Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:You can always find one person who lost their leg in a freak curling iron accident on Oprah,
Hey, hey, hey, I shared that in confidence, in a moment of weakness. Way to put it out there for everyone to know about .....
Oprah still hasn't apologized by the way.
It's only a matter of time before someone drives a car loaded with rabid pit bulls into a crowd and then releases the dogs.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:
I mean simply rise up with Porsches and Ginsus. logic bites butt.
Agreed.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
The Mofo effect 
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
You're reaching. But yes people run cars into crowds. And dogs bite people. Water is wet.
but you state that guns are not any more dangerous than cars and this is incorrect. More kids were killed last year by guns than by cars. Guns are more dangerous to kids than cars. which is a good problem to have as cars and child safety laws get better and better.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/23/1082564685/guns-leading-cause-of-premature-deaths
Gun Violence Dot Org is an excellent resource.
Honestly, I'd have no problems with silencers and suppressors, or 40rnd mags, or semi-automatic weapons as long we made it sufficiently difficult for nutso people to acquire them.
I've often heard this argument of "bad people and criminals will obtain guns one or another." This isn't exactly true. Most mass shooters have acquired their guns through fully legal methods. There is good evidence that mass shooters do not want to associate with criminals because they don't interact with a seedy criminal unground of arms traffickers...they want guts and glory via suicide by cop.
Lets define a mass shooter:
- Wants to murder people in public place.
- Want to murder indiscriminately
- Targets schools, places of employment, public gatherings
- Has no gang affiliation.
Lets define "gang related gun violence":
- Wants to off members of a rival gang
- Wants to murder rival gang's family members
- Wants to intimidate local government or law enforcement
Yes, most gun violence is committed in urban area with small arms that more often not acquired legally. That's gang violence. The people who get involved in gang violence are often not innocent. Yes, innocent bystanders get killed by gang violence. But there is virtually NO CROSSOVER between gang members and urban folks who acquire illegal weapons and those who commit mass shootings. Therefore, I don't think we should lump together gun violence statistics as a whole with mass shootings.
In the case of gang violence and illegal arms traffiking, the police have every ability to search and seize weapons and prosecute those in possession.
In the case of mass shooters, we can't rely solely on Red Flag laws, as shooters will just stay off the radar until they commit their act. In those cases, preventing them from obtaining the weapons in the first place is really the only solution.
On the topic of money spent on lobbying:
Pro-Gun groups spend money lobbying. Anti-Gun groups spend money on lobbying.
The NRA and Pro-Gun groups try to influence politics with donations which support their position, craft media stories which use language that favors their position etc.
The other side does the same thing. Everytown is financed by Bloomberg, and his media outlets often publish anti-gun stories. I am positive campaign donations go to candidates that espouse his agenda, too.
Point is, there is major money being thrown around by both sides, and both sides are using the media outlets they can to push their argument.
new point:
If I had more time, I'd look at how the political position of being anti-gun shifted from it's start with the Democrats over to California Republicans and then back into the wheelhouse of the Democrats. I suspect that the push for the Assault Weapons ban, the violence in traditionally minority areas, the war on drugs and other factors all played into it. There was also a rather major philosophical shift affecting both Republican and Democratic ideology which started inthe early part of the 20th century and continued until after the Cold War.
pheller said:Lets define a mass shooter:
- Wants to murder people in public place.
- Want to murder indiscriminately
- Targets schools, places of employment, public gatherings
- Has no gang affiliation.
Your 'no gang affiliation' bit is what catches my attention - Id be curious how many 'mass shootings' are gang related.
Again, and I brought this up earlier, depending on how your define a mass shooting, there are MANY that dont cause a blip on the radar because they are from urban areas and gang related...but when it's time for statistics and to make things seem more scary they're added in.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:Gun Violence Dot Org is an excellent resource.
Wow.
Thank you for the link.
And a thought for this afternoon.
Guns are NOT toys, so should there be toy guns?
Right. Recently there was a shooting at a bar/club in Sacramento. 6 people dead. Made national news because it happened right after Uvlade.
Difference was, it was gang related - maybe. Something like 70 shots from what police identified as 5 different shooters.
Three of those dead were involved in the dispute, although investigators weren't entirely sure if these were "formal" gangs, or just buddies geared up for a fight. There were loose associations between Crips and Bloods.
Three other victims were considered bystanders and their murders were used to charge the perps.
To me, this event is completely different than the event that occurred in Uvlade and the measures needed to prevent them are equally different.
Gang shootings rarely involve "technical" or "assault" or "modular" or "militarized" carbines. Gang gun violence is often small arms.
Mass shootings are the opposite - they frequently involve semi-automatic carbines with militarized designs.
Personally, I believe banning the RETAIL sale of NEW semi-automatic weapons would do a lot to curb the "angry teenager mass shootings" - that would increase the value of used weapons and make shooters like Ulvade jump through more hoops to secure those types of guns. I also think we need to track and tax ammunition sold in the retail setting just like we do nasal decongestants. You can only buy so much at a time. Make it illegal to sell ammunition outside of a retail setting, aside from "target rounds" provided at ranges. There would be exemptions for what we might call "low velocity" ammunition or something to that effect. Yes, someone could still shoot up a spot with a .22 or shotgun with birdshot, but those are less lethal than rounds specifically design to kill large targets.
A legal gun owner should be able to be able to fill the clip of their 9mm or 45. Not multiple clips.
A legal gun owner should be able to site-in their hunting rifle, but with hundreds of rounds? I'm not sure that's necessary.
A legal gun owner should be able to go trap shooting. Do they need slugs?
For every "well but" you might come up with, there is perfectly reasonable regulations that would allow you that use case without making it easy to shoot up a school.
Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:new point:
If I had more time, I'd look at how the political position of being anti-gun shifted from it's start with the Democrats over to California Republicans and then back into the wheelhouse of the Democrats. I suspect that the push for the Assault Weapons ban, the violence in traditionally minority areas, the war on drugs and other factors all played into it. There was also a rather major philosophical shift affecting both Republican and Democratic ideology which started inthe early part of the 20th century and continued until after the Cold War.
Your new point raises some tangents. IMHO the AWB was a political deal between Clinton and House Republicans, which is why it had a 10 year sunset. At that time, ridiculously cheap rifles were flooding the market from China and I'm absolutely certain US rifle mfgs went along with it to try and stem those imports. The same thing happened with the "Russian Ammo Ban". I see gun control issues going urban/rural and authoritarian/populist right now. It's only in the last five years you'd see any minorities openly and enthusiastically endorsing 2A issues. It's a pretty complicated demographic shift.
Noddaz said:Guns are NOT toys, so should there be toy guns?
99% of toys are kid friendly versions of things that aren't toys. Kitchens, pots, pans, tools, lawnmowers, archery, doctors equipment, etc.
In reply to Noddaz :
It sheds a glaringly different light on all angles of gun injury. Yes too many children are injured. 1 is too many. But the suicide and injury stats are what is eye opening
As an aside, the Columbine shooters acquired most of their weapons through household guns or utilizing friends and acquaintances to purchase guns. At the time, kids requesting those styles of guns from adults would've likely raised eyebrows with those whom they made the requests, but because mass shootings were so rare, and often perpetrated by adults or criminals, the suppliers (Duran and Manes) didn't believe the kids were a threat. They played Doom, and talked up wanting to experience those guns in real life. "Gun Nerds".
Today, a 16 year old requesting coworkers or friends purchase them a AR15 would certainly raise some concerns.
Hence why more recent mass shootings involve either older perps who can buy their own guns, or kids who access to a family gun.
In reply to pheller :
Couple of points:
Slugs are made for hunting primarily and are often used because they don't have much range and are safer in more populated areas. A lot of people hunt with shotgun loaded with slugs, in fact in some places I believe that it's their only option.
People absolutely need to be able to practice with their defence guns, limiting ammo basically would mean that you have unskilled people carrying guns. This is not a road to success at all.
Saying people only need a certain amount of rounds to sight in their rifle is preposterous. Now we have people with hunting rifles that may or may not shoot where they are aiming. How is this safe?
I say this without emotional impact so please read it as such : one of the problems with the gun argument is lack of information on the anti gun side. It is the primary reason there is so much angst attached to this subject
Given the similar circumstances between Parkland and Uvalde, I'm just going to leave this here for some consideration, too.
Parkland had security that didn't do anything. Columbine as well.
Can't rely on police. Can't rely on security who's only job is to protect kids.
Even if we armed teachers, we might end school shootings, but not the other mass shootings. No amount of guns in the crowd during the 2017 Las Vegas shooting would've been effective in that situation. That might be the result of teachers carrying guns - shooters might increase their range. Maybe that'd be better?
Closing doors might help tremendously as well, at least for schools, but it doesn't protect against a lot of other scenarios. Especially those where the shooter walked in alongside classmates.
Wait, why do police carry firearms if they aren't using them to protect us? If they are for their own protection, I'd advocate we strip police of firearms and merely have them wear vests and avoid confrontation. That'd probably save a few lives as well.
In reply to Antihero :
Somewhere I have a pic of a big plastic Folger's can with 2000 rounds of 9mm.
That is less than a month's worth of ammunition for a sport shooter.
Pros might go through 10,000 rounds a week. Just thinking about it makes all the tendons in my right hand hurt 
At this volume of processing, you are not buying them, you are loading your own. You can buy loading presses that are more or less fully automated, once you set them you sit there and watch a movie while pulling the lever.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Antihero :
Somewhere I have a pic of a big plastic Folger's can with 2000 rounds of 9mm.
That is less than a month's worth of ammunition for a sport shooter.
Pros might go through 10,000 rounds a week. Just thinking about it makes all the tendons in my right hand hurt
At this volume of processing, you are not buying them, you are loading your own. You can buy loading presses that are more or less fully automated, once you set them you sit there and watch a movie while pulling the lever.
I remember hearing a news story about a guy that had " almost 100 rounds" in his safe and 2 guns. It was basically said to try to make the viewer think that 100 rounds is an absurd amount of ammo.
100 rounds in the safe for a caliber to me means I need to buy more, 100 rounds isn't much at all..............but to some it's apparently an absurd amount
Right, so if we limited the sale of ammunition, hobbyists who are serious would not really be impacted.
Maybe we make the brass cheap. Reloaders could purchase thousands of rounds of brass if they wanted.
Switzerland has some interesting regulations on ammunition, especially those for militarized rifles:
"The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female. The sale of military-issued ammunition, including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issued assault rifles, is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many Federal Council licensed shooting ranges. That ammunition sold at ranges must be immediately used there under supervision (art. 16 WG/LArm)."
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Antihero :
Somewhere I have a pic of a big plastic Folger's can with 2000 rounds of 9mm.
That is less than a month's worth of ammunition for a sport shooter.
Pros might go through 10,000 rounds a week. Just thinking about it makes all the tendons in my right hand hurt
At this volume of processing, you are not buying them, you are loading your own. You can buy loading presses that are more or less fully automated, once you set them you sit there and watch a movie while pulling the lever.
This. Back in 2009 I went halves on a case of 22. That's 2500 rounds. I've said on here multiple times that I rarely shoot much in a sitting. That means I'm still shooting the same bullets. I'm about halfway through. I've been able to teach both my brothers, one sister, my wife, and a couple friends how to safely handle a rifle. I don't really want that many, but the savings are worth the storage. Same with 223. I found a good price and went in with a friend so now I'll be able to shoot for a couple years at least.
The other rifle is my 308. In two years I've maybe put 200 rounds through it. My intent is long range targets and large game. I am not proficient enough in marksmanship yet to be comfortable in my ability to make a clean shot, so I'm not going hunting this year. I also just took delivery of a loading press, so I can 1, save on ammo and 2, have more consistent (accurate) ammo. It isn't a fast machine as referenced above, but still. When it boils down, I want to make accurate shots. That takes practice. Sort of like racing. Want to be faster? Seat time. Don't race for a few years? Skills diminish.
As for range supplied ammo, there's no way. In my county there are 2 supervised ranges. One is a short range private business, and the other is a state owned and operated outdoor range that is closed more often than not. Either is expensive. Without exaggerating, I'll guess that 95% of recreational shooting in my area is out on public lands.
In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :
100 percent of my shooting is done on my property by my house, so range ammo isn't gonna work for me either.
I reload but don't have a progressive either, definitely cheaper and easier to match the round to the gun
"How many are we actually talking about?" and "How much is normal?" (and, "How much is acceptable?")
Something that everyone needs badly is a completely comprehensive (and relatively objective, and accurate) data presentation about "everything firearms related", equivalent to The Fallen of WW2 (or some of the ones for nukes).
#s of suicides; #s of homicides; #s of firearms/mags/rounds: produced, imported, exported, used in crimes, NOT used in crimes
Yeah, it would only mean that one side would grab a screenshot "proving" their position, and the other side would counter with a screen shot from 5sec later, back and forth.
One random stat that has always blown me away: 4M rounds of 5.6×25mmR* is produced... in one factory... in one DAY.
*I always forget there is a metric designation. But again, an interesting visualization/ comparison to 5.56x45mm
In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :
Primers are up to $.12/ea and on the way to $.15/ea. Unless you're sponsored by one of the major companies I don't see how anyone can afford to do it any more...
In reply to stroker :
By only running 100/year apparently.
You'll need to log in to post.
