gun control rant thread

Sam Harris: The Riddle of the Gun

This might be the most fair and balanced treatment on the subject I have read anywhere. A long, but worthwhile read.

93EXCivic wrote: I am pretty sure the AWB is DOA. Now can every one stop hoarding ammo. This is getting ridiculous

You are FAR too optimistic. They haven't seriously begun to negotiate for payoffs, yet.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Sam Harris: The Riddle of the Gun This might be the most fair and balanced treatment on the subject I have read anywhere. A long, but worthwhile read.

I only skimmed it (for now), but thanks for posting that.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Sam Harris: The Riddle of the Gun This might be the most fair and balanced treatment on the subject I have read anywhere. A long, but worthwhile read.

Yeah, that's pretty good. I don't believe, as the author does, that getting a gun license should be as hard, expensive and time consuming as getting a pilots license, but most of that is good stuff.

tuna55 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Sam Harris: The Riddle of the Gun This might be the most fair and balanced treatment on the subject I have read anywhere. A long, but worthwhile read.

Yeah, that's pretty good. I don't believe, as the author does, that getting a gun license should be as hard, expensive and time consuming as getting a pilots license, but most of that is good stuff.

I like that he presents a careful, thoughtful treatment of the whole subject and I find little to fault in the logic at all. I don't necessarily agree with the degree of implementation (like the pilot's license reference) but I do find myself almost completely in agreement with the conclusions.

In fact, the rest of his blog is filled with really good articles on a wide range of subjects.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Sam Harris: The Riddle of the Gun This might be the most fair and balanced treatment on the subject I have read anywhere. A long, but worthwhile read.

Yeah, that's pretty good. I don't believe, as the author does, that getting a gun license should be as hard, expensive and time consuming as getting a pilots license, but most of that is good stuff.

I like that he presents a careful, thoughtful treatment of the whole subject and I find little to fault in the logic at all. I don't necessarily agree with the degree of implementation (like the pilot's license reference) but I do find myself almost completely in agreement with the conclusions. In fact, the rest of his blog is filled with really good articles on a wide range of subjects.

I must say, the fact that he has to (and he does have to, given the broader audience he's reaching) state "this is another time where the gun guys are actually right" is irritating, because a lot of that stuff is seriously refuted by the general uninformed populace. As I've said in this thread before, my own mother STILL thinks semiautomatic things are evil things only criminals can get their hands on.

The Noveske website said: FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with hammers each year than by rifles. Worried about a ban? - Buy a hammer. The perfect alternative means of protection. -- 16OZ BAMBOO HANDLE HAMMER -- CURVED CLAW TYPE -- HEAT TREATED & DOUBLE TEMPERED FOR DURABILITY

tuna55 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Sam Harris: The Riddle of the Gun This might be the most fair and balanced treatment on the subject I have read anywhere. A long, but worthwhile read.

Yeah, that's pretty good. I don't believe, as the author does, that getting a gun license should be as hard, expensive and time consuming as getting a pilots license, but most of that is good stuff.

I don't agree with him 100%... but I probably agree about 90%. He does a good job of summing up a reasonable position that is a good springboard for discussion later.

Maybe not make licensing as hard as a pilots license, but more difficult than a drivers license. I think a universal curriculum that is work to get but eventually grants a license that is recognized throughout the U.S. (much as your drivers license is) would be a good thing. One thing he brings up that I think would be very important and that was not discussed when I took a defensive handgun course, is situations where you should not draw your weapon because it is likely to make things worse.

tuna55 wrote: As I've said in this thread before, my own mother STILL thinks semiautomatic things are evil things only criminals can get their hands on.

My aunt is the same way. To quote her on FaceBook: "It is these same extremists that are fighting sensible changes to gun laws because they want to be able to stockpile semi-automatic weapons so they can take over the government."

No. I want to have semi-automatic weapons because I do not have to readjust my sight picture as much when target shooting (improving my accuracy) and because I can load magazines while the range is cold and spend more time practicing while it is hot. I understand modern semi-automatic pistols to be more reliable and have better safeties than revolvers.

Beer Baron wrote: One thing he brings up that I think would be very important and that was *not* discussed when I took a defensive handgun course, is situations where you should not draw your weapon because it is likely to make things worse.

It should only ever be drawn for use.....period. If an imminent threat to your life is presented, that is the only reason said weapon should be drawn. If they didn't tell you that in a state with safety courses, then their program is run by absolute idiots.

Conversely, where you think it will make it worse it could completely backfire. Someone carrying a weapon without the will to use it just gave the criminals 3 things, 1.) A false sense of accomplishment, 2.) A definite reason to cause severe bodily harm to said individual, and 3.) A flippin WEAPON.

My google fu fails me currently, but there was recently a case where a person went to stop a home invader with a shotgun, but lacked the resolve......the intruder called the homeowners bluff and nearly beat them to death with it.

Simple question in relation to the above statement, Do you believe that the homeowner not having a weapon would have ended any differently? If said weapon were used(as it should have been if drawn/carried/etc), would the outcome have been more positive?

Beer Baron wrote: . I think a universal curriculum that is work to get but eventually grants a license that is recognized throughout the U.S. (much as your drivers license is) would be a good thing.

See I think the state has the right to make those calls, even if it results in inconvenience. Any regulation has to be done at the state level constitutionally, so a license is a regulation. I don't have licenses in my state unless I want to carry publicly.

Beer Baron wrote: I understand modern semi-automatic pistols to be more reliable and have better safeties than revolvers.

Also that a dual action revolver IS a semi-automatic in the technical sense.

yamaha wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: One thing he brings up that I think would be very important and that was *not* discussed when I took a defensive handgun course, is situations where you should not draw your weapon because it is likely to make things worse.

It should only ever be drawn for use.....period. If an imminent threat to your life is presented, that is the only reason said weapon should be drawn. If they didn't tell you that in a state with safety courses, then their program is run by absolute idiots. Conversely, where you think it will make it worse it could completely backfire. Someone carrying a weapon without the will to use it just gave the criminals 3 things, 1.) A false sense of accomplishment, 2.) A definite reason to cause severe bodily harm to said individual, and 3.) A flippin WEAPON. My google fu fails me currently, but there was recently a case where a person went to stop a home invader with a shotgun, but lacked the resolve......the intruder called the homeowners bluff and nearly beat them to death with it. Simple question in relation to the above statement, Do you believe that the homeowner not having a weapon would have ended any differently? If said weapon were used(as it should have been if drawn/carried/etc), would the outcome have been more positive?

This. If you pull it, you're using it. If you don't have the will/resolve to pull the trigger, than don't own one.

tuna55 wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: . I think a universal curriculum that is work to get but eventually grants a license that is recognized throughout the U.S. (much as your drivers license is) would be a good thing.

See I think the state has the right to make those calls, even if it results in inconvenience. Any regulation has to be done at the state level constitutionally, so a license is a regulation. I don't have licenses in my state unless I want to carry publicly.

I was referring to a universal CCW license, not an ownership license.

yamaha wrote: It should only ever be drawn for use.....period. If an imminent threat to your life is presented, that is the only reason said weapon should be drawn. If they didn't tell you that in a state with safety courses, then their program is run by absolute idiots.

I was not referring to brandishing it but not firing it. I was referring to what was mentioned in the article about there being situations where drawing a weapon is more likely to escalate than end an encounter. I meant having scenario discussions of when to wait before drawing, or tactical things you should do before drawing (e.g. get yourself out of harms way first, worry about meeting an attacker after). Rather than exclusively covering how to handle a gun, discussing the tactics and things to be aware of to assess potential threats before they become imminent so that you are in a better position to respond. Maybe these are standard discussions in the CCW courses other people have taken.

I'm thinking analogous to the motorcycle safety course I took, and how we spent as much time or more discussing how to look for and avoid hazardous situations as we did discussing and training emergency maneuvers to deal with them.

FWIW, we don't have any "classes" or "instruction" in Indiana. Its pay money, printed, background check, then issuance.

I still believe the situational awareness(words you are referencing) should be pretty common sense, and honestly teaching in a classroom isn't going to make that stick. You either have common sense or you don't. What I posted before is obviously the last resort. If there is an imminent threat to your life, you are well past the avoidance and flee steps. Situational awareness will keep you out of 99% of trouble though, from there its a 50/50 crapshoot as to if you can flee or proceed to lethal force. Mind you, all of this should take place in a few milliseconds, and add Threat Assessment to the list in there as well.....it gets trickier if there are multiple tangos.

If you want a debate that will last far longer than gun control, you should see the ones over "Open Carry versus Concealed Carry"

yamaha wrote: FWIW, we don't have any "classes" or "instruction" in Indiana. Its pay money, printed, background check, then issuance. I still believe the situational awareness(words you are referencing) should be pretty common sense. What I posted before is obviously the last resort. If there is an imminent threat to your life, you are well past the avoidance and flee steps. If you want a debate that will last far longer than gun control, you should see the ones over "Open Carry versus Concealed Carry"

Ah yes.... the ol' "You're just waving your penis around" vs "you're not man enough to OC" debates.... There are many variations but that's pretty much the meat and taters.

Bobzilla wrote: Ah yes.... the ol' "You're just waving your penis around" vs "you're not man enough to OC" debates.... There are many variations but that's pretty much the meat and taters.

The only thing to be gained from cutting through the bullE36 M3 is it doesn't matter. OC, is a double edged sword, you're specific target and a deterrant at the same time. CC, is a double edged sword, you're the sheep and the sheep that is really the wolf in disguise.

Beer Baron wrote:

yamaha wrote: It should only ever be drawn for use.....period. If an imminent threat to your life is presented, that is the only reason said weapon should be drawn. If they didn't tell you that in a state with safety courses, then their program is run by absolute idiots.

I was not referring to brandishing it but not firing it. I was referring to what was mentioned in the article about there being situations where drawing a weapon is more likely to escalate than end an encounter. I meant having scenario discussions of when to wait before drawing, or tactical things you should do before drawing (e.g. get yourself out of harms way first, worry about meeting an attacker after). Rather than exclusively covering how to handle a gun, discussing the tactics and things to be aware of to assess potential threats before they become imminent so that you are in a better position to respond. Maybe these are standard discussions in the CCW courses other people have taken. I'm thinking analogous to the motorcycle safety course I took, and how we spent as much time or more discussing how to look for and avoid hazardous situations as we did discussing and training emergency maneuvers to deal with them.

Our CWP class went over that a bit, and I asked a lot of questions about it. The best answer I got was this.

Forward stance, hand on weapon still in holster, one hand outstretched, palm out. "STOP!". There is no doubt in the perps mind what's going to happen next and it gives the situation a chance to resolve without drawing.

Essentially, once the situation has reached the point where you're genuinely concerned about your life or someone elses, unless you're in hand to hand combat already, or your grossly outnumbered, drawing and firing is probably not going to make things worse.

That pretty much covers it.......only downside is that you had better of practiced drawing and firing quickly and accurately.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/list-of-proposed-california-gun-control-measures-500-round-max-no-grandfathering-no-detachable-mags-mandatory-license/#more-199059

A press conference just wrapped up in California where the Democrats (who have an overwhelming majority in the state) unveiled their latest gun control agenda. And since the Democratic majority is so strong, these aren’t proposals — it’s a preview of things to come. According to one person who was watching the press conference, the following new restrictions on personal liberties will be coming to the most “liberal” state in the union . . . Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony. Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds. 10 round magazine limit ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool) 100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one. Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder — Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal. Bullet Buttons will become illegal — All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess. All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers. All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance

In reply to JoeyM:

WTF is an "assault bullet"?

This is where the CA GOP should simply step aside and say, be our guest... Pass these laws. We'll vote Present...

Then every firearm and ammunition manufacturer in the country (and hopefully worldwide) should tell every law enforcement agency in the state of California to go Berkeley themselves.

Beer Baron wrote: Maybe not make licensing as hard as a pilots license, but more difficult than a drivers license. I think a universal curriculum that is work to get but eventually grants a license that is recognized throughout the U.S. (much as your drivers license is) would be a good thing.

Couldn't agree more.

stroker wrote: In reply to JoeyM: WTF is an "assault bullet"? This is where the CA GOP should simply step aside and say, be our guest... Pass these laws. We'll vote Present... Then every firearm and ammunition manufacturer in the country (and hopefully worldwide) should tell every law enforcement agency in the state of California to go Berkeley themselves.

I'm guessing that they mean any deforming or fragmentary bullets. I haven't found anything that clarifies it.

stroker wrote: WTF is an "assault bullet"?

You know, they're the bullets that are black, have pistol grips, bayonet lugs, detachable magazines, flash hiders, nuclear warheads, vx nerve gas, and look scary....

They are referring to hollow points.....