• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236673]Honestly if you want to shoot guns in some deserted desert or in a training field go for it, if you want to have guns to defend your property, go for it If you want to be an asshole open carrying rifles to make a point about your 2nd amendment rights, don't Like the only problem i really have is with open carriers, the only people who should be open carrying in public is either the police or defence force, not some yokel scaring an entire shopping centre with his ak47 around his back and 2 glocks in his side pocket making a point Exercise your hobby, I don't think that should end, protect your house, I don't think that should end, just don't fucking show me or anyone else who can get scared easily by the sight of a gun Believe it or not but growing up in a country and a space where guns are only seen holstered by police, you are not adjusted to seeing them all the time without context[/QUOTE] All of this is fine and perfectly reasonable and is for the most part the way it is currently. Rifle open carry is basically only legal because nobody did it except out in the country for years and now people are suddenly doing it in protest within cities. I doubt it will remain OK for much longer. I don't have an issue with sidearm carry, open if necessary, depends on the gun, some just can't be concealed. As long as it's safely in its holster and not being waved around/in the way (like rifles always are) it's OK with me. [QUOTE=apierce1289;49236690]Very true. But good luck getting all the people down south giving up their gun rights. I think pistols, hunting rifles, and shoot guns that are semi automatic should be perfectly legal for a citizen to own. But I see no point in a normal guy having military grade equipment. Most people like that just own that stuff for target shooting and bragging rights. Hunting equipment and pistols serve a purpose like self defense and hunting obviously but I don't see a reason why anyone needs military grade equipment.[/QUOTE] I have loads of "military grade" equipment. My 1915 C96 is military grade and it's got the markings to prove it. My 1942 Mosin is military grade, my 1944 Enfield is military grade, I have a 1960s M1 helmet, that's military grade, I have some military grade ammunition cans, I have a military grade radio headset, a military grade coat for the winter, and even some military grade sunglasses, all military surplus items bought on the cheap (except the C96 lol). Hell, the Colt 1851 Navy cap & ball revolver I just bought is military grade. Military grade is a buzzword. All it means is items with a military origin. It doesn't mean they're inherently better than civilian grade - usually the opposite. They're just cheap, mass produced, and widely available when the military is through with them.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236554]Except that was done with a knife, not a gun.[/QUOTE] And that's somehow better? Honestly if it came down to it, I would prefer dying to a bullet than a knife. Especially if the knife death was a slashy one rather than a stabby one.
And the guns aren't going anywhere.
[QUOTE=credesniper;49235916]Sadly with these unclickable, I had to do my own research. The one on Mar 20, 2015 in Joliet, IL (from what I've found) had one dead (not four injured) and was gang related The one at Brooklyn Center, MN on Aug 26, 2015 was a home invasion. They need to link to their sources, and describe if they're gang violence, robbery, or what jumps to everyones minds (senseless mass shooting). Both of these could've possibly been prevented by wiping out gang activity, not restricting the purchasing of firearms.[/QUOTE] The WSJ released the number 855 and cited Redditch as the source.
[QUOTE=apierce1289;49236690]Very true. But good luck getting all the people down south giving up their gun rights. I think pistols, hunting rifles, and shot guns that are semi automatic should be perfectly legal for a citizen to own. But I see no point in a normal guy having military grade equipment. Most people like that just own that stuff for target shooting and bragging rights. Hunting equipment and pistols serve a purpose like self defense and hunting obviously but I don't see a reason why anyone needs military grade equipment.[/QUOTE] The only reason I can think of can be easily done with rifle kits. I love the looks of military guns, they look badass and have amazing feeling when you shoot them. With rifle kits, you can at least get the badass part of it right. I have a Ruger 22 Draganov rifle kit and it still kicks ass.
[QUOTE=adamsz;49236661]I'm starting to think each community should have a walk in public armory where everyone's guns are stored safely. It would function like a bank, except with guns. You go up to the security guard behind the glass, look him in the eye and show him your photo ID. The only person who knows the combination to your gun locker is you.[/QUOTE] This is literally retarded. edit: How do people come up with this shit.
[QUOTE=plunger435;49236002]I though a mass shooting meant three injured at least, not necessarily killed.[/QUOTE] The FBI defines them as four killed. The media's cute little made up definition for them doesn't state that any deaths have to occur, just injuries, no matter how minor. That's how they fluff up their mass shooting statistics so much.
Here's one way to prove the 355 mass shootings this year statistic is bullshit: In total there have been 462 deaths and 1314 injuries in mass shootings this year (per NYTimes). That totals up to 1776 casualties (conspiracy???). For a shooting to qualify as 'mass' there must be at least 4 [B]deaths[/B]. This is per the FBI. The media considers it 4 injuries, but that's garbage. Anyway, if there were 355 mass shootings this year, that'd mean at least 1420 [B]deaths[/B] in these events. Which, uh... oh, yeah, doesn't add up. It means the media is reporting a number nearly 4 times higher than reality (at the very least) to scare you.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49236514]Europe harsh gun control[/QUOTE] Hahaha no. Thankfully not all of us have Britain-tier gun laws. In fact we're enjoying our scary semiautomatic black rifles while simultaneously having far, far lower violent crime rates than the UK.
They should make it law for gun purchasers to have a yearly or bi-yearly mental evaluation.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49236897]They should make it law for gun purchasers to have a yearly or bi-yearly mental evaluation.[/QUOTE] And flag what characteristics?
I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if we're addressing gun control the wrong way. Obviously banning guns outright is almost impossible in the current political climate, it would do unnecessary harm to hobbyists, it probably wouldn't be great for the legitimate self-defense cases, etc. However, one suggestion I never see is changing the requirements to purchase ammunition. Obviously we can't totally ban lethal ammo, because that has legitimate uses in hunting, but I wonder if non-lethal shot (rubber bullets, salt shells) couldn't replace lethal stuff in sport or personal defense markets. Would it be feasible to require a hunting license and stricter control over lethal ammo, but allow non-lethal ammo to be purchased with lower standards? Collectors would be happy because they get to keep collecting, people who carry a gun for self-defense could still do so and still have stopping power, sports shooters would still be able to mess around at the range, and it would be substantially more difficult for people with intent to harm to do as much damage as they do now. It's not the silver bullet we're all looking for, but it would at least help without negatively impacting the law-abiding parties.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236902]And flag what characteristics?[/QUOTE] Leave that to the professionals, it was just a suggestion bud.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49236908]Leave that to the professionals, it was just a suggestion bud.[/QUOTE] So really you have nothing to offer the discussion. Alright, thanks. [QUOTE=woolio1;49236906]I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if we're addressing gun control the wrong way. Obviously banning guns outright is almost impossible in the current political climate, it would do unnecessary harm to hobbyists, it probably wouldn't be great for the legitimate self-defense cases, etc. However, one suggestion I never see is changing the requirements to purchase ammunition. Obviously we can't totally ban lethal ammo, because that has legitimate uses in hunting, but I wonder if non-lethal shot (rubber bullets, salt shells) couldn't replace lethal stuff in sport or personal defense markets. Would it be feasible to require a hunting license and stricter control over lethal ammo, but allow non-lethal ammo to be purchased with lower standards? Collectors would be happy because they get to keep collecting, people who carry a gun for self-defense could still do so and still have stopping power, sports shooters would still be able to mess around at the range, and it would be substantially more difficult for people with intent to harm to do as much damage as they do now. It's not the silver bullet we're all looking for, but it would at least help without negatively impacting the law-abiding parties.[/QUOTE] Non-lethal ammo frequently has difficulty cycling in semi automatics and can do nasty things to your gun regardless of the action. I wouldn't mind plinking with a magic round that doesn't hurt people and still works fine in my guns but until that exists, low-power lethals are pretty much the only option. They also aren't available in every caliber and are considered specialist munitions so there's a surcharge on them anyway.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236909]So really you have nothing to offer the discussion. Alright, thanks.[/QUOTE] My suggestion was what I offered, why are you so defensive?
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49236897]They should make it law for gun purchasers to have a yearly or bi-yearly mental evaluation.[/QUOTE] I agree, but I think it should be only for automatic weapons.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236902]And flag what characteristics?[/QUOTE] Everyone [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1495867]who's an extremist,[/url] clearly! [QUOTE=Megadave;49236918]I agree, but I think it should be only for automatic weapons.[/QUOTE] Why? Legally owned automatic weapons literally aren't used in crimes here, there's been like what, 2 deaths by registered automatic weapons in the U.S. in 80 years or something? The biggest problem with a lot of proposed solutions is that they simply don't affect the people actually committing these crimes, making them pointless.
What about guns that gun laws don't affect? At least where I live, it's 10 times easier to get a gun by buying 'off the street' than it is to attain legally. If they made it much stricter and harder to buy a gun, [I]maybe[/I] that would jack up street prices but it certainly wouldn't make them less prevalent because more people would be buying them that way.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49236917]My suggestion was what I offered, why are you so defensive?[/QUOTE] I'm not being defensive, I'm just annoyed with you popping in to drop your metaphorical flaming bag of dog shit on our porch while we're having a conversation. If you don't have anything to add other than a vague, half-baked concept, don't post. [QUOTE=MedicWine;49236925]What about guns that gun laws don't affect? At least where I live, it's 10 times easier to get a gun by buying 'off the street' than it is to attain legally. If they made it much stricter and harder to buy a gun, [I]maybe[/I] that would jack up street prices but it certainly wouldn't make them less prevalent because more people would be buying them that way.[/QUOTE] I've suggested some private transfer background check rules that I think would have a positive effect without being too invasive or abusable. I will confess that I recently purchased a black powder revolver online, which is a class of firearm that's entirely unregulated (anyone can buy them at any age and have them shipped to their door) which, while convenient, is slightly concerning. I don't see gangsters fussing around with cap and ball guns too much but I can't help but think there must be a better way to do it, considering this is still a ranged, lethal weapon.
[QUOTE=MedicWine;49236925]What about guns that gun laws don't affect? At least where I live, it's 10 times easier to get a gun by buying 'off the street' than it is to attain legally. If they made it much stricter and harder to buy a gun, [I]maybe[/I] that would jack up street prices but it certainly wouldn't make them less prevalent because more people would be buying them that way.[/QUOTE] We won't get anywhere if we don't make new laws just because we think people won't follow them. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236930]I'm not being defensive, I'm just annoyed with you popping in to drop your metaphorical flaming bag of dog shit on our porch while we're having a conversation. If you don't have anything to add other than a vague, half-baked concept, don't post.[/QUOTE] Why do I have to be some psych expert in order to post? I was just giving my 2 cents and you're spazzing out because I never humoured your shitty question.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236909]So really you have nothing to offer the discussion. Alright, thanks. Non-lethal ammo frequently has difficulty cycling in semi automatics and can do nasty things to your gun regardless of the action. I wouldn't mind plinking with a magic round that doesn't hurt people and still works fine in my guns but until that exists, low-power lethals are pretty much the only option. They also aren't available in every caliber and are considered specialist munitions so there's a surcharge on them anyway.[/QUOTE] That's a fair point, I wasn't aware of that. I'd imagine that ammunition companies probably haven't done too much research into the technology, but if economies were forced to shift to an environment favoring non-lethal rounds, they might have incentive to produce better, cheaper versions.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49236924]Everyone [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1495867]who's an extremist,[/url] clearly! Why? Legally owned automatic weapons literally aren't used in crimes here, there's been like what, 2 deaths by registered automatic weapons in the U.S. in 80 years or something? The biggest problem with a lot of proposed solutions is that they simply don't affect the people actually committing these crimes, making them pointless.[/QUOTE] Idk, mostly just because something needs to be done, I'm just throwing some solutions out there. Better to have mental checks on autos than not be able to have autos at all.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49236933]We won't get anywhere if we don't make new laws just because we think people won't follow them.[/QUOTE] Okay but those laws and regulations need to target the people doing things ILLEGALLY. Adding more bullshit regulations onto the people who already use their firearms responsibly doesn't curb crime, it's mostly people who obtain and use them illegally, outside of the system, that commit violent crimes with them.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49236953]Okay but those laws and regulations need to target the people doing things ILLEGALLY. Adding more bullshit regulations onto the people who already use their firearms responsibly doesn't curb crime, it's mostly people who obtain and use them illegally, outside of the system, that commit violent crimes with them.[/QUOTE] The shooting in California yesterday was done with legally purchased firearms.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49236933]Why do I have to be some psych expert in order to post? I was just giving my 2 cents and you're spazzing out because I never humoured your shitty question.[/QUOTE] Your 2 cents were worth as much as "We should stop gun violence."
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236964]Your 2 cents were worth as much as "We should stop gun violence."[/QUOTE] It really wasn't, it's a suggested action. I'm not implying it would solve the problem, it's just something that I think would help. If your mad about how inconvenient it sounds, it's a small price to pay imho.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49236950]That's a fair point, I wasn't aware of that. I'd imagine that ammunition companies probably haven't done too much research into the technology, but if economies were forced to shift to an environment favoring non-lethal rounds, they might have incentive to produce better, cheaper versions.[/QUOTE] I enjoy shooting non lethals in my shotguns when I have them, though. For one thing they're much less stressful on the double barrel and the pump gun, one of which is over a century old and the other is getting close to it. For another, solid targets last a lot longer with non lethal ammunition. Only downside in the shotguns is they don't kick as much, which is half the fun. But none of my other guns can handle nonlethals without jamming constantly.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49236933]We won't get anywhere if we don't make new laws just because we think people won't follow them. [/QUOTE] That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying the lowest point of entry for gun ownership, the quickest and easiest method, is illegal and underground. Whatever stops those guns from spreading isn't a law. What it is, I don't know, but thats why I brought it up for discussion.
[QUOTE=MedicWine;49236984]That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying the lowest point of entry for gun ownership, the quickest and easiest method, is illegal and underground. Whatever stops those guns from spreading isn't a law. What it is, I don't know, but thats why I brought it up for discussion.[/QUOTE] A good hunk of that (illegal NFAs) could be stopped dead by giving them an amnesty opportunity to enter circulation legally and under regulation, since many people participating in that trade are just collectors who want certain things that can't be obtained due to arbitrary laws. There are historically sympathetic people who will take the risk of owning an illegal Thompson, for example, just to save it from immediate destruction in the hopes that it can be made legal one day and enjoyed legally.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236996]A good hunk of that (illegal NFAs) could be stopped dead by giving them an amnesty opportunity to enter circulation legally and under regulation, since many people participating in that trade are just collectors who want certain things that can't be obtained due to arbitrary laws. There are historically sympathetic people who will take the risk of owning an illegal Thompson, for example, just to save it from immediate destruction in the hopes that it can be made legal one day and enjoyed legally.[/QUOTE] Wasn't there a police station that was offering money for unregistered guns?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.