14 Things Everyone Should Understand About Guns
- Thread starter SSN Vet
- Start date
- Status
Irrelevant points in red and reduced to indicate their insignificance.
1) Don’t Lecture Anyone On Gun Safety Until You Understand The Basic Rules
2) Guns Are Inanimate Objects
3) Modern Guns Do Not Accidentally “Go Off”
4) “Semi-Automatic” And “Automatic” Are Not Synonyms
5) “Clip” And “Magazine” Are Not Synonyms
6) Gun Safeties Can And Will Fail
7) So-Called “Smart Gun” Technology Is Not Reliable
8) Handing Someone A Badge Doesn’t Make Him A Good Shooter
9) The “AR” In “AR-15″ Doesn’t Stand For “Assault Rifle”
10) High Capacity Magazine Bans Are Completely Counterproductive
11) “Shoot To Wound” Is Absurd And Dangerous
12) Hollow Point Bullets Are Actually Safer Than Standard Full Metal Jacket Ammunition
13) Most Gun Owners Understand Gun Laws A Lot Better Than Gun Controllers Do
14) “Universal Background Checks” Are Already The Law In Many States
The clip/magazine argument is a nit picky irrelevant issue in any real world discussion as is the "meaning of AR".
Magazine bans are irrelevant, not counterproductive. We see over and over again that magazine capacity has no impact on crime rates or defense.
I doubt that most gun owners know any more about gun laws than gun banners do, but I know that it is hubris on our part to generalize that gun banners are ignorant of the law. They know the law and they want to change it in ways to deprive us of our right to bear arms. They're not lazy or ignorant or incompetent and our acting like they are will lead to our defeat.
UBC is not the law in many states. It is the law TOO MANY states even when it is in 17 states.
1) Don’t Lecture Anyone On Gun Safety Until You Understand The Basic Rules
2) Guns Are Inanimate Objects
3) Modern Guns Do Not Accidentally “Go Off”
4) “Semi-Automatic” And “Automatic” Are Not Synonyms
5) “Clip” And “Magazine” Are Not Synonyms
6) Gun Safeties Can And Will Fail
7) So-Called “Smart Gun” Technology Is Not Reliable
8) Handing Someone A Badge Doesn’t Make Him A Good Shooter
9) The “AR” In “AR-15″ Doesn’t Stand For “Assault Rifle”
10) High Capacity Magazine Bans Are Completely Counterproductive
11) “Shoot To Wound” Is Absurd And Dangerous
12) Hollow Point Bullets Are Actually Safer Than Standard Full Metal Jacket Ammunition
13) Most Gun Owners Understand Gun Laws A Lot Better Than Gun Controllers Do
14) “Universal Background Checks” Are Already The Law In Many States
The clip/magazine argument is a nit picky irrelevant issue in any real world discussion as is the "meaning of AR".
Magazine bans are irrelevant, not counterproductive. We see over and over again that magazine capacity has no impact on crime rates or defense.
I doubt that most gun owners know any more about gun laws than gun banners do, but I know that it is hubris on our part to generalize that gun banners are ignorant of the law. They know the law and they want to change it in ways to deprive us of our right to bear arms. They're not lazy or ignorant or incompetent and our acting like they are will lead to our defeat.
UBC is not the law in many states. It is the law TOO MANY states even when it is in 17 states.
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,080
I tend to agree. Like any media written for the masses, one needs to take it with a grain of salt. While many things the author states are factual, many are also just his opinion.
Same here. Again, IMHO, this is just the author's opinion and certainly is not my experience. I help teach hunter safety and 80-90% of the young students come to class with their fathers. Many of these men have owned guns and hunted most of their lives and are generally the ones who get more answers wrong on the test than their kids. Many times they are just misinformed, taking what they have been told by friends, heard at the bar or read on the internet as Gospel.
Caliper_Mi
Member
I don't think the issue is what standards Police have to meet, it's the belief by some that the Police are the "only ones who should have guns" or the only ones who should be "allowed" to carry them in public and so-on. This presupposes that ALL Police are great with firearms, which is clearly not the case. I'm sure this varies by individual and locality.
Personally, I'm a believer in Constitutional carry, so whatever level of training you have is fine by me. Obviously criminals don't have a training requirement...
If you had never handled a firearm before going to the academy though, I'm curious what kind of skill level do you think the training would have given you? Your comments don't exactly make the firearms training sound great (and obviously there is far more to being an officer than just the shooting)
BTW, thanks you for your service and good job keeping up your skills.
Old Dog
Member
I believe some of you guys are reading way too much into some of the writer's statements.
This:
Taking issue with the phrase "handed a badge" seems innocuous enough when one takes the whole portion of the article into context. No, I wasn't handed a badge (it was pinned on by the wife after, as noted, a long and arduous academy), but I understand that the writer was simply stating that just because some qualifies on the range once in a while and wears a badge, he is not necessarily either a firearms expert or expert marksman.
If one reads the article and keeps it in proper context (jibes at the general public's and the media's understanding of firearms in general), the writer's list still seems to me to be pretty good.
This:
I'm pretty sure his intention here was to poke at the mainstream media who repeatedly parrot phrases such as "Then the gun went off" as though it were an accident with no one actually pulling a trigger.
Taking issue with the phrase "handed a badge" seems innocuous enough when one takes the whole portion of the article into context. No, I wasn't handed a badge (it was pinned on by the wife after, as noted, a long and arduous academy), but I understand that the writer was simply stating that just because some qualifies on the range once in a while and wears a badge, he is not necessarily either a firearms expert or expert marksman.
If one reads the article and keeps it in proper context (jibes at the general public's and the media's understanding of firearms in general), the writer's list still seems to me to be pretty good.
Not all cops are shooters, but the firearms component of the academy I attended was a solid week of shooting. We took a break for lunch and to reset targets. By the time the week was over we could all shoot pretty darn well. Not everyone will maintain their skills outside of the academy but that's on them.
Regarding #14, by population it may well be true "for most people." UBC is not the law in most states but the ones with high population tend to have it. It is the same reasoning why we cannot just ignore what happens in CA, 1 in 10 Americans live there.
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
One thing everyone should know about guns.
1. Dont be stupid.
Yup. That about does it.
1. Dont be stupid.
Yup. That about does it.
1911 guy
Member
The biggies for me are safety. If you're behaving safely, all other issues can be remedied.
However, I disagree slightly with HSO's assessment of unimportance regarding a few items.
1) A clip and a magazine are two different things. Just as a hammer is not referred to as "that thing you hit stuff with", items have correct names. Common misuse does not make it correct.
2) AR means Armalite Rifle. Assault is a verb.
3) Magazine bans are not useful in any capacity other than making criminals out of otherwise law abiding people.
4) Understanding of guns and gun law is not even really a debate. "The shoulder thing that goes up". Really? And we're relying on the likes of her to tell us what we're allowed to own and use?
However, I disagree slightly with HSO's assessment of unimportance regarding a few items.
1) A clip and a magazine are two different things. Just as a hammer is not referred to as "that thing you hit stuff with", items have correct names. Common misuse does not make it correct.
2) AR means Armalite Rifle. Assault is a verb.
3) Magazine bans are not useful in any capacity other than making criminals out of otherwise law abiding people.
4) Understanding of guns and gun law is not even really a debate. "The shoulder thing that goes up". Really? And we're relying on the likes of her to tell us what we're allowed to own and use?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
1911 Guy,
I don't think hso was arguing against any of the things you are saying, or that the author said.
Merely pointing out that they are not important at all, to a list of critical information that we need to get the average non-shooting voter, politician, journalist, etc. to understand.
When you publish a list of things "everyone" should know, it will be more powerful and effective if it isn't cluttered up with silly pedantic minutiae like the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine."
I don't think hso was arguing against any of the things you are saying, or that the author said.
Merely pointing out that they are not important at all, to a list of critical information that we need to get the average non-shooting voter, politician, journalist, etc. to understand.
When you publish a list of things "everyone" should know, it will be more powerful and effective if it isn't cluttered up with silly pedantic minutiae like the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine."
Last edited:
I would simply add that gun owners who post online and take the time to learn about guns and gun laws are not necessarily representative of all gun owners.
I think this plays into the magazine/clip issue also. I have no problem with the technical definition of magazine and clip, but that is like expecting everyone to know the difference between 22 Long and 22 Long Rifle. It can be important, but most people don't care.
I think this plays into the magazine/clip issue also. I have no problem with the technical definition of magazine and clip, but that is like expecting everyone to know the difference between 22 Long and 22 Long Rifle. It can be important, but most people don't care.
AStone
Member
#15
As I've read this thread ( <-- poetic ),
I've asked another question.
Call it 'thing to understand about guns #15': There's no possible way you can know
whether people who typed all those ^ letters displayed on your monitor
really know squat about guns, or are just ignorant fools.
Now, having been here for a while ...
a while back (been gone for a while),
I trust some more than others.
This IS an interesting thread.
Truth, truth ... who's got the truth?
As I've read this thread ( <-- poetic ),
I've asked another question.
Call it 'thing to understand about guns #15': There's no possible way you can know
whether people who typed all those ^ letters displayed on your monitor
really know squat about guns, or are just ignorant fools.
Now, having been here for a while ...
a while back (been gone for a while),
I trust some more than others.
This IS an interesting thread.
Truth, truth ... who's got the truth?
Last edited:
OP
OP
SSN Vet
Member
I think the author of the article must have spent time surfing THR and other gun forums, as he clearly hit on most of the pet peeves that I regularly hear guys griping about 
svtruth
Member
I would
add that the so called "high powered assault rifles" are actually less powerful than a deer hunter's 30-06
add that the so called "high powered assault rifles" are actually less powerful than a deer hunter's 30-06
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked