volunteer for the army (or are law enforcement) they are specifically exempted from restrictions. 

 

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

So, yes, in some cases, they can. Whether it is successful or not could be up in the air, as they do have what on the surface appears to be a decently designed law. But they may also get into a situation where the evidence is the professional opinion of the person who initiated the whole thing, which can easily allow for personal biases.

That's true that in a few cases a mental health professional can initiate a petition, but don't we want that? I'd be much more comfortable with their assesment than a police officer with no training in mental health crisis. Process exists to filter for bias. There's nothing unique here that doesn't apply to all other aspects of law. 
 

 

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

So their implementation seems to be a bit racist, with black people being almost twice as likely as white people in some jurisdictions to be stripped of their rights.

Structural racism is a thing, CRT out front should have told you. But again, there's nothing unique to this. Stay woke!
 

 

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

There is plenty of evidence out there that these laws have the potential to be abused, and gun owners can have a legitimate concern about it. This is why I suggested the model I suggested. It allows for the law to be tailored to meet those suggestions and gain more trust from gun owners and develop a system that everybody except the most fringe elements can work with.

I saw what you proposed and to be honest I need to roll it around a bit, but in the meantime I appreciate the good faith attempt at solutioning. That said, I'm just not seeing the uniqueness here, and the harm being prevented seems much greater than the occasional fuckup. Every law, across all time and place, has the potential for abuse, especially along racial and social lines. If you're really that worried, you're going to shit when you hear about speed limits. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Jkwellborn 6702]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but 18-21 yr olds can’t buy .22lr since it’s pistol ammo right? Or has that been changed or just told to me incorrectly?

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

2 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but 18-21 yr olds can’t buy .22lr since it’s pistol ammo right? Or has that been changed or just told to me incorrectly?

I think it’s up to the FFL to determine what they reasonably believe the ammo will be used for. I think of 22lr as rifle ammo primarily, and my guess is that others do as well.

22 short, on the other hand, would be almost exclusively for revolvers.

[Handcruser 2805]

I think it’s up to the FFL to determine what they reasonably believe the ammo will be used for. I think of 22lr as rifle ammo primarily, and my guess is that others do as well.
22 short, on the other hand, would be almost exclusively for revolvers.

22lr is 18+
Any 22 is pretty much 18+. 22 short can be shot out of rifles.

[Armybrat 40844]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think it’s up to the FFL to determine what they reasonably believe the ammo will be used for. I think of 22lr as rifle ammo primarily, and my guess is that others do as well.

22 short, on the other hand, would be almost exclusively for revolvers.

Beg to differ.

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Armybrat

[Armybrat 40844]

Not the Ruger 10/22 though.

[fattyflattie 4639]

45 minutes ago, Handcruser said:

. 22 short can be shot out of rifles.

Absolutely, every .22 short ive ever fired has been out of a rifle.  

[RMac5 1551]

Brat that model 9422 is my favorite rifle I own. Mine was a gift from my parents when I was about 14.

[GoPokes83 2240]

Seems like someone finally shut the CR door for a minute.

[Bozo_Casanova 26460]

2 hours ago, Handcruser said:

22lr is 18+
Any 22 is pretty much 18+. 22 short can be shot out of rifles.

 

2 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Beg to differ.

 

 

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Absolutely, every .22 short ive ever fired has been out of a rifle.  

I guess it just never occurred to me that it would be used for any rifle today outside of an old timey gallery guns and the like.

[fattyflattie 4639]

17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

I guess it just never occurred to me that it would be used for any rifle today outside of an old timey gallery guns and the like.

Oh no, these were oldie oldies. Seems impossible, but maybe older than @Armybrat old.  I’ll see if I can find a few while I’m down for Mother’s Day.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Back in the day I had a .44 mag lever gun I bought for my 18th birthday, and I would buy ammo for it all the time from Walmart. I just told them I was buying it for a rifle and there was no problem. That was almost 20 years ago, though. Pretty much any pistol round is also a rifle round, so there is really no way to enforce it unless things have changed.

[Armybrat 40844]

11 hours ago, RMac5 said:

Brat that model 9422 is my favorite rifle I own. Mine was a gift from my parents when I was about 14.

Inherited mine from my Dad. It has never been fired since the factory shipped it. 
One of my kids or grandkids will have to do the honor.