Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[misterpuk]

Here's the thing. People that use firearms, and know their capabilities attempt to explain their position, and articulate the nuances therein because they have that knowledge.

Anti-gunners say we are condecending, and to a point, we are because we have more knowledge of the subject. More than that, though, we're attempting to educate those that don't have the knowledge. Rather than accepting the knowledge, we'll get told we're wrong.

That doesn't make us wrong.

[Ghostpanther]

An assault rifle is a machinegun. The "Semiautomatic assault WEAPON" law doesn't make the claim that the AR15 is an assault rifle.


So these doctors in recent mass shootings are seeing something that no other doctor of any other shooting with 5.56 are seeing? I'm sure they were under a lot of stress and the scene was horrible, so hyperbole is allowed. The thing is, the 5.56 has more velocity than handgun rounds, but is nothing special when considered versus other rifle rounds. To make other claims is just disingenuous.

No more than any other firearm, given the circumstances. Does "Range" really make a difference inside a building? Capacity is not a function of the specific gun. Ease of shooting is something though, since part of the appeal for military is that WHEN A MACHINEGUN it can be easier to control. That's why they went 3 round burst in a lot, easy to control and 3 rounds hit increasing the chances of a significant wound since semi-auto just isn't enough for actual combat (vs marksman situations from cover).


Bump stocks are not unique to the AR15, and bumpFIRING is as easy as using a belt loop. Neither is as accurate as normal shooting or a real machinegun due to the nature of bumpfiring. As for "modding" it, if you mean milling and such that would facilitate the usage of real machinegun parts (assuming you could find the trigger group/ autosear), it'd be just as easy to just make a homebuilt gun and not deal with the problems of converting an AR15.


It'd be more like taking a NASCAR car and replacing the engine, then somebody wants to tell you it's the same thing even though you can't win any races with it.



Plenty of 9mm can go through cinderblocks, actually. Just so you understand though, going through cinderblocks is called "over penetration" and is a bad thing. If you think about it, that over penetrating round would go through a person without tumbling/ fracturing/ expanding and cause much less damage. You see the "velocity" but you dont' seem to understand that the energy that velocity imparts needs to be transferred into the object, not THROUGH it.

Well said. I was going to answer him, but you did a great job of doing it. This was the first time a rifle was given the term assault rifle. The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") A German general saw the prototype for it for the first time and called it that. Which had a selective fire rate of semi-auto or automatic.

[Antiganon]

Here's the thing. People that use firearms, and know their capabilities attempt to explain their position, and articulate the nuances therein because they have that knowledge.

Anti-gunners say we are condecending, and to a point, we are because we have more knowledge of the subject. More than that, though, we're attempting to educate those that don't have the knowledge. Rather than accepting the knowledge, we'll get told we're wrong.

That doesn't make us wrong.

I think the biggest issue is that the gun community just tells everyone talking about gun control that we are wrong, 100%, and that gun control is useless, so we should just give up.

I don't buy it.

There HAS to be some metric that can be used to determine which guns are more lethal. I have suggested magazine capacity - nope, waste of time, only hurts law abiding citizens, nobody is going to take down an active shooter while he reloads anyway. I have suggested muzzle velocity - nope, irrelevant, because bolt action rifles generally have higher muzzle velocity anyway. I have suggested bullet caliber - nope, irrelevant, any caliber is lethal.

So what DO you suggest? As gun owners, you must realize that millenials and gen z are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control, so it isn't a question of if, but when. You can be part of a bipartisan solution, or the younger generations can drag you to gun control kicking and screaming.

What's it gonna be?

[Ghostpanther]

I think the biggest issue is that the gun community just tells everyone talking about gun control that we are wrong, 100%, and that gun control is useless, so we should just give up.

I don't buy it.

There HAS to be some metric that can be used to determine which guns are more lethal. I have suggested magazine capacity - nope, waste of time, only hurts law abiding citizens, nobody is going to take down an active shooter while he reloads anyway. I have suggested muzzle velocity - nope, irrelevant, because bolt action rifles generally have higher muzzle velocity anyway. I have suggested bullet caliber - nope, irrelevant, any caliber is lethal.

So what DO you suggest? As gun owners, you must realize that millenials and gen z are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control, so it isn't a question of if, but when. You can be part of a bipartisan solution, or the younger generations can drag you to gun control kicking and screaming.

What's it gonna be?

And here we go again. hehe. I suggest universal back ground checks and better coordinated effort between agencies doing them. For first time buyers of a firearm, a safety course and functions of the firearm and also the laws concerning usage of such in their state.

I also have no issues raising the min age to purchase a semi-auto rifle to 21, with a exemption for active military members. Banning bumpstocks or any device which can help a semi-auto weapon mimic automatic fire. Stronger enforcement of the existing gun laws and stiffer penalties for breaking such laws.

But that is about it. Meanwhile I really have no concerns or fear, our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is in any danger here. Knowing how hard it is to amend the Constitution and also the fact, none of the rights we have in the Constitution have ever been amended other than to expand them to cover more people.

[Lemons]

Honestly I wonder how many people would need to die in a mass shooting for the nation to throw up its collective hands and say "all right...enough, we need to get serious about gun control now." I thought the strip shooting would do it, but no, apparently the number is higher than 58 dead. So what would it take? 100? 200? It's fucking sick. I'm starting to hate anyone who likes guns. Dozens of people have to die just so you can have your little hobby.

[misterpuk]

I think the biggest issue is that the gun community just tells everyone talking about gun control that we are wrong, 100%, and that gun control is useless, so we should just give up.

I don't buy it.

There HAS to be some metric that can be used to determine which guns are more lethal. I have suggested magazine capacity - nope, waste of time, only hurts law abiding citizens, nobody is going to take down an active shooter while he reloads anyway. I have suggested muzzle velocity - nope, irrelevant, because bolt action rifles generally have higher muzzle velocity anyway. I have suggested bullet caliber - nope, irrelevant, any caliber is lethal.

So what DO you suggest? As gun owners, you must realize that millenials and gen z are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control, so it isn't a question of if, but when. You can be part of a bipartisan solution, or the younger generations can drag you to gun control kicking and screaming.

What's it gonna be?

So, let me answer the question on which guns are less lethal. Waterguns. That's it.

Its the first basic rule of firearm safety. There are no "less lethal" guns. All guns kill, that's their purpose. When you learn firearm safety, its pounded into your head more than a parent trying to get their baby to say mama or dada first. The metric you're looking for is 100% of them are lethal.

You're falling into the media trap. The truth is, we don't know for certain what millenials and gen z want. They can't vote yet, and they're not old enough to make that sort of decision. There may be many that are voicing that opinion now, but just how many are not? How many are claiming that because its the fad to do so? We don't know, we can't know, and we certainly shouldn't be basing our policies on what kids happen to think right now. Take it into consideration sure, but not just because its what they want at present. Give them 10-15 more years of the world and see how jaded they become with the world.

[Ghostpanther]

Honestly I wonder how many people would need to die in a mass shooting for the nation to throw up its collective hands and say "all right...enough, we need to get serious about gun control now." I thought the strip shooting would do it, but no, apparently the number is higher than 58 dead. So what would it take? 100? 200? It's fucking sick. I'm starting to hate anyone who likes guns. Dozens of people have to die just so you can have your little hobby.

Instead of just spouting off about hating gun owners, make some suggestions which are reasonable and likely to become reality and we can discuss them. I mean, you live in the US, guns here are not going away or the right to keep and bear them for self defense.

[Svifnymr]

I think the biggest issue is that the gun community just tells everyone talking about gun control that we are wrong, 100%, and that gun control is useless, so we should just give up.

I don't buy it.

There HAS to be some metric that can be used to determine which guns are more lethal. I have suggested magazine capacity - nope, waste of time, only hurts law abiding citizens, nobody is going to take down an active shooter while he reloads anyway. I have suggested muzzle velocity - nope, irrelevant, because bolt action rifles generally have higher muzzle velocity anyway. I have suggested bullet caliber - nope, irrelevant, any caliber is lethal.

So what DO you suggest? As gun owners, you must realize that millenials and gen z are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control, so it isn't a question of if, but when. You can be part of a bipartisan solution, or the younger generations can drag you to gun control kicking and screaming.

What's it gonna be?

Most of the problem is because there's no point to it. We can compromise today and say lets limit XYZ and raise the age to 21 and stuff. 5 years from now, when some criminal does something else, the same folks will be out for more "common sense restrictions" and all of this will have been for nothing. So why give up anything? There's no compromise, simply because we don't get anything back in these discussions. Just more restrictions until the next time when they propose more restrictions.

Like the centralized gun database. It was one of the compromises during the Brady background check bills. Yes, we agree background checks are a good thing, but we oppose a central database and private sales.

Ever since then, there's been bills floated to kill the private sale portion of the compromise and long standing talk of creating the central registry. So why discuss how to limit power of a gun, the simple fact is guns are used vs animals and humans are much weaker than most of those animals! And it doesn't matter anyway, since the anti-gunners will keep asking for more ever step of the way, even once we had full gun registration and banned every semiauto. Australia still has anti-gunners trying to take the last weapons away.

We've talked about the shift in the NRA from being purely sport/ safety focused to having a legislative arm. A lot of that is due to the passage of the GCA of 68, a compromise bill, being immediately followed by calls for more restrictions. That's when NRA members said "enough" and replaced the leadership with those willing to fight.

[Stormdash]

The thing that determines how lethal a firearm is, is the biocarbon bipedal grip-attached target selection and operation unit.

[Svifnymr]

It doesn't help that the response to an active killer has largely been to hide under a desk and hope he doesn't walk up to you and shoot you. So definitely not a range thing.

It's one of those problems in discussion, really. In Parkland, a coach died shielding students from gunfire. He is a hero, no doubt. But, could he have charged the guy and stopped further shooting entirely, even if it cost him his life? Did his body actually stop the bullets from hitting those he shielded? But, by saying this, folks will make it out like I'm minimizing what the guy did, and that's not my intention. He did something, and the deaths are on the hands of the shooter, but could the shooting have been stopped sooner?

Almost all school shootings are stopped because the guy stops shooting, not because someone stopped him. Maybe the cops are on the way and he shoots himself, or this guy finished shooting, dropped his guns and walked away. The movie theater guy was captured by police after he'd stopped. Will a system of allowing teachers to carry guns minimize damage? Maybe, if those teachers are actually trained and want to help. Look at the Paris shooting, they rushed the guy and won.

It's why I think magazine limits are pointless, nearly every time the guy has multiple magazine changes and no one does anything. There was a NY subway train when they rushed a guy during a magazine change, but only because the guy couldn't get the magazine out of his pocket. Movies also give folks an entirely unrealistic expectation of what "cover" is. Dry wall won't stop a 380, let alone more than that.

The military has been discussing replacing the 5.56 for over 20 years due to it's ineffectiveness at actually stopping attackers. During Somalia (Black Hawk Down) it was one of the complaints, the shorter barrel with the 855 ammo and thin enemies meant rounds just went through and the fanatics just kept coming.

I think one of the big things with these mass shootings is that people just go into shock and bleed out. Certainly most of the Pulse nightclub victims probably bled to death as they waited 5 hours for police to enter. There were a few folks saved in Parkland because a cop didn't walk by as others did, but actually checked pulses and gave medical attention. The one student shot up blocking the door was saved by swift medical attention also.

[Svifnymr]

I am not even talking about confronting the guy. We see over and over the tactic of people passively hiding under a desk. I mean what does that really do for you? Sure if you turn off the lights and stay real quiet and maybe he passes YOUR room, but if everyone is doing this....that killer is going to walk in and just have some fish in a barrel. If you can get out....you should get out. Sure you might encounter the killer during your escape....but ya know what's harder to hit than a target laying under a desk? If you can't get out you need to be actively securing your location.

As far as how things end, yes waiting on the Cops to end it usually ends up with the highest tallies of fatalities. This is because those are the situations that are allowed to run the longest even when considering that the average police response after a call is what? 5 minutes?

Broward county sheriff office (BSO)is the law enforcement agency overseeing a bunch of the cities within the county. Fort Lauderdale and Coral Springs have their own city police departments. Parkland uses BSO, one deputy on site raced to a position and stayed, a few others arrived afterwards. Coral Springs PD is nearby and they arrived after that and were the ones that went in first. The airport shooting, Fort Lauderdale (FLPD) was there, and BSO backed up, but there is STILL a problem with the BSO radio system which almost all police in the city use. Comes down to money, but the county is more worried about bike lanes than a radio system that works. Fort Lauderdale even merged their 911 system with BSO a couple years ago to save money, and response times have tripled.

Anyway, the point that prompted me, was that the plaza where I work had FLPD do a presentation about what happens and what to do in a mass shooting style incident. I forget the breakdown, but most people just stand there looking at each other, looking for some sort of direction. The official policy is the "run/hide/fight" stuff, run for safety if you can, hide if you can't, fight if all else fails. Years ago when there was a shooting at the plaza, crowds near the shooter fled, but folks in my store looked very confused. I locked the door, had to tell people to get away from the window as they were trying to see what had happened. (It was a domestic situation, guy shot his sister then himself.)

Sometimes it's really a surprise humanity has persevered so long, in dangerous situations a lot of them just stop.


They also spelled out that if a shooting occurs, as they enter the place their first mission is finding the shooter and insuring it's safe, before they will stop to tend to people that are wounded. While that is logical, there is also a bit of overlap between former military and ambulance drivers and many of them will gladly rush into danger if it means saving lives. In Parkland, as is probably policy for BSO as well, they wouldn't let the ambulance drivers in because they didn't know the shooter had already left. As I mentioned, a couple of kids were saved by cops double checking to see if they were dead. These officers then performed emergency care, as ambulance staff remained outside.

Years ago when I worked at a gun shop, we had a lot of customers that were doctors/ ambulance drivers, it's not a cheap hobby.

[Stormdash]

All in all, there'd be fewer casualties if the gunman was just zerged immediately. It's very counter-intuitive, though, in communities and settings where passivity is a sort of revered trait.

[Ghostpanther]

The policy just doesn't work and they are just now trying to change it. ALICE (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate) Training is starting to replace it. The point is a passive response results in the loss of more lives than an active response. I am sure a lot of this is as you said is contributed to the fact people just "stop." I would also suggest that most people have seen zero training to start with. I never saw any kind of training in the Military, the companies I worked for, or schools I went to. In fact this year is the first year I have been subject to training of any kind.

If we look at Columbine Library we have a bunch of students and a teacher hiding. The Teacher is on the phone with 911 and she is in full panic. Many kids attempt to leave the library to just be told to stay and hide over and over. I think when it is apparent that the killer is in the local vicinity of the library the dispatcher ask the Teacher if she can lock the doors, but the teacher is to scared to try at this point. The aftermath is that every student in the library is killed and only the students that defied the teacher and left prior to the killers arrival survived the incident. In choosing to stay the Teacher never took the liberty of actively securing the area, such as locking the doors, and instead just passively hid and hoped the cops would save them in time.

Looking at Sandy we see the killer went around shooting adults then shooting kids. In this case we see some of the kids get up and run past the killer, they leave the school and they rally at the fire station (as they would have in the case of the fire alarm being pulled) at the entrance to the Cul De Sac the school resides in. The kids who remained passive in that room died, most of the children who took action lived.

Some really good points. Schools should have training and exercises on how to handle a active shooter situation. The Southwest School district in Indiana does. http://fox59.com/2014/09/08/exclusiv...art-shootings/

[Svifnymr]

http://wgntv.com/2018/02/27/man-arme...bor-in-oswego/

[Dug]

All in all, there'd be fewer casualties if the gunman was just zerged immediately. It's very counter-intuitive, though, in communities and settings where passivity is a sort of revered trait.

Also basic human nature...? You can act like some badass on a forum all you want but when push comes to shove most people aren't going to zerg a crazed gunman out of self preservation.

[Ghostpanther]

Also basic human nature...? You can act like some badass on a forum all you want but when push comes to shove most people aren't going to zerg a crazed gunman out of self preservation.

It doesn't take most people. All it takes is one with the courage and the right tool.

- - - Updated - - -

http://wgntv.com/2018/02/27/man-arme...bor-in-oswego/

I liked this part.

"The AR-15 is my weapon of choice for home protection," Thomas said. "It's light, it's maneuverable. If you train and know how to use it properly, it's not dangerous. And this is just a perfect example of good guy with an AR-15 stopped a bad guy with a knife. And there were no lives taken, so all in all it was a good day."

[Dystemper]

Honestly I wonder how many people would need to die in a mass shooting for the nation to throw up its collective hands and say "all right...enough, we need to get serious about gun control now." I thought the strip shooting would do it, but no, apparently the number is higher than 58 dead. So what would it take? 100? 200? It's fucking sick. I'm starting to hate anyone who likes guns. Dozens of people have to die just so you can have your little hobby.

Well fist of all its not a "hobby" you are talking about its our constitutional right. And when you start saying You "hate" anyone who has guns, it reinforces our need to have guns because generally people like you seem to be the ones who go on to attacking others because you HATE them. There are over 100 million americans who own guns. Over 350 million Legal guns in the USA. What you want to do is Punish the 99.99% of the LAwful gun owners because of the super small minority of criminals .We have adequate Gun control laws. Lets start enforcing the ones we have now.

[Stormdash]

Also basic human nature...? You can act like some badass on a forum all you want but when push comes to shove most people aren't going to zerg a crazed gunman out of self preservation.

Untrue. The shoe bomber was immediately mobbed by the passengers on his plane, because 9/11 had made very clear that the age of "hostage situations" on a plane meaning 30 hours on the tarmac in Tripoli was over, and that if the person trying to use a device on or take over a plane succeeded, you were dead. Conditioning people to approach an active shooter situation the same way is not actually impossible or unreasonable. The shooter is there precisely because the intended targets will have few if any avenues of escape. Closing distance, throwing things, anything that prevents him firing, or at least firing with precision, is more opportunity for someone to engage with force -- ideally with a concealed weapon but otherwise with anything to hand. Doesn't take internet balls, or heroism, just takes approaching the situation from the mindset that if the shooter can even get up to steam, you're already dead.

[Ghostpanther]

This is what can happen to you if you are not prepared and armed to defend yourself. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/04...-incident.html

[shimerra]

This is what can happen to you if you are not prepared and armed to defend yourself. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/04...-incident.html

And i'll say again, you're far more likely to use your weaponry on yourself or a loved one than ever in self defense. So shove your anecdotes.

But you just be that paranoid nut job you want to be. 85%+ home break ins are done while you're not home. Because go fucking figure if you're not an idiot you'd realize when the goal it to steal and sell your shit that works better when the person ISN'T HOME. of the remaining 14-15% more than half result in no physical altercations between the person breaking in and the home owner. For the rest access to guns means not only are you more likely to own a gun but so is the person breaking in meaning you're odds of a fatal interaction go up. The people who do tend to break in willingly while you're there are generally co-workers or family or friend's you've pissed off and there are plenty of other ways to defend against that.


I have no issues with firearm ownership except for the perverse cluture it's created in America where human lives are less important than your mental children's blanket. Home defense is irrefutably one of the most stupid reasons though. Just watch the episode of bullshit about self defense classes. Same idea. If you truly have nothing to fear than support the cdc's ability to research into gun violence statistics