Fudd; or Gun Culture Bias

[Sam1911]

Sam, I respect your viewpoint, but I also see your single-minded quest for ideological purity as a barrier to supporting your (our?) interests.

I just had to come back to that quote. I'm still baffled by what it could possibly mean.

But in case there's any confusion, I would define my interests as this: doing whatever I can to keep people who think the way that you think from having the political power to make their fantasies into reality

 

[Deanimator]

A serious question for the THR community:

At what point are we alienating one another within the gun-owning community? I know that certain members here disparage, insult and belittle those of us who express different opinions regarding how the RKBA should apply, and that our individual viewpoints are unlikely to change- but to what degree should this be tolerated? Should it only be certain views that are condoned or accepted? Is there a place within the gun-owning community for "Fudds" or those who don't think that all gun control is treason?

I treat you the same way I would treat another Black man who repeatedly called for "reasonable" Jim Crow.

I feel the same way about "gun owners" who want to ban guns.

 

[Jackal]

The 2A isnt a choice. It isnt a want. It isnt a privilege. Its a RIGHT. We all have it whether we want it or not. Folks CAN choose to not utilize their right though. People dont like redneck Fudd guns, dont buy them. People dont like tactical ninja gear, dont buy it. Life's too short to worry what other people think about YOUR likes.

 

[DT Guy]

I don't own any NFA firearms-but support revising the provisions of the NFA to make 'regulated' items more accessible.
I don't any suppressors-but support legalizing them.
I don't (to any great extent) hunt- but support hunting protections.

Your belief that genuinely pro-gun folks will accept you into their forums and groups while you espouse *profoundly* anti-gun views is simplistic, and unrealistic. It's like two guys sitting at a bar:

Guy 1: I'm really against violence.
Guy 2: Me too-except for redheads. I kill every redhead I meet.
Guy 1: Holy smokes, get away from me!
Guy 2: What's wrong, I'm *mostly* non-violent? Why can't we still be friends?

Larry

 

[TomJ]

It depends on the person. I can respect a person with a well thought out opinion that's different than my own, in fact I can tell you that I know no one that agrees with me about everything. You have to realize that we're in a constant fight to keep our 2A rights, especially us in states like Illinois. You also need to realize the goal of the anti's is to do away with private gun ownership altogether. They can't do that all at once, so they try to chip away at our rights a little at a time and make owning guns as difficult as possible. When gun owners like yourself are willing to give away rights, such as agreeing to an AR ban while completely ignoring facts it's you who are causing the alienation. I've read your posts following the Vegas and Texas shootings. I'm not sure if our differences are due to age or different life experiences, but I live in the Chicago area and have lived under the laws you're promoting and we've fought against. We don't need to guess what will happen if what you're proposing takes place, as we've seen it with the prior AR ban and with the strict gun laws we have in Chicago. Not only do they do nothing to prevent crime, they harm law abiding citizens by making it more difficult for us to protect ourselves from criminals who could care less about the laws you want to impose on us. I don't mean this as disrespectfully as it's going to sound, but your ignorance is dangerous as gun owners like yourself are used by the anti's, as they point to you to bolster their arguments. After all, if gun owners agree with their proposed bans, they must be ok. It happened recently here in Illinois when Springfield Armory agreed to withdraw their opposition to a law which will make it difficult, if not impossible to most LGS' to stay in business. That law was temporarily beaten back, but is rearing it's head again. I can't speak for others on this forum, but when I read comments from someone who is simply repeating lies spewed by anti's, those lies are not to be condoned or accepted but called out for what they are. We have more than enough laws on the books. The Texas shooter using an AR was made possible by the Air Force not following existing law. Taking my AR's won't fix that.

On another note, your practice of using other's tragedies to promote your political views is offensive. The anti's who's rhetoric you repeat do nothing to stop the carnage we see here in Chicago, which is heartbreaking to watch week after week. They do not care about what our poor on the south and west sides of Chicago are experiencing, however they have no problem using the death of others to promote an anti gun agenda. Whether you realize it or not, that's who you've aligned yourself with.

 

[Rocketmedic]

So here's my take on this:

I'm not out to stop all crime, or gun crime, or even all 'mass shootings'; I'm interested in dropping the death toll of the ones we see to something 'less' terrible. I think that there's a way to do this while still preserving all aspects of the 2A and the RKBA. Let's be completely honest- people will be able to get guns, regardless of whether they are banned or not, and criminals are still going to shoot innocent people and one another, especially in small-scale crime like Chicago. But those gangsters aren't slaughtering churchfuls of people at a single go.

I'm a strong supporter of proper background checks for all gun transactions, even though I've bought and sold guns FTF before without background checks and I know that checks are limited and no guarantee of future good behavior, I've since rethought that and think we as a community would benefit from universal background checks and hefty penalties if one is caught without those checks. Likewise, I think that every American who can legally possess a firearm ought to be allowed to carry it in a useful condition and manner in all places except those where a firearm poses a clear and obvious danger to the work being done (ie I think that people on trial ought not to be allowed to carry guns into courtrooms, patients in hospitals, chemical plants, etc.) I think that a gun-free zone is a bad idea. Pistols, rifles, etc. I think that we ought to have a national Firearms Permit, issued at no cost to the citizen, signifying that a person is competent and legally eligible to own firearms, regardless of whether or not they choose to. I think that we ought to preempt silly state laws that focus on features or ban carry of weapons and put more guns in the hands of good people, and I think that we ought to develop a functional and useful way to determine who isn't able to have a gun and ensure that they don't (legally) obtain one. I think that guns that are confinscated should be done so with reimbursement at fair market value, and that anyone whose guns are taken from them should have a prompt, speedy and fair opportunity for due process. I'm pretty much of the opinion that guns save lives and ought to be available to every American citizen and legal resident alien. Heck, I'm even open to reinforcing the 2A to clearly and permanently enshrine the RKBA, carry, stand-your-ground, etc in the Constitution.

HOWEVER:

Semi-automatic weapons are more easily employed than manually-actioned firearms; although certain types of action can be run by well-drilled persons at similar rates of fire for some time. This isn't really something that's news to anyone; it's pretty obvious. Now, I think that there is a considerable difference between semi-automatic firearms like the M1911 or a tube-fed 22 or whatnot and combat weapons. Can mayhem be wrought with these weapons? Absolutely, but with some exceptions, it is a lot easier for the average shooter to fire more rounds and kill more people with a modern combat weapon than an older weapon. I very seriously doubt that most people could kill as many people with a Garand in a short length of time than with an AR.

I think that we ought to make "assault weapons" an NFA class, with a hefty-but-not-impossible extra price tag and all of the regulations that it requires. Y'all can have silencers back for that. Full-auto...heck, we can even open the registry for FA, at a rate of some exorbiant tax like $10k per gun. I don't know exactly where to draw the line for what is and isn't an assault weapon; personally, I think that we ought to draw it at 20 round or above magazines and treat each magazine in excess of 20 rounds as an NFA item itself, regardless of what it's connected to (this would let us keep most service pistols and standard-capacity magazines normal and available for carry). So basically, your 20+ round magazines would all be treated as NFA items and unlicensed possession would be a criminal offense. Alternatively, I'm OK with making everything semi-auto with a capacity over 10 rounds an NFA item, regardless of length, action, features, etc. Will this stop mass shootings? No, but it will slow the rate of fire.

 

[boom boom]

Since the others have covered much ground here, I will take a different tack. Lets investigate the statistics--from the Center for Disease Control 2014
All homicides https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

• Number of deaths: 15,872
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.0

Firearm homicides

• Number of deaths: 11,008
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5

And let us consider suicides https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
All suicides

• Number of deaths: 42,826
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.4
• Cause of death rank: 10

Firearm suicides

• Number of deaths: 21,386
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7

Suffocation suicides

• Number of deaths: 11,407
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

Poisoning suicides

• Number of deaths: 6,808
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

Now, if you use WISQUARS querying tool at the CDC--you can actually see the number of people killed by a rifle and in 2014 it was 809 people but only 108 of those deaths were classified as intentional homicide. Blunt instruments killed 494 people in intentional homicides for that year. The rate for intentional homicide for handguns is about 19 times greater and blunt instruments about 5 times greater than homicides involving rifles. WISQUARS uses a data subset covering about 1/3 of the U.S. population but using inferential techniques, the findings are robust enough to apply to the nation as a whole. Rifles simply do not kill very many people when compared with other ways of committing homicides. Note this year, that there will be a spike in the numbers but even then, I predict in 2017 that blunt instruments will still cause more deaths.

Now, let us take handguns in particular. The sad fact is that in most cities, both the victim and the perpetrator both had criminal records in murders. Demographics also tell a similar skewed tale. Young males commit most violent crime, young males are also overrepresented in crime in general and if the U.S. demographics resembled Idaho or North Dakota, we would be considered as peaceable as Norway, Finland, etc. and more peaceable than many other nations.

Clayton Cramer did a massive undertaking for a long time considering use of firearms and studying cases where they were used. He also had acquaintance to our current mental health system. His take was the sad fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that make it difficult to hold mentally ill patients coupled with politicians unwilling to create a community mental health treatment programs which are expensive, have left the burden on families dealing with mentally ill members alone. The end result is many being locked up in jails and prisons when mentally ill individuals spiral into madness and others eking out miserable existences on the streets.

The current shooter du jour was committed apparently to a mental hospital in New Mexico and escaped which should have prevented the NCIC from proceeding along with the Air Force's failure to report his conviction. It also failed in the case of the shooter in Virginia Tech, Colorado, and Arizona. Those mentally ill have frequently sought to expell their demons either through suicides or through homicides. We also know which types of mental illness are most likely to cause violent ends and generally treatment can be effective if it is mandatory. However, under the Court's standard, one must be proven through substantial evidence in court that one is a risk to themselves or others. The Court's legal doctrines make it difficult to engage in proactive action requiring treatment until the mentally ill individuals moves from thoughts to overt acts. Then, it may be too late.

Now, I doubt you will care about these statistics since they do not fit the script that you follow. I suspect you have little curiosity to actually
do the research yourself but 2014 was not an aberrant year. The evil "ASSAULT HIGH POWER RIFLES" prove to be less popular among murderers than handguns or even blunt instruments.

 

[1911 guy]

OK, so the next person intent on killing everyone in a church will simply bomb it. Or drive their vehicle through the crowded parking lot when service ends. You're on a fool's errand. Nobody will deny the fact that human kind has a problem with violence. But history proves that technology has no bearing on it. The problem is within ourselves. The more useful idiots such as yourself maintain the "one trick pony" crying about gun control, the more static there is about discussing possible ACTUAL solutions. Why no talk about our mental health system? The failure of the military to update this murderer's rap sheet with the FBI? Why no action on his threats against his in-laws? Because you're too busy whining about an idea that has been tried and found lacking in every place it has been tried.

 

[Sistema1927]

So here's my take on this:

I'm not out to stop all crime, or gun crime, or even all 'mass shootings'; I'm interested in dropping the death toll of the ones we see to something 'less' terrible. I think that there's a way to do this while still preserving all aspects of the 2A and the RKBA. Let's be completely honest- people will be able to get guns, regardless of whether they are banned or not, and criminals are still going to shoot innocent people and one another, especially in small-scale crime like Chicago. But those gangsters aren't slaughtering churchfuls of people at a single go.

I'm a strong supporter of proper background checks for all gun transactions, even though I've bought and sold guns FTF before without background checks and I know that checks are limited and no guarantee of future good behavior, I've since rethought that and think we as a community would benefit from universal background checks and hefty penalties if one is caught without those checks. Likewise, I think that every American who can legally possess a firearm ought to be allowed to carry it in a useful condition and manner in all places except those where a firearm poses a clear and obvious danger to the work being done (ie I think that people on trial ought not to be allowed to carry guns into courtrooms, patients in hospitals, chemical plants, etc.) I think that a gun-free zone is a bad idea. Pistols, rifles, etc. I think that we ought to have a national Firearms Permit, issued at no cost to the citizen, signifying that a person is competent and legally eligible to own firearms, regardless of whether or not they choose to. I think that we ought to preempt silly state laws that focus on features or ban carry of weapons and put more guns in the hands of good people, and I think that we ought to develop a functional and useful way to determine who isn't able to have a gun and ensure that they don't (legally) obtain one. I think that guns that are confinscated should be done so with reimbursement at fair market value, and that anyone whose guns are taken from them should have a prompt, speedy and fair opportunity for due process. I'm pretty much of the opinion that guns save lives and ought to be available to every American citizen and legal resident alien. Heck, I'm even open to reinforcing the 2A to clearly and permanently enshrine the RKBA, carry, stand-your-ground, etc in the Constitution.

HOWEVER:

Semi-automatic weapons are more easily employed than manually-actioned firearms; although certain types of action can be run by well-drilled persons at similar rates of fire for some time. This isn't really something that's news to anyone; it's pretty obvious. Now, I think that there is a considerable difference between semi-automatic firearms like the M1911 or a tube-fed 22 or whatnot and combat weapons. Can mayhem be wrought with these weapons? Absolutely, but with some exceptions, it is a lot easier for the average shooter to fire more rounds and kill more people with a modern combat weapon than an older weapon. I very seriously doubt that most people could kill as many people with a Garand in a short length of time than with an AR.

I think that we ought to make "assault weapons" an NFA class, with a hefty-but-not-impossible extra price tag and all of the regulations that it requires. Y'all can have silencers back for that. Full-auto...heck, we can even open the registry for FA, at a rate of some exorbiant tax like $10k per gun. I don't know exactly where to draw the line for what is and isn't an assault weapon; personally, I think that we ought to draw it at 20 round or above magazines and treat each magazine in excess of 20 rounds as an NFA item itself, regardless of what it's connected to (this would let us keep most service pistols and standard-capacity magazines normal and available for carry). So basically, your 20+ round magazines would all be treated as NFA items and unlicensed possession would be a criminal offense. Alternatively, I'm OK with making everything semi-auto with a capacity over 10 rounds an NFA item, regardless of length, action, features, etc. Will this stop mass shootings? No, but it will slow the rate of fire.

Just more of the same. Blah, blah, blah.

While you are at it, limit vehicles to 1/4 ton capacity, govern them to 15 MPH, and impose a hefty tax of $1,000 per gallon if buying more than 2 gallons at a time. Will this stop auto accidents? No, but it will slow the rate of injuries.

 

[pintler]

"I very seriously doubt that most people could kill as many people with a Garand in a short length of time than with an AR."

Just to make sure I understand, let's imagine a Mini-Garand in .223, that takes 10 round en-bloc clips. You think that the Sandy Hook death toll would have been lower had this mini-garand been used instead of an AR? How much less, in round numbers? 50%? 5%?

Might I also ask how much you have shot Garands?

"I'm a strong supporter of proper background checks for all gun transactions..."

I think that's one of those devil-in-the-details things. For example, suppose the DMV puts a no-cost G-for-guns endorsement on driver's licenses automagically when you turn 18. It stays unless you become a prohibited person. Then say that in order to permanently transfer a gun you must see that person's 'G' endorsement.

I bet you can sell that; there are a few people who want to be able to sell completely anonymously, but I'd predict an initiative to that effect would pass in almost all states.

It's a lot different if 'universal background checks' means that people get in trouble handing their rifle to a hunting buddy while crossing a fence, or have to go to an FFL and pay $50 to loan a long term neighbor a gun to hunt with for a weekend, and then pay the $50 again when he returns it.

You're right, I think, that no background check will eliminate crime guns, any more than prescriptions have ended drug abuse. Given that the benefit is likely to be small, it only makes sense if the cost is also small, and the current UBC schemes don't have small costs.

It's not sufficient to just say 'I support UBC'. What kind of UBC?

 

[old lady new shooter]

I feel that healthy debate is good.and we should encourage it. That said when it comes to infringement of our rights we need to leave any differences behind and not tolerate anyone or anything that leads to the loss of our rights.

I look at CA and am blown away that people tolerate the way they’ve ignored our Constitution and make laws that clearly are illegal. I understand it’s hard to fight a majority but our country has a system that gives all of us representation and means to address injustices.

What does "tolerate" mean? We vote for gun rights supporters if any run, but they lose.

If I live here I have to obey the laws, but I don't like the laws, so I'm moving to another state that has laws I like.

 

[TomJ]

So here's my take on this:

I'm not out to stop all crime, or gun crime, or even all 'mass shootings'; I'm interested in dropping the death toll of the ones we see to something 'less' terrible. I think that there's a way to do this while still preserving all aspects of the 2A and the RKBA. Let's be completely honest- people will be able to get guns, regardless of whether they are banned or not, and criminals are still going to shoot innocent people and one another, especially in small-scale crime like Chicago. But those gangsters aren't slaughtering churchfuls of people at a single go.

I'm a strong supporter of proper background checks for all gun transactions, even though I've bought and sold guns FTF before without background checks and I know that checks are limited and no guarantee of future good behavior, I've since rethought that and think we as a community would benefit from universal background checks and hefty penalties if one is caught without those checks. Likewise, I think that every American who can legally possess a firearm ought to be allowed to carry it in a useful condition and manner in all places except those where a firearm poses a clear and obvious danger to the work being done (ie I think that people on trial ought not to be allowed to carry guns into courtrooms, patients in hospitals, chemical plants, etc.) I think that a gun-free zone is a bad idea. Pistols, rifles, etc. I think that we ought to have a national Firearms Permit, issued at no cost to the citizen, signifying that a person is competent and legally eligible to own firearms, regardless of whether or not they choose to. I think that we ought to preempt silly state laws that focus on features or ban carry of weapons and put more guns in the hands of good people, and I think that we ought to develop a functional and useful way to determine who isn't able to have a gun and ensure that they don't (legally) obtain one. I think that guns that are confinscated should be done so with reimbursement at fair market value, and that anyone whose guns are taken from them should have a prompt, speedy and fair opportunity for due process. I'm pretty much of the opinion that guns save lives and ought to be available to every American citizen and legal resident alien. Heck, I'm even open to reinforcing the 2A to clearly and permanently enshrine the RKBA, carry, stand-your-ground, etc in the Constitution.

HOWEVER:

Semi-automatic weapons are more easily employed than manually-actioned firearms; although certain types of action can be run by well-drilled persons at similar rates of fire for some time. This isn't really something that's news to anyone; it's pretty obvious. Now, I think that there is a considerable difference between semi-automatic firearms like the M1911 or a tube-fed 22 or whatnot and combat weapons. Can mayhem be wrought with these weapons? Absolutely, but with some exceptions, it is a lot easier for the average shooter to fire more rounds and kill more people with a modern combat weapon than an older weapon. I very seriously doubt that most people could kill as many people with a Garand in a short length of time than with an AR.

I think that we ought to make "assault weapons" an NFA class, with a hefty-but-not-impossible extra price tag and all of the regulations that it requires. Y'all can have silencers back for that. Full-auto...heck, we can even open the registry for FA, at a rate of some exorbiant tax like $10k per gun. I don't know exactly where to draw the line for what is and isn't an assault weapon; personally, I think that we ought to draw it at 20 round or above magazines and treat each magazine in excess of 20 rounds as an NFA item itself, regardless of what it's connected to (this would let us keep most service pistols and standard-capacity magazines normal and available for carry). So basically, your 20+ round magazines would all be treated as NFA items and unlicensed possession would be a criminal offense. Alternatively, I'm OK with making everything semi-auto with a capacity over 10 rounds an NFA item, regardless of length, action, features, etc. Will this stop mass shootings? No, but it will slow the rate of fire.

This is where the disconnect is. You're focused on the tool. It's been explained to you numerous times that if we take away AR's evil will find another way to carry out it's plans. Bombs and cars have been recently used. You don't respond to the question of how do we stop those attacks. This isn't complicated. Evil has always and will always exist. The best possible solution is to make sure good people have the tools available to protect themselves and others from evil. Banning AR's or as you've suggested, making them available only for the rich will do nothing to stop these attacks. It will, however, limit the ability for us to protect ourselves.

 

[Rocketmedic]

This is where the disconnect is. You're focused on the tool. It's been explained to you numerous times that if we take away AR's evil will find another way to carry out it's plans. Bombs and cars have been recently used. You don't respond to the question of how do we stop those attacks. This isn't complicated. Evil has always and will always exist. The best possible solution is to make sure good people have the tools available to protect themselves and others from evil. Banning AR's or as you've suggested, making them available only for the rich will do nothing to stop these attacks. It will, however, limit the ability for us to protect ourselves.

So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder.

 

[Deanimator]

The problem is that nobody ever wants to give up just THEIR rights. They ALWAYS want to give up everyone ELSE'S.

 

[Apachedriver]

So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder.

Sure. And while we're at it, let's NFA everything that uses a speed loader or stripper clip of any kind. There go the rest of the semis, the bolt actions, and the revolvers too. I see where you're going with it.

 

[danez71]

So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder.

And that just validated what Sam and many others have said.

Necessity is the mother of invention. They feel the need to kill mass amounts of people. They have already figured out how.

NFAing everything accomplishes nothing to stop them at all.

 

[1911 guy]

Are you interested in reducing the total number of violent attacks or just shootings? I ask because we have real data that shows criminals, including mass murderers, simply move on to other methods when firearms become unavailable. Churches were bombed in Alabama, so much so that the city was known as "Bombingham". An entire village in Nigeria was killed with machetes. More people were killed with a truck in Paris than at the concert in Las Vegas. The worst school massacre in U.S. history was carried out with dynamite. Would you like me to continue? Or are you really just a willfully ignorant fool?

If you want to reduce violence, you must address the cause, not the tools used to carry it out. But that doesn't fit your agenda, so you'll ignore it. Typical.

 

[pintler]

"So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder."

Are you sure? The Vegas shooter had money to burn; he could have bought a genuine water cooled full auto had he desired. The Texas shooter started buying his guns in 2014 - that's plenty of time to wait on the ATF. Would the extra $200 have dissuaded him? The Sandy Hook shooter would have skipped the tax and background check anyway, by killing his mother and taking her gun.

An extra $200 might dissuade you or me - we have bills to pay, kids to send to college, etc. But what fraction people who are willing to do the murder/suicide thing won't be able to scratch up $200, in your estimation?

Also, I'm still curious. Let's say the Texas shooter didn't have a gun at all, and sloshed a 5 gallon bucket of gas through the door. Do you think that would have had a much smaller body count, or do you think that whackos just think shooting is more fun, and will just skip the whole murder thing if they can't get a gun, or what?

Also, a couple of posts ago, I thought you weren't advocating a ban on 1911's; now you're saying everything with a detachable mag, so I'm confused about what your proposal actually is.

 

[Rocketmedic]

Y'all have already demonstrated that you're not willing to make the changes necessary to really fix mental healthcare. How many of you would support comprehensive psychological and background checks for every gun owner? I reckon you'd just start screaming "2A!"

 

[Rocketmedic]

"So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder."

Are you sure? The Vegas shooter had money to burn; he could have bought a genuine water cooled full auto had he desired. The Texas shooter started buying his guns in 2014 - that's plenty of time to wait on the ATF. Would the extra $200 have dissuaded him? The Sandy Hook shooter would have skipped the tax and background check anyway, by killing his mother and taking her gun.

An extra $200 might dissuade you or me - we have bills to pay, kids to send to college, etc. But what fraction people who are willing to do the murder/suicide thing won't be able to scratch up $200, in your estimation?

Also, I'm still curious. Let's say the Texas shooter didn't have a gun at all, and sloshed a 5 gallon bucket of gas through the door. Do you think that would have had a much smaller body count, or do you think that whackos just think shooting is more fun, and will just skip the whole murder thing if they can't get a gun, or what?

Also, a couple of posts ago, I thought you weren't advocating a ban on 1911's; now you're saying everything with a detachable mag, so I'm confused about what your proposal actually is.

I'd reckon it would be a lot easier to 'save' the 1911 by setting a 10- or 15-round limit, but I'd be OK with making all weapons with detachable magazines NFA-able. Increasing the tax to something more like $1000 would be appropriate too.

I'd also put forth that arson, ramming etc are a lot easier to escape than a shooter with an assault rifle mowing people down.

 

[FL-NC]

Divide and conquer. I couldn't care less about cowboy action shooting or sporting clays or bench rest or black powder hunting, etc.- the list goes on. But I support all shooting sports, because those which do what I don't care about hold their chosen activities as dear as I enjoy 3 gun, long range, deer hunting. etc.

 

[BigBore44]

So here's my take on this:

I'm not out to stop all crime, or gun crime, or even all 'mass shootings'; I'm interested in dropping the death toll of the ones we see to something 'less' terrible. I think that there's a way to do this while still preserving all aspects of the 2A and the RKBA. Let's be completely honest- people will be able to get guns, regardless of whether they are banned or not, and criminals are still going to shoot innocent people and one another, especially in small-scale crime like Chicago. But those gangsters aren't slaughtering churchfuls of people at a single go.

I'm a strong supporter of proper background checks for all gun transactions, even though I've bought and sold guns FTF before without background checks and I know that checks are limited and no guarantee of future good behavior, I've since rethought that and think we as a community would benefit from universal background checks and hefty penalties if one is caught without those checks. Likewise, I think that every American who can legally possess a firearm ought to be allowed to carry it in a useful condition and manner in all places except those where a firearm poses a clear and obvious danger to the work being done (ie I think that people on trial ought not to be allowed to carry guns into courtrooms, patients in hospitals, chemical plants, etc.) I think that a gun-free zone is a bad idea. Pistols, rifles, etc. I think that we ought to have a national Firearms Permit, issued at no cost to the citizen, signifying that a person is competent and legally eligible to own firearms, regardless of whether or not they choose to. I think that we ought to preempt silly state laws that focus on features or ban carry of weapons and put more guns in the hands of good people, and I think that we ought to develop a functional and useful way to determine who isn't able to have a gun and ensure that they don't (legally) obtain one. I think that guns that are confinscated should be done so with reimbursement at fair market value, and that anyone whose guns are taken from them should have a prompt, speedy and fair opportunity for due process. I'm pretty much of the opinion that guns save lives and ought to be available to every American citizen and legal resident alien. Heck, I'm even open to reinforcing the 2A to clearly and permanently enshrine the RKBA, carry, stand-your-ground, etc in the Constitution.

HOWEVER:

Semi-automatic weapons are more easily employed than manually-actioned firearms; although certain types of action can be run by well-drilled persons at similar rates of fire for some time. This isn't really something that's news to anyone; it's pretty obvious. Now, I think that there is a considerable difference between semi-automatic firearms like the M1911 or a tube-fed 22 or whatnot and combat weapons. Can mayhem be wrought with these weapons? Absolutely, but with some exceptions, it is a lot easier for the average shooter to fire more rounds and kill more people with a modern combat weapon than an older weapon. I very seriously doubt that most people could kill as many people with a Garand in a short length of time than with an AR.

I think that we ought to make "assault weapons" an NFA class, with a hefty-but-not-impossible extra price tag and all of the regulations that it requires. Y'all can have silencers back for that. Full-auto...heck, we can even open the registry for FA, at a rate of some exorbiant tax like $10k per gun. I don't know exactly where to draw the line for what is and isn't an assault weapon; personally, I think that we ought to draw it at 20 round or above magazines and treat each magazine in excess of 20 rounds as an NFA item itself, regardless of what it's connected to (this would let us keep most service pistols and standard-capacity magazines normal and available for carry). So basically, your 20+ round magazines would all be treated as NFA items and unlicensed possession would be a criminal offense. Alternatively, I'm OK with making everything semi-auto with a capacity over 10 rounds an NFA item, regardless of length, action, features, etc. Will this stop mass shootings? No, but it will slow the rate of fire.

I feel like we’re the guy on the Geico commercial that keeps banging his head on the truss in the attic when we try to explain this to you. You really are a walking contradiction.

So the guy who makes $200k a year can buy his 10k AR to protect his home. But the guy that makes $40k a year and has a family has to settle for a levergun because he can’t afford a $10k AR. “Freedom for everyone!!!.......as long as you can afford it.” Are you freaking kidding me!?

I think I’ll pass if you don’t mind.

I honestly don’t care if you want to give up, or choose not to exercise your rights. But don’t waste bandwidth trying to tell me I should give up mine. There isn’t an explanation you could conjure up in your socialist, anti, brain that could convince me.

Personally I don’t give a damn if you feel alienated or if you’re offended. Our job as stewards of the 2A is not to compromise so we don’t offend or alienate. Our duty is to protect the 2A which in turn protects all our other rights (these are your rights also). We do that through voting, donations and memberships to Pro 2A organizations, introducing new shooters properly and safely to the sport, and educating people to the facts of gun ownership. We’ve tried the education part with you over and over......and over. But it’s just not working.

Our members argue/bicker/debate constantly. This caliber is better. Revolvers are better/worse than semiautos. Shotguns/AR’s/handguns for home or self defense. And those arguments get pretty heated sometimes. But none of us tells the other that we should give up our 2A Rights. Why? Because “Them’s fighting words”.

My tolerance for YOUR baseless opinions stops, when your respect for MY rights stop.

 

[hso]

Is there a place within the gun-owning community for "Fudds"

Firstly, we don't use that term. It is on the face of it insulting and violates the terms of use to toss it at other members and it is sloppy thinking being applied to too broad a range instead of specifically those who want firearms for hunting and analogous sport and would happily see defensive firearms be banned.

Secondly, we have a range of opinions on acceptable limits on firearms ownership here, but the extreme just short of banning firearms that are functionally no different than others should be expected to be argued against more than a moderate position.

 

[Guitarmike]

Opinions can be talked about all day long. Principles rooted in fact, however, are no more debatable than two plus two equaling four. Yet some insist it is five. They are wrong.

You are 100% correct. 1+1 does not equal 52. Anyone that cannot tell opinion from fact needs to go back to school. The bill of rights is not hard to understand. If you are confused as to what it means, spend some time studying it.

 

[TomJ]

So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder.

If you'd like respect, try having a conversation as opposed to repeating the same things over and over again. The question has been asked why under your solution those with money benefit while those without it don't. Please explain why only the rich can have access to the best available guns to protect themselves with. Is the life of a poor man worth less to you? Doesn't a poor family stuck in a crime infested area need the best available guns to protect themselves?