Firearms

[calgor]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/us/califo...ium=social

Doesn't sound like we're headed in the right direction.

[InbetweenDreams]

@calgor What makes you say that? I don't agree with the judges comparison of an AR-15 being the same as a swiss army knife. Perhaps the judge should elaborate.

[calgor]

@calgor What makes you say that? I don't agree with the judges comparison of an AR-15 being the same as a swiss army knife. Perhaps the judge should elaborate.

That eliminating the ban on AR-15s is not moving in the right direction? We should be tightening restrictions on these types of firearms not loosening them.

[InbetweenDreams]

@calgor I do agree that there are certainly people who should not possess any sort of firearm. I am curious though how you came to the conclusion that we need to ban AR-15 and weapons alike? I'm not not trying to be a dick or anything like that.

[calgor]

@InbetweenDreams I just don't see why a private citizen needs an AR-15 or any type of assault rifle. To draw from another thread, are they seriously arming themselves for a Civil War? Short of that the only reason I can see for guns is protection and hunting. A handgun should fill the bill for protection, and a hunting rifle should be adequate for the latter. I know the gun rights gang likes to quote the well regulated militia verbiage in the 2nd Amendment, maybe that really is what they are aiming for.

[InbetweenDreams]

Again, not trying to be a dick or anything like that and note that I am neither a firearms expert and I don't consider myself a "gun advocate" but I suppose I might sound like one here. So take what I say with a grain of salt and do your own research.

The full text of the 2nd amendment is simply this...

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.

So some people do interpret it that way and some people do think people should be able to arm themselves however they please. For the most part, I'm ok with that...until shit like Jan 6th happens. It is interesting that the 2nd amendment doesn't mention self-defense specifically but depending on how you interpret it may be under the umbrella of "keep and bear arms."

I think the biggest problem I see with gun laws and deciding on what should and shouldn't happen is the lack of knowledge among the general population. For example. AR-15, it is semi-automatic. What is semi-automatic? That means when I pull the trigger the gun will load another round in the chamber, I can only fire one round each time I pull the trigger. So, one might say, well ban semi-automatic firearms. Well the thing is most handguns are semi-automatic... Revolvers, pistols like a Glock are all semi-automatic. They all work differently on how they load a round. The AR-15 again, uses .223 (NATO 5.56 mm) ammo, which is fairly stout but far from the most powerful ammunition. Some people do use an AR-15 for hunting. How many? I don't know and I don't know how practical it is to use an AR-15 for hunting as I have: 1. Not fired an AR-15 and 2. I don't hunt (remember that taking what I say with a grain of salt?). That being said I know there are both handguns and hunting rifles that shoot way more powerful rounds.

So, what I am saying here? The AR-15 looks scary and that's what the anti-gun gang wants you to think, it's a big scary gun used for nothing else. The term "assault weapon" is made up as well, whereas assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle which for nearly all of us is illegal to have (unless it has been registered by the federal government, meaning you have to have a federal firearms license). The problem with gun violence goes well beyond people wanting AR-15's.

The problem is you cannot predict what someone will do. Even if you have laws to try to prevent mass shootings, they seldom work. The shooting in California is a prime example of red flag laws not working. They guy was stopped at the border and had every sign that something isn't right. That being said, I think more can be done here. It's not so much whether I am for or against red flag laws, frankly I don't know what's in them. It seems like any time there is a mass shooting the laws we have on the books didn't help.

Now before people start saying we just need to ban all guns period. Understand that other countries that don't allow firearms, they just use knives, ballbats, poison or bombs. Firearms are an equalizer, there's plenty of instances where someone could have become a victim and because they had a firearm were able to defend themselves. At the same time there are people who use their firearm, thinking it is self defense and got charged with manslaughter.

Finally, should there be a limit? I do think there should be limit, where that is I am unsure simply because I just don't know enough about some of these weapons but stuff like .50 BMG is pretty overkill (and also the largest caliber allowed under the National Firearms Act) for most civilians. I don't think anyone should have a gun in hopes they "get to shoot someone" in self-defense either. I do think people should be able to demonstrate some level of proficiency in safely handling a firearm and that they demonstrate some level of marksmanship, understand their state's laws concerning firearms and self defense. I think some of the existing gun laws are good and do help but no law will stop people from breaking the laws and taking guns out of law abiding citizens' hands won't stop the black market. It isn't a black and white issue like some seem to think, it is quite complex.

Again, I'm not trying to be an ass or anything like that. I realize everyone has their own experiences, backgrounds and thus opinions. As I stated in the first post I realize that the idea of a civilian owning and possessing a gun might seem strange.

Some videos to check out...

[calgor]

@InbetweenDreams I'm the last person that would represent himself as a gun expert. I'm just going by what I see. I see these weapons used in multiple mass shootings. I don't see them as doing anything that a law abiding citizen cannot do with other readily available weapons. Expanding access to them serves no other purpose than to be another toy for gun owners, and they already have more than enough of them. Here's some other food for thought I came across.

This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013...inute.html

There was a temporary ban on bump stocks following the Las Vegas massacre which a federal appeals court just stayed in March which makes the California ruling all the more galling.

[InbetweenDreams]

@InbetweenDreams I'm the last person that would represent himself as a gun expert. I'm just going by what I see. I see these weapons used in multiple mass shootings.

I'm no expert either. Simply that I've been considering a firearm.

I don't see them as doing anything that a law abiding citizen cannot do with other readily available weapons. Expanding access to them serves no other purpose than to be another toy for gun owners, and they already have more than enough of them.

Well, I think one reason is that the AR-15 quite practical. It can make for a good hunting rifle, shooting deer, etc. And if you're using the appropriate ammo can serve as home defense, although wouldn't be my first choice....



Mind you, no one got hurt. Likewise, the assailants weren't expecting to see an AR-15 pointed at them when they busted through the door. In many states, including the one I live in would have been legal to have shot and killed them the second they broke into the house.

So I think it is that they are versatile, practical and accepts a lot of modifications as to why they're popular. However, when it comes to mass shootings handguns are more commonly used.

Here's some other food for thought I came across.

This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013...inute.html

There was a temporary ban on bump stocks following the Las Vegas massacre which a federal appeals court just stayed in March which makes the California ruling all the more galling.

I agree, there's not much justification for bump stocks for a civilian, outside of a civil war. There are self-defense scenarios where you need to fire rapidly, but you're also probably not going to have time to draw an AR-15. That being said, I really question the 900 rounds per minute, this is 30 rounds a second. I don't know what all magazine capacities exist for the AR, but 20-30 seems to be common. I think a firing rate between 3-5 per second is more realistic, possibly a little bit faster. Even if you were able to achieve 30 rounds per second you're going to go through all your ammo in a second, meaning you have to either reload or put in another magazine, either way 900 rounds per minute is not possible. But yes, I don't see much purpose for a bump stock.

[calgor]

Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott signs permitless carry bill into law

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/...ce=twitter

What could go wrong?

[InbetweenDreams]

I think the biggest issue is people not having any training... Of course, people still have to pass a background check. I do think people should have some training. Just because you have had a gun locked in a safe doesn't mean you know how to safely carry a concealed weapon.