This is the first post I have read from you that I would say crosses the line. While the information on nomenclature is illuminating on its own it really has nothing to do with the topic, which is not firearm lore but firearm politics.
The RKBA fanatics are not indifferent to school shootings? That's like saying all Republicans acknowle…
This is the first post I have read from you that I would say crosses the line. While the information on nomenclature is illuminating on its own it really has nothing to do with the topic, which is not firearm lore but firearm politics.
The RKBA fanatics are not indifferent to school shootings? That's like saying all Republicans acknowledge that Trump lost and admit that he lies every time he opens his mouth.
Every time a mass shooting is reported there is a run on gun stores, a lot of BS about the shooting report being a pretext to confiscate guns.
Yes, the banning of assault rifles would trigger a huge surge of rage and violence. Should we allow ourselves to be extorted into keeping the damned things legal until people are afraid to go to work? How many parents hear the phone ring during the day and wonder if this is the report that one of their children has just been blown in half by some disturbed teenager?
Really, and I insist you answer this, why does anyone need a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon? And, no, I am not interested in the difference between the two, a correction that is trotted out as a distraction and an attack on people who are tired of the slaughter, as being uninformed.
Correct me if I am wrong but your support of the 2A is for self-defense, correct? How does anything past a one-shot handgun have anything to do with that?
Yes there are other ways to kill people, but right now the proliferation of these massacre machines is out of control.
I am not spitting in your eye, I don't believe for a second that you are OK with classrooms an inch deep in blood. But when it comes to the line that says "at this point we have to consider no longer allowing preposterously overpowered firearms in the hands of mentally unstable people," you will not cross that line.
Just as with the "trans" crowd, to altogether too many people their guns are the very seat of identity. Who am I? Blah blah blah Second Amendment blah blah blah freedom blah blah blah more guns. Do you think this is acceptable? I don't.
As for the very bloody civil war, must we be held hostage to that? They're preparing for it anyway, stocking up on ammo and filling their ranks with experienced ex-military, and the longer we go without addressing the core of the problem, the bloodier it's going to be.
The point in that was that semi-automatic firearms have been available for over one hundred years and civilians had them before our military and they were available for mail order with no government intervention. I think that there is more to the issue than the availability of semi-automatic firearms. There is complexity and while I understand that if you believe that guns are the root cause that that's where you'd focus first. They are an issue, but I don't see them as a root cause and as a practical matter I don't see them vanishing anytime soon.
A sales tactic. Interestingly there are now a large portion of gun buyers who are first time buyers who gave up being anti-gun as a matter of perceived practicality. I hope they get training, both in safety and the law.
The issue isn't limited to buying guns. Gun rights organizations are yammering (send money) about the anti-gun provisions in the abomination spending bill which people signed without reading (an impossible task). My objection to omnibus spending bills goes beyond senseless spending on things that won't walk on their own legs but enacting policy on such things, but that is another subject,
In truth, I think that there would be less violent resistance than is believed. Most people, like me, would turn them in. I know a fight I can't win or is not worth it when I see it.
Just as the gun industry promotes overblown fear of gun restrictions, the anti-gun groups promote hoplophobia to create true believers who will send money like the pro-gun groups do. I am not minimizing school shootings, but I think the fear about them is greater than justified. When people hear "mass shooting" they think of spectacular events like major school shootings or the Las Vegas shooting. The government sets a low bar for calling something a mass shooting and the large majority (bumping up the count) are local events like drug deals gone bad, gangs, etc. Promoting fear and hysteria are tools used by more than FOX.
I don't think in terms of only owning what we need. That would collapse the buy what we want economy. People would not have jobs or income in a world without self-sufficiency and I don't need to tell you where that leads. It's not a question I ask but what follows might be the answer you seek.
Self-defense is not huge in my list of priorities since the odds of being in a self-defense situation is small enough that I don't carry a gun every time I go out the door. At the same time, I see no higher personal priority than self-preservation and the defense of those we love so I certainly think people have a right to tools to effectively do that. I'm not talking about laws but nature.
Your thought that a single shot handgun is all you need for self-defense is actually a strong argument for semi-automatic firearms. One-shot stops are a "buy this gun" gun magazine fantasy. In all of the critical incident reports from the Phoenix PD that I've seen, they never shoot one round. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1137967663572659&ref=sharing
I suspect that I have a lower opinion of the Mr. Tacticals who think they need more crap than soldiers in a war zone than you have. They are mostly wannabes. Wannabe what they never were or wannabe what they once were. The thing is, they seem to me to be more about a weird form of cosplay than people who are actually going to go out and do something.
I probably support more measures than you imagine, but at the same time I have concerns about abuse of those things that you may not worry about. Red flag laws could address the nut jobs that shouldn't have access although there is a thriving stolen gun market for such people. But it can also be abused with false claims by vindictive people.
As I wrote, "assault weapon" is a political term used by people who are ignorant or disingenuous about the true object of their concern, semi-automatic firearms. I commend your honesty and candor. I just have a less sharp focus on tools than you although the complexity of my concerns doesn't make solving the problem any easier.
"A sales tactic. Interestingly there are now a large portion of gun buyers who are first time buyers who gave up being anti-gun as a matter of perceived practicality. I hope they get training"
Actually they don't need to advertise, as soon as the news comes out, they are deluged with customers.
Training? Highly unlikely. Most people facing a home invader are so shaken they probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Hands shake, pulse hammers. Those on for example SWAT teams need to undergo biweekly desensitization so they can function in that kind of emergency' miss ONE such session and they can't go to the next emergency.
A lot of the Hairy Chested Administrator of Frontier Justice stuff is just conceit. Facing a threat to one's life takes more than conceit and most people aren't up to it.
Fear is one reason for semi-automatic firearms. People under stress, and life or death situations are stressful, tend to shoot with less accuracy than when not under stress, leading to firing multiple rounds.
As a Marine I was trained for 3-5 round bursts when selecting auto and machine gunners 5-7 round bursts. In real life a scared shitless combatant might just empty their magazine with one squeeze. Cops always shoot until the perp goes down.
When I had a job that required travel, I asked my wife if she wanted a gun where it was accessible to her. She said no, she would rely upon our dog. I taught her to shoot but she knows it's not in her to kill someone. Add people who wouldn't be able to use deadly force to your list of people who should not carry a gun since they are carrying it for an attacker in that case.
This is the first post I have read from you that I would say crosses the line. While the information on nomenclature is illuminating on its own it really has nothing to do with the topic, which is not firearm lore but firearm politics.
The RKBA fanatics are not indifferent to school shootings? That's like saying all Republicans acknowledge that Trump lost and admit that he lies every time he opens his mouth.
Every time a mass shooting is reported there is a run on gun stores, a lot of BS about the shooting report being a pretext to confiscate guns.
Yes, the banning of assault rifles would trigger a huge surge of rage and violence. Should we allow ourselves to be extorted into keeping the damned things legal until people are afraid to go to work? How many parents hear the phone ring during the day and wonder if this is the report that one of their children has just been blown in half by some disturbed teenager?
Really, and I insist you answer this, why does anyone need a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon? And, no, I am not interested in the difference between the two, a correction that is trotted out as a distraction and an attack on people who are tired of the slaughter, as being uninformed.
Correct me if I am wrong but your support of the 2A is for self-defense, correct? How does anything past a one-shot handgun have anything to do with that?
Yes there are other ways to kill people, but right now the proliferation of these massacre machines is out of control.
I am not spitting in your eye, I don't believe for a second that you are OK with classrooms an inch deep in blood. But when it comes to the line that says "at this point we have to consider no longer allowing preposterously overpowered firearms in the hands of mentally unstable people," you will not cross that line.
Just as with the "trans" crowd, to altogether too many people their guns are the very seat of identity. Who am I? Blah blah blah Second Amendment blah blah blah freedom blah blah blah more guns. Do you think this is acceptable? I don't.
As for the very bloody civil war, must we be held hostage to that? They're preparing for it anyway, stocking up on ammo and filling their ranks with experienced ex-military, and the longer we go without addressing the core of the problem, the bloodier it's going to be.
And the core of the problem is guns.
As you know, I can hold contrary views, or at least acknowledge truth in them.
"𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴."
The point in that was that semi-automatic firearms have been available for over one hundred years and civilians had them before our military and they were available for mail order with no government intervention. I think that there is more to the issue than the availability of semi-automatic firearms. There is complexity and while I understand that if you believe that guns are the root cause that that's where you'd focus first. They are an issue, but I don't see them as a root cause and as a practical matter I don't see them vanishing anytime soon.
"𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘚 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘯𝘴."
A sales tactic. Interestingly there are now a large portion of gun buyers who are first time buyers who gave up being anti-gun as a matter of perceived practicality. I hope they get training, both in safety and the law.
The issue isn't limited to buying guns. Gun rights organizations are yammering (send money) about the anti-gun provisions in the abomination spending bill which people signed without reading (an impossible task). My objection to omnibus spending bills goes beyond senseless spending on things that won't walk on their own legs but enacting policy on such things, but that is another subject,
"𝘠𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘩𝘶𝘨𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳?"
In truth, I think that there would be less violent resistance than is believed. Most people, like me, would turn them in. I know a fight I can't win or is not worth it when I see it.
Just as the gun industry promotes overblown fear of gun restrictions, the anti-gun groups promote hoplophobia to create true believers who will send money like the pro-gun groups do. I am not minimizing school shootings, but I think the fear about them is greater than justified. When people hear "mass shooting" they think of spectacular events like major school shootings or the Las Vegas shooting. The government sets a low bar for calling something a mass shooting and the large majority (bumping up the count) are local events like drug deals gone bad, gangs, etc. Promoting fear and hysteria are tools used by more than FOX.
"𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪-𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯?"
I don't think in terms of only owning what we need. That would collapse the buy what we want economy. People would not have jobs or income in a world without self-sufficiency and I don't need to tell you where that leads. It's not a question I ask but what follows might be the answer you seek.
"𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 2𝘈 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦, 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵? 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘰𝘯𝘦-𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘨𝘶𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?"
Self-defense is not huge in my list of priorities since the odds of being in a self-defense situation is small enough that I don't carry a gun every time I go out the door. At the same time, I see no higher personal priority than self-preservation and the defense of those we love so I certainly think people have a right to tools to effectively do that. I'm not talking about laws but nature.
Your thought that a single shot handgun is all you need for self-defense is actually a strong argument for semi-automatic firearms. One-shot stops are a "buy this gun" gun magazine fantasy. In all of the critical incident reports from the Phoenix PD that I've seen, they never shoot one round. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1137967663572659&ref=sharing
"𝘠𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭."
I suspect that I have a lower opinion of the Mr. Tacticals who think they need more crap than soldiers in a war zone than you have. They are mostly wannabes. Wannabe what they never were or wannabe what they once were. The thing is, they seem to me to be more about a weird form of cosplay than people who are actually going to go out and do something.
I probably support more measures than you imagine, but at the same time I have concerns about abuse of those things that you may not worry about. Red flag laws could address the nut jobs that shouldn't have access although there is a thriving stolen gun market for such people. But it can also be abused with false claims by vindictive people.
As I wrote, "assault weapon" is a political term used by people who are ignorant or disingenuous about the true object of their concern, semi-automatic firearms. I commend your honesty and candor. I just have a less sharp focus on tools than you although the complexity of my concerns doesn't make solving the problem any easier.
"A sales tactic. Interestingly there are now a large portion of gun buyers who are first time buyers who gave up being anti-gun as a matter of perceived practicality. I hope they get training"
Actually they don't need to advertise, as soon as the news comes out, they are deluged with customers.
Training? Highly unlikely. Most people facing a home invader are so shaken they probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Hands shake, pulse hammers. Those on for example SWAT teams need to undergo biweekly desensitization so they can function in that kind of emergency' miss ONE such session and they can't go to the next emergency.
A lot of the Hairy Chested Administrator of Frontier Justice stuff is just conceit. Facing a threat to one's life takes more than conceit and most people aren't up to it.
Fear is one reason for semi-automatic firearms. People under stress, and life or death situations are stressful, tend to shoot with less accuracy than when not under stress, leading to firing multiple rounds.
As a Marine I was trained for 3-5 round bursts when selecting auto and machine gunners 5-7 round bursts. In real life a scared shitless combatant might just empty their magazine with one squeeze. Cops always shoot until the perp goes down.
When I had a job that required travel, I asked my wife if she wanted a gun where it was accessible to her. She said no, she would rely upon our dog. I taught her to shoot but she knows it's not in her to kill someone. Add people who wouldn't be able to use deadly force to your list of people who should not carry a gun since they are carrying it for an attacker in that case.