With your username i can only assume you’re also alive because of your habit of wearing plate mail and gambeson under your clothing
1 Like
No harm, no foul. I understand. 
I am not a police apologist. However, I do support effective, non-lazy, non-prejudiced, competent, police work. I have been a big proponent on mandatory liability insurance for firearms as a way to produce a private industry based gun ownership registry. Record keeping which could be used by law enforcement under limited conditions but entirely out of the hands of “big brother government” arguments. Essentially the firearms equivalent of the NICB database
https://www.nicb.org/
2 Likes
That’s fine, but I already said that I am pointing out that this new legislation is part of the bigger power structure around gun lobbying and laws. Many people, including the folks that have been arguing with me have admitted that this isn’t totally neccesary, and is being driven by corporations. Whenever people try to discuss it in any gun related topic, we’re told that it’s the wrong place for discussion.
I’m sorry that I posted that article.I should have known that people wouldn’t be able to focus on the relevant information over the fears being expressed.
No worries, i get where you are coming from and i totally agree. I myself would like to be able to own a gun some day, not for home defense but as a range toy. And i am perfectly happy to do whatever i need to do to show that i would be a responsible owner. Take a class/test, background check, whatever it takes. I don’t get the need that we need to make them easier to get your hands on.
Agreed. I’m not looking to stop people from owning guns or make them give up their hobbies. I just wish we could look at the big picture with a more critical eye. The fear of not being able to have a gun is just as off the rails and out of control as the fear of guns.
3 Likes
For sure, i suspect that a good portion of people who balk at increased gun control would still be able to obtain them if such a thing were to pass. But they look at it as “you’re trying to take my guns away from me. I’m going to teach them by buying more guns!”. It’s very irrational.
Then again maybe some of these people know that they shouldn’t have the guns that they have already because of X reason (mental instability, criminal record,etc) and they do what they can to make sure the status quo doesn’t change.
1 Like
Seems comfortable to casually wear, like a good pair of old jeans.
1 Like
2 Likes
I love this video. There’s a reason plate mail armor lasted centuries past the invention and heavy use of firearms, and the light weight and mobility are some of the biggest reasons.
LOL, that’s funny people not directly involved in something telling others it isn’t a big enough nuisance. Sounds just like people who don’t live around Standing Rock saying that it isn’t a big deal.
Granted any range probably wouldn’t be able to enforce suppressor use - as you can’t just slap them on every gun, but people miles away from ranges still have a NIMBY attitude about the noise and such. The county my dad lives in is over all pretty rural, but there are no actual ranges for pistol and rifles. He has to travel an hour away to a private one. This isn’t just inconvenient, but leads to unsafe shooting in undesignated places. If shooting were a quieter sport there would be less opposition to the noise at least.
And again who are you to decide what is useful? What hobbies to you have? Odds are I would find what you use useless as well. There are hundreds of thousands of users right now finding legitimate, non-criminal uses for suppressors.
Again, this is just illogical demonizing that stems from the attitudes of when the law was passed in 1934. Just like why ninja stars are banned in Germany or other places. It’s irrational fear that somehow a metal tube with tubes in it is going to make people more likely to murder someone.
How do you suggest we reduce gun violence? Can you come up with a reason why gun violence has dropped off steadily since the late 90s with out any sweeping gun laws? Could it be the reasons for crime and violence are outside of the availability of the tools used for violence?
Does your suggestions or ideas take into account that most people using guns for violence are going outside the system? Tightening or expanding the regular system doesn’t work for people already working around that system. What system or ban do you think would really work for criminals when every other prohibition has failed in the past/present and in the case of drugs and alcohol is directly responsible or a lot of violence. Why is America’s murder rate higher than other places even BEFORE they increased their gun laws? Why are some nations with very strict laws awash in even more violence than the US?
I still contend, most violence stems from poverty, which breeds hopelessness, which convinces people to take the risk of being involved in illicit crime. Countries with better income equality and provisions for the poor have less violent crime. Our war on drugs and insane prison system is made to keep a certain portion of the population forever down in it. Fixing these and other social ills will do way more for a decrease in violence than any gun law ever will.
1 Like
But they do. They serve exactly the same purpose as a muffler on a tractor or motorcycle. It takes it from painfully loud to very loud.
One situation where we use them regularly is when I go shooting with my kids. heavy duty hearing protection is great at the range, but not so much in the wilderness, where dangerous critters and natural hazards are often detected by sound.
I am already licensed and permitted to an absurd level. So this law does not significantly help or hurt me personally. But I can at least address the issue from the perspective of having used lots of suppressed and non-suppressed guns in the military and civilian life. Which is a lot different from having views on the issue based on watching a bunch of spy films.
It would be nice if we could discuss the issue based on actual facts. One of those facts is that purchasing a suppressor will still require a federal background check.
1 Like
Except that people drive motor vehicles in close proximity to people on a regular lawful basis. There aren’t too many places one can fire guns close to a lot of people where something isn’t going horribly bad (firing range excepted).
1 Like
Name one.
It certainly makes the job of doing so much much easier.
Discourage stupidity in gun ownership and straw buying. Mandatory liability insurance. Such insurance requires creating private industry ownership databases which although useful for law enforcement is not in their control. Plus it promotes safer behavior as it impacts on one’s wallet. Best yet, it promotes gun ownership rather than bans it.
2 Likes
Name one what? I know many people who own them. There are over 900,000 in the US alone. All of them are being used in a safe, legal manner for recreation and competition. They are used in action sports like 3 Gun competition, as well as some long range competitions. And like I said, many more for recreation and informal shooting. It’s a tube that quiets things down. The legitimate use is any safe shooting where it being quieter is appreciated.
Baloney. This is illogical fear mongering and it doesn’t even make sense if you think about it. The majority of gun crimes are from criminals with concealable handguns. Suppressors double the length and make both their concealability and wieldability less. The idea that they are mainly used by hit men and assassins is mostly Hollywood garbage, just like things like the Wild West duel. They take something that happens very rarely and make it seem like it is common place.
If you are actually in a high crime neighborhood or even a little out side of it, you will hear gun shots all the time. No one is worried about shots being heard. They find people literally in the middle of the street or parking lots dead hours after the fact, because no one is rushing out to see what happened every time a shot goes off.
Ugh - this ridiculous idea again.
-
Gun ownership isn’t that risky or they would already require additional insurance, because that is what insurance companies do.
-
They already require additional theft insurance for people with more than a couple, just like jewelry or other valuables.
-
Insurance only cover accidents, not intentional damage. Try crashing your car on purpose and see if they pay out.
-
Disproportionately affects the poor, which will disproportionately affect minorities. People already struggling (and some times failing) to pay their car insurance. But hey, the current NFA laws make it so the wealthy are just mildly inconvenienced. Fuck the poor/middle class.
-
Criminals, which we are trying to target, won’t be paying it.
-
Straw purchases are a concern, but are pretty damn hard to combat. Just like anything. That is why prescription drug abuse is at an all time high. But people making these purchases for their cousin or boyfriend or whomever know what they are doing. They buy the gun, hell maybe pay for the first months premium then stop paying. How are you going to enforce that they pay an insurance?
-
Good news, thanks to continued vigilance in education and safety awareness, 2015 had the lowest number of accidental fatalities since 1903. Increased awareness, and both safes and trigger lock/gun locks being common place compared to just 20 years ago are making a real impact.
1 Like
r [quote=“Mister44, post:201, topic:102731”]
- Gun ownership isn’t that risky or they would already require additional insurance, because that is what insurance companies do.
[/quote]
It is far more risky than most personal property that people have liability insurance for. It carries the peril of death and injury from its intended use. Liability insurance is to protect the public and owner from the major financial loss which can occur if one is sued for the accidental or negligent use of one’s property. Do you want gun owners sued into bankruptcy?
Liability insurance is different. It protects everyone else besides the owner. [quote=“Mister44, post:201, topic:102731”]
3) Insurance only cover accidents, not intentional damage. Try crashing your car on purpose and see if they pay out.
[/quote]
Accidental and negligent use is one of the most preventable but deadly forms of harm frequently encountered by lawful gun owners. Which is why the NRA even sells this kind of insurance.
Owning a gun is a right, but not an entitlement. If you are too poor to keep and maintain lethal weapons in an adequate manner, you are probably posing a hazard to the community. You are also exaggerating wildly. There are niches for auto insurance for the poor and working class. Lack of insurance with an automobile poses a known harm to fellow motorists and pedestrians. Hence it can be grounds to keep a vehicle off the road
True, but it will make it harder for criminals to acquire guns through the grey/black market of straw sales and make it far easier for law enforcement to deal with it.
Moreso without any kind of national level record keeping. Having records of ownership in the hands of a private industry which encourages gun ownership fills the need for law enforcement and protects owners rights.
Interestingly the NRA and most gun owner advocates oppose safes and trigger/gun locks. But accidental deaths by negligent gun owners in this country is still higher than the rest of the developed world per capita.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
