Reasonable regulations

[rustyx]

First mistake was "Today I interacted with someone on another forum...."

Them internets on the world wide web is serious business. That's one just itching to take to 4chan.

Hahaha I'll be sure to only stick to calguns from now on.

[rustyx]

Boom!. Owned. I have a feeling you're wasting your energy on a wiffersnaffer. Sad part is they really believe it. Ignorant youth.

I'm owned or the guy with the futurama image as his avatar? Hahah

[dwalker]

Was it really to keep blacks from owning firearms? Do explain please. Just out of curiosity, what ethnicity are you?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Know your history.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20030115/the-racist-history-of-handgun-bans-in-a

I'm white, with some American Indian thrown in. Not that it has anything to do with the conversation.

[osis32]

you shouldn't own guns or armor. since you want them you're obviously crazy therefore are disallowed. please turn itself in to the nearest mental health facility

[rustyx]

oh dear, the cheerleader says you won the battle of wits, taking a knee these days gives you extra credit.

Maybe in your everyday environment.

[GW]

OK,
The regulation I can live with is as follows:
All children will receive annual education in marksmanship and the safe handling of firearms.

[rustyx]

OK,
The regulation I can live with is as follows:
All children will receive annual education in marksmanship and the safe handling of firearms.

I really like that regulation.

[ScottyXbones]

This is a very interesting subject to me, because I believe that the 2A says what it means, the RKBA shall not be infringed, but like other rights, this one can be taken away for people convicted of criminal wrongdoing.

As a matter of advocating for our rights, I've tried to make an effort to understand why antis exist in the first place. Throughout history tyrants have wanted civilians disarmed so no one could stop them in their criminal endeavors, but what about the useful idiots that join the astroturfed organizations or just vote for nonsense like Newsome's propositions? I've heard stories about jealous exes committing crimes with guns, people playing cowboy, revenge, etc. And while the acts these people commit are crimes themselves, the argument that something should have been done to limit their access to firearms is popular and in my opinion, sort of credible. While I think that any normal law abiding person should have access to any and all arms to keep and bear, I don't think that the mentally ill, criminals, or dangerously irresponsible should be able to get a gun.

Where do we draw those lines though?

As mentioned earlier in the post, who will determine whether someone is mentally fit enough to carry a gun? In today's crazyfornia culture just having a moderate conservative opinion has the media painting you as a Nazi. That's why legislation like the gun violence restraining orders are so dangerous, all a disgruntled neighbor has to do is make up some lie and bam, you're forcibly disarmed and unable to protect yourself.

If we're going to propose reasonable legislation, I'd make the concession that a 10 day wait on your first firearm legitimately saves lives by preventing a "crime of passion" for people with no criminal intent or connections to get a black market gun. Once somebody has one gun though, what's the point of making them wait 10 days to buy another? All that does is prevent people from picking up a good deal when theyre far from home and piss people off about gun control in general.

I'd say requiring training to carry in public is a pretty darn good idea as well. At least know the basics so you won't have an accident.

Maybe don't give a violent felon access to a gun till they've been a functioning member if society for 10 years after being released, if ever.

The problem is, looking at the tragedies that have occurred involving guns, Adam Lanza, the Orlando and Santa Barbara shootings, these proposals wouldn't stop any of them. All of the legislation the gun grabbers want wouldn't have stopped them either, if Bloomberg had his wishlist fulfilled, a suicidal crazy person could still steal a gun and hurt innocent people. If there is some realistic way to prevent that scenario without obliterating the rights of good people to defend themselves, I'd be happy to hear it. Maybe start utilizing asylums again but have measures in place to prevent the elites from using them as a way to silence political dissidents.

There is no law that will eliminate the possibility of an innocent person being harmed with a gun, the best we can do is have policies that allow people to stop a rampage as soon as it starts. The fact is, though, gun attacks are not even a big problem in this day and age, about 11,000/year out of ~320 million isn't much of an issue, then consider 80% of it is gang violence and 95% of it happens in just a few democrat-heavy areas and you see that being the victim of a crime with a gun is a very very small chance to begin with. On the other hand we have several studies showing that 2-3 million times a year, peoples lives are saved by their guns, so we can infer that the most reasonable gun control policy is to put guns in the hands of as many good people as possible, in order to stop bad people from hurting them.


Tl:dr - the best "reasonable gun control" to stop criminals and crazies, is to arm as many good people as possible. Bad guys are only stopped by good guys.

[rustyx]

This is a very interesting subject to me, because I firmly believe that the 2A says what it means, the RKBA shall not be infringed, not even a little here or there, but like other rights, this one can be taken away for people convicted of criminal wrongdoing.

As a matter of advocating for our rights, I've tried to make an effort to understand why antis exist in the first place. Throughout history tyrants have wanted civilians disarmed so no one could stop them in their criminal endeavors, but what about the useful idiots that join the astroturfed organizations or just vote for nonsense like Newsome's propositions? I've heard stories about jealous exes committing crimes with guns, people playing cowboy, revenge, etc. And while the acts these people commit are crimes themselves, the argument that something should have been done to limit their access to firearms is popular and in my opinion, sort of credible. While I think that any normal law abiding person should have access to any and all arms to keep and bear, I don't think that the mentally ill, criminals, or dangerously irresponsible should be able to get a gun.

Where do we draw those lines though?

As mentioned earlier in the post, who will determine whether someone is mentally fit enough to carry a gun? In today's crazyfornia culture just having a moderate conservative opinion has the media painting you as a Nazi. That's why legislation like the gun violence restraining orders are so dangerous, all a disgruntled neighbor has to do is make up some lie and bam, you're forcibly disarmed and unable to protect yourself.

If we're going to propose reasonable legislation, I'd make the concession that a 10 day wait on your first firearm legitimately saves lives by preventing a "crime of passion" for people with no criminal intent or connections to get a black market gun. Once somebody has one gun though, what's the point of making them wait 10 days to buy another? All that does is prevent people from picking up a good deal when theyre far from home and piss people off about gun control in general.

I'd say requiring training to carry in public is a pretty darn good idea as well. At least know the basics so you won't have an accident.

Maybe don't give a violent felon access to a gun till they've been a functioning member if society for 10 years after being released, if ever.

The problem is, looking at the tragedies that have occurred involving guns, Adam Lanza, the Orlando and Santa Barbara shootings, these proposals wouldn't stop any of them. All of the legislation the gun grabbers want wouldn't have stopped them either, if Bloomberg had his wishlist fulfilled, a suicidal crazy person could still steal a gun and hurt innocent people. If there is some realistic way to prevent that scenario without obliterating the rights of good people to defend themselves, I'd be happy to hear it. Maybe start utilizing asylums again but have measures in place to prevent the elites from using them as a way to silence political dissidents.

There is no law that will eliminate the possibility of an innocent person being harmed with a gun, the best we can do is have policies that allow people to stop a rampage as soon as it starts. The fact is, though, gun attacks are not even a big problem in this day and age, about 11,000/year out of ~320 million isn't much of an issue, then consider 80% of it is gang violence and 95% of it happens in just a few democrat-heavy areas and you see that being the victim of a crime with a gun is a very very small chance to begin with. On the other hand we have several studies showing that 2-3 million times a year, peoples lives are saved by their guns, so we can infer that the most reasonable gun control policy is to put guns in the hands of as many good people as possible, in order to stop bad people from hurting them.


Tl:dr - the best "reasonable gun control" to stop criminals and crazies, is to arm as many good people as possible. Bad guys are only stopped by good guys.

I like every word of what you wrote.

[ScottyXbones]

Thanks, its too hot to sleep

[Mark49]

Every liquor store owner should be able to walk right in a purchase body armor. I wear mine a few days a week. Process servicing and evictions are becoming more hostile. Add 10* temp to our 100+ temps level 3

[JackEllis]

And really I don't think any weapon should be regulated. Or anything really for that matter. People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone or their property.

Good luck because that's a utopian ideal. Even in big, sparsely populated states it's impractical. We'd end up with anarchy.

The fact is, though, gun attacks are not even a big problem in this day and age, about 11,000/year out of ~320 million isn't much of an issue, then consider 80% of it is gang violence and 95% of it happens in just a few democrat-heavy areas and you see that being the victim of a crime with a gun is a very very small chance to begin with.

That's the way I see things, which is why I don't feel the need to walk around armed. Impaired drivers are a bigger threat. I just try to keep away from the bad parts of town.

On the other hand we have several studies showing that 2-3 million times a year, peoples lives are saved by their guns

I'd be interested in seeing a link those studies because the numbers do not appear to be credible.

...so we can infer that the most reasonable gun control policy is to put guns in the hands of as many good people as possible, in order to stop bad people from hurting them.

Maybe, but I would not count on this strategy being effective. There was an armed guard at the nightclub in Orlando but the shooter still managed to kill a lot of people. In order for a strategy like this to be effective, there would have to be a few of those much-dreaded rules, the most important of which is recurrent training. The moment someone pulls out a gun in self-defense, they need to be prepared to use it along with a considerable amount of judgment and competence in order to avoid shooting the wrong people. for those of you who practice a lot, it sounds easier than it probably is. for people who might practice once a year, if that, pulling a gun could end up badly for other than the criminal. Defining who the "good" people are means there has to be a standard for who cannot own a gun. Who makes that decision?

Thinking "the government is out to get me" is being unduly paranoid, or at least that's my take. For politicians it isn't about control as much as it is political opportunism. No different than the NRA painting an apocalyptic vision of the dangers ordinary citizens face from gun-toting criminals. I'm not saying I like all the rules and regulations, and I'm also not thrilled with bureaucracy but I can't get excited about living in Mad Max's world either.

So back to the OP's comments. We should be able to buy single shot and semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Regulating them based on "features" that make them look scary is idiotic. I see no reason why large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons and explosive devices should NOT require registration as they mostly do now because those weapons are pretty useless for self-defense anyway.

Also consider this. If you're paranoid enough that you feel you should have any weapon you want in order to keep the government in check, you ought to be writing Sessions today demanding he rescind his order on making military surplus equipment available to local law enforcement. That would at least even things up a bit.

It's an interesting thread but now I need to get back to the important work of preppin' cases for squirrel season

[jdl6mm]

Reasonable?

None.

It is not reasonable to ask me to violate my privacy to exercise a RIGHT. Owning a firearm or for that matter ANY weapon is not a privilege, its a RIGHT.

A RIGHT incidentally, that the Founders had no intention of denying to anyone, and that includes criminals. That did not come around until 1968, and if viewed in the circumstances of the day, was specifically aimed at preventing blacks from owning firearms.

So no, I disagree with any so called "reasonable" regulation

Was it really to limit firearms to the blacks? Please explain.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[Milsurp Collector]

I'll start, And I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for this.

I think the only regulation should be a background check to assure you are not mentally ill or a violent criminal.

Background checks don't keep bad people from getting guns. The only thing background checks do is waste the time and money of the overwhelming majority of gun buyers who are not prohibited from buying firearms. It adds up to tens of millions of dollars wasted every year and over a billion dollars since 1994. Keep the dangerous people locked up until they are no longer a threat and we will have a safer society, and the rest of us won't have to go through background checks, which was pretty much the norm from 1776 to 1994.

Was it really to keep blacks from owning firearms? Do explain please.

Was it really to limit firearms to the blacks? Please explain.

Watch and learn.

[ScottyXbones]

Good luck because that's a utopian ideal. Even in big, sparsely populated states it's impractical. We'd end up with anarchy.

I think you mean freedom. Proper self-defense doesn't mean you stop paying taxes or park in handicap spaces.

That's the way I see things, which is why I don't feel the need to walk around armed. Impaired drivers are a bigger threat. I just try to keep away from the bad parts of town.

You are right that impaired drivers are a much bigger threat than being attacked by a criminal with a gun, but don't get confused, there are plenty of violent attacks on people that don't involve a gun every day. I live in a good neighborhood but criminals wander in quite frequently and do their thing. My sheriff's website has a page that tracks crimes and plots it on a map, see if yours does and then consider if you want to roll the dice. Everyone can tolerate a different level of risk to their health, some people are ok with riding motorcycles or smoking cigarettes, driving thru bad parts of town, etc. I care about my well-being and I have people that depend on me to make it home safe every day, so I carry a gun just for the incredibly rare case if I'm attacked and cannot escape.

I'd be interested in seeing a link those studies because the numbers do not appear to be credible.

Whenever anti gun people doubt the credibility of the numbers of DGU's they're usually referring to the Kleck and Gertz study that came up with ~2.5 million instances per year. I've read the article criticizing their methods, which is basically all it is, criticizing their methods. No facts, no evidence to the contrary, just trying to shed doubt on the study. I'll also note that the study was done in 1973 and criticism didn't appear until 2007, except for one professor Hemenway who also makes the claim that gun owners are cowards with small genitals. There have also been studies by universities in Kansas and Florida that support the ~2 million number, but that didn't satisfy the Obama administration, so they (illegally, I might add) commissioned the CDC to perform a study on DGU's and came up with the figure of "up to 3 million per year".

Here is an article about the CDC study, the rest you'll have to look up on your own if you really want to base your opinions on facts, not feelings.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

Maybe, but I would not count on this strategy being effective. There was an armed guard at the nightclub in Orlando but the shooter still managed to kill a lot of people. In order for a strategy like this to be effective, there would have to be a few of those much-dreaded rules, the most important of which is recurrent training. The moment someone pulls out a gun in self-defense, they need to be prepared to use it along with a considerable amount of judgment and competence in order to avoid shooting the wrong people. for those of you who practice a lot, it sounds easier than it probably is. for people who might practice once a year, if that, pulling a gun could end up badly for other than the criminal. Defining who the "good" people are means there has to be a standard for who cannot own a gun. Who makes that decision?

Good points, at the Orlando club there was one armed guard assigned to protect what was essentially a gun-free zone, and the results are exactly what I'd expect. Where there are large crowds of unarmed people, criminals or crazies can do a lot of damage. That said, I'm not suggesting that people be allowed to carry while drinking heavily and doing what they do in clubs, I think the solution is for clubs to have a separate screening area inside the front door where you pay and get patted down before entering, have multiple security members with concealed pistols, etc. which again goes back to my original point, to stop a bad guy with a gun faster, you need more good guys with guns.

I agree with your point about necessitating training so that innocent people aren't hurt. Lets take police officers as a baseline, a vast majority qualify with their service weapon once a year and that's the only time they get practice. We trust them not to shoot the wrong person, and they don't even have any personal liability if they do make a mistake. Citizens, on the other hand know that every shot fired comes with an expensive lawyer attached.

As far as separating "good" people from "bad", that is pretty much what are criminal justice system does, right? We put bad people in jail/prison, the rest of the population we trust with all of their rights.

Thinking "the government is out to get me" is being unduly paranoid, or at least that's my take. For politicians it isn't about control as much as it is political opportunism. No different than the NRA painting an apocalyptic vision of the dangers ordinary citizens face from gun-toting criminals. I'm not saying I like all the rules and regulations, and I'm also not thrilled with bureaucracy but I can't get excited about living in Mad Max's world either.

I'm pretty sure the Jews in 1930's Germany said the same thing. The CA government may not be out to get you today, but it sure as **** wants to make sure you won't have the option to resist tomorrow. Why?

I equate the "excitement", as you call it, of using my rifle to the excitement of using my fire extinguisher, which is to say I wouldn't be excited at all because my home would be burning down.

So back to the OP's comments. We should be able to buy single shot and semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Regulating them based on "features" that make them look scary is idiotic. I see no reason why large capacity magazines, large caliber weapons and explosive devices should NOT require registration as they mostly do now because those weapons are pretty useless for self-defense anyway.

Also consider this. If you're paranoid enough that you feel you should have any weapon you want in order to keep the government in check, you ought to be writing Sessions today demanding he rescind his order on making military surplus equipment available to local law enforcement. That would at least even things up a bit.

It's an interesting thread but now I need to get back to the important work of preppin' cases for squirrel season

I'd argue that explosives are ideal for self defense if you're outnumbered. You have an opinion and I have one too, what's yours based on, real world tactical experience or feelings?

Throughout history we've seen that registration of arms has always lead to confiscation. The current system we have, where the government must obtain a warrant then go to a private citizen's gun shop to look up the DROS and find the owner of a gun, works well to solve crime already, and it keeps a crucial check on government's ability to round up gun owners in the event tyrannical leaders come to power. Registration cuts out that step of the government going to a judge and its citizens for the information of who to target. Why would a govt agency want to circumvent the intentional checks on its power?