gun control rant thread

PHeller wrote: I find it interesting how as our nation becomes less and less enthralled with hunting, it seemingly has replaced hunting with a fascination for guns, militarism, and all things "tactical".

this is what disturbs me about the current state of our society. It used to be you owned a gun to go procure your food or for the "sport" of shooting targets out on the range with pops or grandpa. now people like my uncle live to have assault rifles, hollow point armor piercing rounds, 50+ round mags, body armor, and everything else that we really have no use for. I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything? I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool.

I'm a gun owner, i consider myself responsible. I own a marlin 22 that i use for pest removal because we live in the woods. I own a 9mm for "home defense" that i've never taken out of it's place except to remove a raccoon from the yard that was going after my cat when i was out of .22LR bullets. I own a 12ga shotgun only because it belonged to my grandfather and i cherish the few things i've got that were his. My shotgun is at my parents house locked up, and the other 2 are safe in my house where my wife and i know where they are, and our 20 month old son has no idea where they are and they are where he could never get to them, way up high. I've been considering selling my 9mm and only having my .22 rifle on hand, but honestly i don't know the best way to go about selling it without having it fall into the hands of an irresponsible person.

I made sure i knew how to handle a gun before i bought one. I spent extensive range time with my above mentioned crazy uncle learning safety, how to shoot, how to transport, and how to care for a gun. I read the CCW book, although i will not get one. I do not need to carry a gun, I feel it should be left in my home and if there is somewhere to go where i feel it would benefit me to carry, I refuse to go there.

I consider my father in law to be the responsible old school gun owner. He owns his guns for hunting and only hunting. They stay locked up in a safe until he goes to hunt. His son, my brother in law, owns many handguns and rifles, and while he hunts as well, he has them all over the house "just in case" because he is paranoid about intruders. I put him in the "I hope he doesn't mistake his wife or child for an intruder one night when he's half awake" category.

My dad is on the total opposite end of the spectrum. He believes that guns should be illegal and have no place in modern society. He ignores the "if they're illegal the bad guys are still going to get them" argument and blindly says things like "make committing a crime with a gun an automatic life sentence" as if it will turn people off from using guns in an illegal manner. If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun they really don't care about consequences to begin with, so making armed robbery go from 5 or 10 years to life really won't change anything. I will agree with him on the account that for some people, like my uncle who i acknowledge is off his rocker, that the lust of firearms seems almost erotic in nature, as this stuff just gets him off. It's creepy the way he describes his guns.

I will not ever join the NRA. I do not want to be associated with them. I associate them with every "tactically obsessed" gun owner, and frankly guys like my uncle scare me. I fully expect him to snap one day with all the stuff that comes out of his mouth. He says if he ever goes off i'm safe, so at least i've got that going for me. Add to that all the political rhetoric that the NRA spews at election time just flat turns me off.

I think i've put it as well as i could without bringing anything inflammatory or political to the table. This is how i feel as what i believe to be a responsible gun owner.

In reply to patgizz:

Awesome post. Great to know there are other gun owners out there like me. Just great.

patgizz wrote: now people like my uncle live to have assault rifles, hollow point armor piercing rounds, 50+ round mags, body armor, and everything else that we really have no use for. I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything? I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool.

Hollowpoints and armor piercing rounds are designed to do the exact opposite thing. The former is designed to open up and dissipate energy rapidly on impact. The latter is designed to stay small to provide maximum penetration. You're just using terms you've heard on TV.

Also, there have been no new fully automatic weapons produced for civilian ownership in the US since 1986, and the ones out there can cost $10,000 or more. I'll bet there are very, very few instances of legally-obtained automatic weapons being used in a crime, due to their cost and scarcity. The gun control lobby loves to perpetuate confusion over automatic and semi-automatic weapons, though.

Further, shotgun and pistol rounds are more likely to overpenetrate in a home defense situation than something like a properly selected 5.56mm rifle round designed to fragment on impact.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory either, but your post is predicated on bad information and erroneous assumptions.

North Carolina requires all of those except number 1.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: I don't want to argue with you but, Gabriel giffords shooting, the aurora shooting and this one had legally purchased guns and ammo. Most of these crazy shooting spree murders are committed by legally purchased guns and ammo. Look it up.

No, the shooter stole that weapon.

His mother legally purchased the gun. He stole it from her. How do we know that she didn't buy it and give it to him? He tried to buy a gun on Tuesday, something he probably would not have done if he had one. (Police said they have a report that the shooter tried to buy a gun on Tuesday - but didn't want to comply with the waiting period. They have not confirmed this.)

Will wrote:

patgizz wrote: now people like my uncle live to have assault rifles, hollow point armor piercing rounds, 50+ round mags, body armor, and everything else that we really have no use for. I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything? I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool.

Hollowpoints and armor piercing rounds are designed to do the exact opposite thing. The former is designed to open up and dissipate energy rapidly on impact. The latter is designed to stay small to provide maximum penetration. You're just using terms you've heard on TV. Also, there have been no new fully automatic weapons produced for civilian ownership in the US since 1986, and the ones out there can cost $10,000 or more. I'll bet there are very, very few instances of legally-obtained automatic weapons being used in a crime, due to their cost and scarcity. The gun control lobby loves to perpetuate confusion over automatic and semi-automatic weapons, though. Further, shotgun and pistol rounds are more likely to overpenetrate in a home defense situation than something like a properly selected 5.56mm rifle round designed to fragment on impact. I'm not trying to be inflammatory either, but your post is predicated on bad information and erroneous assumptions.

I agree. There was a WHOLE LOT of misinformation in that post.

patgizz wrote: I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything?

Neither this crime, nor any of the others in recent history, involved an automatic weapon.

patgizz wrote: I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool.

You'd be right

It's good that a lot of Americans are having the discussion at least. Hopefully at some point it goes beyond discussion and something gets done. The world is watching to see if you figure it out, along with the whole debt/fiscal cliff thing. As my dad likes to say, "all things in moderation". You just need to dial it back a bit.

Will wrote: Also, there have been no new fully automatic weapons produced for civilian ownership in the US since 1986, and the ones out there can cost $10,000 or more.

Yup. Here's what it takes to buy an automatic weapon.

Will wrote: I'll bet there are very, very few instances of legally-obtained automatic weapons being used in a crime, due to their cost and scarcity.

With legally owned automatic weapons: Only two crimes since 1934
With illegal automatic weapons: I don't know. At least one; the 1997 N. Hollywood shootout afte a bank robbery.

Oh, BTW

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/five-fallacies-about-guns-and-violence

delete/covered already

This will mark the third time I typed an entire comment for this thread and did not post. I just don't know where to begin.

I was raised around guns, maybe not using them regularly but they were around and I knew it. I was taught the "Four Rules" as a youngster and have taught them to countless friends and relatives since. For your convienence here they are:

Firearms safety

Cooper advocated four basic rules of gun safety:[8] 1.All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are. 2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.) 3.Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges. 4.Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper_(colonel)

As an adult I have worked in gun shops and shooting ranges, had an FFL and gone through all the hoops to aquire a Concealed Permit. I do believe a little education could go a long way in preventing accidental firearm deaths. Just like we are taught to drive we should be taught how to handle firearms. Unfortunatly I am not sure the government is the best entity to administer this education. It seems in recent years anytime Gov't gets involved in something it just gets Berkley'd up. I can only suggest that if only on a personal level I can just keep trying to teach the safe way to be in the presence of Firearms.

On a second educational note I am not advocating the whole NRA agenda but there is a very good program set up by the NRA called Eddie the Eagle that is designed to teach children proper safety around guns that is not pro-gun in any way but is strictly pro safety. It's very basic.

If you see a gun: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult

http://eddieeagle.nra.org/

As I understand it the program is available for little or no cost to any interested party but it is unfortunately not very often taught to kids beacuse of the stigma of being NRA.

LopRacer,

thanks for the info about the Eddie the Eagle program. I'm sending that to my sister.

http://eddieeagle.nra.org/ said: he purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense. Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention - ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

JoeyM wrote:

patgizz wrote: I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything?

Neither this crime, nor any of the others in recent history, involved an automatic weapon.

patgizz wrote: I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool.

You'd be right

Dude the old school way is to refer to semi autos as automatics. I just assumed that is what he was saying. That's always my dad said it.

JoeyM wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: I don't want to argue with you but, Gabriel giffords shooting, the aurora shooting and this one had legally purchased guns and ammo. Most of these crazy shooting spree murders are committed by legally purchased guns and ammo. Look it up.

No, the shooter stole that weapon. His mother legally purchased the gun. He stole it from her. How do we know that she didn't buy it and give it to him? He tried to buy a gun on Tuesday, something he probably would not have done if he had one. (Police said they have a report that the shooter tried to buy a gun on Tuesday - but didn't want to comply with the waiting period. They have not confirmed this.)

My dad bought me my first gun at the age of 14. Technically they were his guns but in reality they were mine. They stayed in my room locked in a gun rug under my bed. I don't really consider it theft if he's taking them from his own house.

Uncoiled wrote: North Carolina requires all of those except number 1.

there have been several lists ...

so which are you referencing ?

patgizz wrote:

PHeller wrote: I find it interesting how as our nation becomes less and less enthralled with hunting, it seemingly has replaced hunting with a fascination for guns, militarism, and all things "tactical".

this is what disturbs me about the current state of our society. It used to be you owned a gun to go procure your food or for the "sport" of shooting targets out on the range with pops or grandpa. now people like my uncle live to have assault rifles, hollow point armor piercing rounds, 50+ round mags, body armor, and everything else that we really have no use for. I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything? I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool. I'm a gun owner, i consider myself responsible. I own a marlin 22 that i use for pest removal because we live in the woods. I own a 9mm for "home defense" that i've never taken out of it's place except to remove a raccoon from the yard that was going after my cat when i was out of .22LR bullets. I own a 12ga shotgun only because it belonged to my grandfather and i cherish the few things i've got that were his. My shotgun is at my parents house locked up, and the other 2 are safe in my house where my wife and i know where they are, and our 20 month old son has no idea where they are and they are where he could never get to them, way up high. I've been considering selling my 9mm and only having my .22 rifle on hand, but honestly i don't know the best way to go about selling it without having it fall into the hands of an irresponsible person. I made sure i knew how to handle a gun before i bought one. I spent extensive range time with my above mentioned crazy uncle learning safety, how to shoot, how to transport, and how to care for a gun. I read the CCW book, although i will not get one. I do not need to carry a gun, I feel it should be left in my home and if there is somewhere to go where i feel it would benefit me to carry, I refuse to go there. I consider my father in law to be the responsible old school gun owner. He owns his guns for hunting and only hunting. They stay locked up in a safe until he goes to hunt. His son, my brother in law, owns many handguns and rifles, and while he hunts as well, he has them all over the house "just in case" because he is paranoid about intruders. I put him in the "I hope he doesn't mistake his wife or child for an intruder one night when he's half awake" category. My dad is on the total opposite end of the spectrum. He believes that guns should be illegal and have no place in modern society. He ignores the "if they're illegal the bad guys are still going to get them" argument and blindly says things like "make committing a crime with a gun an automatic life sentence" as if it will turn people off from using guns in an illegal manner. If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun they really don't care about consequences to begin with, so making armed robbery go from 5 or 10 years to life really won't change anything. I will agree with him on the account that for some people, like my uncle who i acknowledge is off his rocker, that the lust of firearms seems almost erotic in nature, as this stuff just gets him off. It's creepy the way he describes his guns. I will not ever join the NRA. I do not want to be associated with them. I associate them with every "tactically obsessed" gun owner, and frankly guys like my uncle scare me. I fully expect him to snap one day with all the stuff that comes out of his mouth. He says if he ever goes off i'm safe, so at least i've got that going for me. Add to that all the political rhetoric that the NRA spews at election time just flat turns me off. I think i've put it as well as i could without bringing anything inflammatory or political to the table. This is how i feel as what i believe to be a responsible gun owner.

You are your father-in-law are what's know as "Fudds." Hunting-weapon types that generally believe that once "assault rifles" are banned, hunting rifles won't be next. Problematic, in the least.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

patgizz wrote: I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything?

Neither this crime, nor any of the others in recent history, involved an automatic weapon.

patgizz wrote: I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool.

You'd be right

Dude the old school way is to refer to semi autos as automatics. I just assumed that is what he was saying. That's always my dad said it.

You're thinking automatic pistols. An automatic rifle has always been automatic, your father nonwithstanding.

All parties involved in this case mean automatic, and know it.

wbjones wrote:

Uncoiled wrote: North Carolina requires all of those except number 1.

there have been several lists ... so which are you referencing ?

My impression was that he was referencing my original list, and that he was referring to what I called "type certification"; i.e. showing proficiency with the weapon you will carry.

that's what I was asking ...

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: I don't want to argue with you but, Gabriel giffords shooting, the aurora shooting and this one had legally purchased guns and ammo.

No, the shooter stole that weapon. His mother legally purchased the gun. He stole it from her.

I don't really consider it theft if he's taking them from his own house.

Fair enough. I don't think a mother would buy guns for a child who is mentally ill, but I could certainly be wrong. There are people who will choose to buy a weapon for a teenager who is schizophrenic, off his medication, and already on probation for domestic battery. (With predictable results )

Instead of us quibbling about the definition of "theft", let's discuss secure storage. What do you think parents should do if they have small children, or mentally ill people in the household? Should they own guns? If so, how should they be storing the guns? Are trigger locks sufficient? Safes? Should this be something that should be taught as one of the components of good parenting? Should it be regulated, or part of an awareness campaign?

JoeyM wrote: Instead of us quibbling about the definition of "theft", let's discuss secure storage. What do you think parents should do if they have small children, or mentally ill people in the household? Should they own guns? If so, how should they be storing the guns? Are trigger locks sufficient? Safes? Should this be something that should be taught as one of the components of good parenting? Should it be regulated, or part of an awareness campaign?

No legal restrictions on storage, criminal culpability if E36 M3 goes wrong. Anything more and you let the state start deciding whats "small children" and "mentally ill." Results will be predictable.

The Second Amendment Text:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If any of our rights should be infringed upon, so may all the others. Lose one, lose all.

Awww. Iggy's back, and making up his own definitions. Surely we'll continue to have a meaningful, logical discussion.

Tn first required certification for specific weapons and you were only authorized to carry that weapon. Truthfully, guns are like shoes and I ended up getting certified for several weapons before they changed the law.
As a lawyer, I have been involved in a number of murder cases. People unfortunately are rather creative in their use of items to kill with; a turtle landscaping ornament for example. The one case that involved an assault weapon was removed from a locked gun safe by the mentally unstable child who shot the responding officer after he attempted to kill his mother. Sound familiar??? The common thread is that our society does not take mental illness seriously and this is the real thing that needs to change. Outlawing violent video games would be another idea but that would probably violate the First Amendment in some way. For what it is worth, very few school systems offer drivers education anymore. Adding the unfunded mandate of shooters education would probably get the same attention to detail.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: I edited this, because I wanted to point something else out. Your response, full of vitrol and snark is exactly the reason why this gun owner has been ostracized by other gun owners. Thanks for driving me away from wanting to talk to you in a calm and even manner. bye.

Snark, yes, absolutely. Vitriolic, where? I thought I was being pretty civil all day. Maybe your panties came pre-wadded to the thread?

vitriolic [ˌvɪtrɪˈɒlɪk] adj 1. (Chemistry) (of a substance, esp a strong acid) highly corrosive
2. severely bitter or caustic; virulent