OMG what is wrong with that guys hand?
1 Like
âWell regulatedâ means well organized, drilled, and properly prepared and equipped. In other words, you have your shit together. Another example would be a well regulated watch, in proper working order.
The militia was any male of fighting age. If you remember, the Revolutionary war was fraught with lack of basic supplies. You has soldiers with no boots, little to no powder, and lacking other basic needs. If you read militia laws at the time it has a laundry list of must haves: X number of balls, X amount of powder, rations, boots, type of rifle or musket, boots, etc etc. They didnât want you to show up with no shoes and ammo, becoming a liability vs an asset.
So, as you can see, the âwell regulatedâ phrase isnât about government control, but people being well armed and prepared.
Are you really so daft that your are trying to pretend there is an analogy between shoes & semi-automatic weapons?
In case you are genuinely laboring under the idea that these things are equally dangerous lemme explain why Guns (especially automatic, semi-automatic, and yes cheap hand guns) are very different from shoes, swords, Nitroglycerin, etc.
Impulse control & accidents. It would be pretty hard for me to accidentally kill someone with my shoes. Similarly Nitroglycerin needs significant specialized knowledge and malice of forethought to be weaponized. Knives, swords, etc.
Access plays a big psychological component in crime. Ever hear the phrase âwhen you have a hammer everything looks like a nailâ.
I accept that one cannot reasonably take away every last weapon, but there is no good reason for people to recreationally own weapons intended for high efficiency killing. Auto or semi-auto either way thatâs a lot of bullets, and an alarming ease of use. Killing should not be convenient, it ought to be difficult, something that requires volition & effort. Even a âsportsmanâ grade AK is alarmingly efficient compared to shotguns/rifles.
As for some of your other examples: Yes cheap-handguns are a bad idea. In some countries you canât own them. I see no compelling reason why we need them in this country either. Pit Bulls are pre-disposed to violence, we probably shouldnât have those either. Heck some communities already do ban them for just that reason. And large rockets? If you have inferred this from my tone already, I object to private ownership of those too.
The claim that itâs just a few high profile abusers rings more and more hallow with each passing shooting spree. Maybe that argument would fly back when Columbine was the only incident to point to, but it is becoming more and more common place.
Also how many people need to die to the hands of high profile abusers before your sport of choice is deemed more harmful then is worth it?
I donât care how responsible you are with your firearm. Iâm more worried about the mentally unstable kid from Sandyhook. I would gladly restrict your âfreedomâ, to prevent nutjob access to firearms. Iâm sorry but the pleasure you take in recreational use of firearms is entirely trumped by keeping easy squeezy high round weapons away from the mentally ill.
Would you say that the gun range that 9 year old was at was âwell regulatedâ?
You know what âwell regulatedâ would be? Gun control.
Because reminder, I donât want to see all guns taken away. I want to see guns made into something serious, and too sacrosanct for casual playtime. They are a terrible but necessary tool, and they deserve a lot more respect and ceremony in their use than we currently give them.
If people want to use guns in the context of a military-like exercise thatâs one thing. But that is not what going to Vegas for the weekend and playing with an AR-15 at a gun range looks like.
4 Likes
So the basis of your argument is your irrational fear that something might happen, and no matter how unlikely the event is, the fact that it has happened and could happen again is enough of a reason to further restrict them? Never mind how infrequently they are used for crime. Never mind the millions of people who use them for legit reasons. The hunk of metal and polymer is too inherently evil and dangerous to be trusted to the average person.
I agree guns command respect for their safe use, but using them safely is actually really, really easy to do. There are like 4 basic rules that if you obey at all times no one will get hurt. Itâs much, MUCH simpler than driving a car and someone as young as 5 can do so safely under supervision. If they were that dangerous, we would have a lot more dead folk from the millions of people who use them every month.
What happened in this story is a tragic accident. One that could have been avoided and should have been avoided. But it was from inexperience and a couple poor decision that it happened. But accidents happen. Any sport, from rock climbing to little league softball has a measure of risk and results in accidental deaths every year. Hell - look at the numbers, you are nearly TWICE as likely to DIE from STAIRS. Thatâs right, people simply WALKING down STAIRS is a more dangerous task.
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
I find it really ironic that you have this rigid mindset that guns are only good for one thing (military) and that is their only use - which ultimately is used for violence. When in reality most people use them for shooting sports, formally and informally, in 100% peaceful ways where no one gets hurt. I think this says a lot about your cognitive biases.
Other things can kill more? So guns are untouchable? Did I get that right?
Thatâs a piss poor argument for not introducing some practical regulations. Just because there are other dangerous things we should also endeavor to address, does not mean we canât tackle the harms associated with firearms. A little regulation can go a long way in reducing crimes of impulse, and casual accidents.
You know what I fear more than gun violence? People texting while driving. Itâs a heck of a lot more likely to kill me, and I routinely urge people in my life to put down their phones while using vehicles. That doesnât mean I canât also be concerned about guns.
We can at least agree what happened at this gun range was tragic. That it was allowed to happen at all is an indication of just of casual our relationship with guns has become.
Did you hear what the gun ranges solution to the incident? They raised the minimum age to 12. As if I should feel more comfortable by the idea of a 12 year old handling an Uzi.
If you agree that guns require respect & discipline, what is the harm in strictly regulating access to (semi)-automatic weapons, and banana clips?
Guns are special. They are not handy dandy multi-use tools, they can be used for killing or practicing the skills needed for killing.
Iâm not suggesting shutting down all the gun ranges, but I am suggesting practical limits on the type of weapon you can play with, and the rounds you can fit in a clip. Thatâs all most gun-control advocates want.
2 Likes
AWESOME!
One thing that all these threads (on various forums) about gun control/non-control has made me think about is knives. Every household has knives. They are necessary for so many human activities. Theyâre also lethal weapons (I know personally, all too well).
Turns out, the laws in the U.S. governing knives in public places are quite stringent. All sorts of knives, not just switchblades. Much more stringent than the laws governing guns under the same circumstances. Yet youâre much less likely to get killed by a knife, and theyâre much more likely to be carried in a public space for a non-killing purpose.
Guns seem to be very special snowflakes in the U.S.
6 Likes
Gosh, when you contextualize a story about a 9-year-old with an Uzi that way, itâs sooo much more reasonable! LOL. Troll harder.
Okay, I think this whole thread has jumped the shark at this point. If the two of you really want to debate, take it to the PM. Because if I have to read one comment arguing that stairs canât be carried as a concealed weapon Iâm going to lose it.
6 Likes
Knives, heck. Texas, with its famously lax gun laws, has stringent restrictions on frickinâ glassware. ( http://www.crscientific.com/texas-glassware.html ) Special snowflakes indeed.
3 Likes
The shoot sideways concept developed during WWII had nothing to do with âcontrollingâ the subgun, the idea was that if you had a group of multiple targets the recoil impulse and muzzle rise could be used to automatically move the impact point of the bullets across the target area and it was quickly abandoned as a waste of ammunition. These guns are easily controllable by an adult with training once the correct stance and hold are employed. The problem was that the military and police continued to train individuals to hold these guns using the classic quartered rifle shooting stance that had been used since nearly the inception of long arms several hundred years earlier.
Subguns actually went into disfavor over the supposed lack of controllability until the military started using the correct isosceles stance in the late 90s and early 2000s when the use of body armor and the shorter barreled M4 in CQB (close quarters battle) scenarios showed that the stance enabled good control over full auto firearms. The military changed the stance due to keeping the body armor square to the enemy and because it allowed the use of a larger plate for better protection. The benefits of greatly increased controllability, better peripheral vision, and situational awareness that competition shooters had long tried to convince them to use were merely a huge bonus and suddenly the military guys werenât getting their asses handily kicked by civilian competitive shooters any more!
Subguns are actually enjoying a bit of a resurgence with the SIG MPX series which I expect to pretty much replace the MP5 in the future. It has a much more robust build (one dent in the thin sheet metal receiver of an MP5 can render it inoperable), is easier to maintain due to a more modular design, and the controls duplicate AR based weapons making the manual of arms very similar to what most soldiers and police already know.
Still aliveâŚ
And my $0.02 on this? Kids that young cannot handle something like that. If you want to teach somebody to shoot that thing, first load ONE round and then let them try single-shot. Then, try three rounds. Work your way up. You donât learn to drive by starting in a Formula One race car. You donât start shooting full-auto. Pure stupidity.
EDIT
It is also interesting how any news of this type makes it on here. If somebody died in a chainsaw accident, nobody would be screaming to ban chainsaws. The last statistics that I saw were that there were about 28,000 chainsaw injuries every year.
2 Likes
[quote=âcolinInSpace, post:108, topic:39895, full:trueâ]
Other things can kill more? So guns are untouchable? Did I get that right?[/quote]
No, you missed the point that there are every day dangers much more common and deadly than guns. It is an illustration that guns have a disproportionate level of fear around them, which leads to irrational reactions around them.
[quote=âcolinInSpace, post:108, topic:39895, full:trueâ]
Thatâs a piss poor argument for not introducing some practical regulations. [/quote]
We already have a lot of practical regulations. What new ones are you suggesting, and what specific problem do you think that regulation will address?
In what fantasy land? Driving is extremely regulated with speed limits, lines in the road, street signs. And yet none of that does anything if someone wants to do something like speed, drive recklessly for a thrill (like street racing), not wear a seat belt, drive drunk, commit a road rage incident, or have a âhold my beer and watch thisâ moment. The news is full of people who have accidents in cars, some through no fault of their own, and some from a conscience decision to speed or do something reckless or dangerous. In these cases people are aware they shouldnât do something, but for what ever reason decided to break the law anyway.
Those regulations offer instructions on how to behave and penalties if you donât. We already have that for guns as well. For example you canât shoot people for no reason, or shoot within the city limits, or wave your gun around in public.
[quote=âcolinInSpace, post:108, topic:39895, full:trueâ]
If you agree that guns require respect & discipline, what is the harm in strictly regulating access to (semi)-automatic weapons, and banana clips?[/quote]
What restrictions are you proposing? For the most part, the currently limits are prudent. Further restriction for an object not hurting a lot of people isnât prudent. I donât see a rational reason for more, though if you have a novel idea Iâd like to hear it.
And please for the love of god, it is a âmagazineâ and it has nothing to do with bananas.
2 Likes
Most knife laws are bullshit too. Switchblades got banned around the same time as weed and the demonizing of comic books leading to the Comics Code Authority. They were seen as being used by âdelinquentsâ and âthugsâ. Disproportionate amount of fear around them.
Still, for most places donât bat an eye at <4" folders. Until 2001, I could take mine on a airplane (though NOT the cigar punch that just LOOKED like a bullet). They may as well allow switch blades now, as most folders can be easily opened with one hand now.
Fixed blade knives get more attention depending on the state and city, though Iâve walked into Home Depot with my Kabar on my Camel Back as I use it to wack shit doing yard work
I know it is a single anecdotal event but:
Sorry, the only issue in the Cheney incident was that he did not have a tag for hunting lawyers. There is a glut of them, so the tags are easy to come by. There are also other strict rules. It is not fair to hunt for lawyers by following ambulances or showing up to accident scenes.
My only problem with hunting lawyers is that they are not edible. They are slimy, gutless, and spineless.
3 Likes
Lighting, the full page has a shot of the same guy holding his gun the proper way and thereâs no massive freaky hole. Just entirely an entirely normal divot between the tendons of his hand.
Are we talking about actually firing oneâs flight of stairs at the range several times a day, or just owning a flight of stairs and cleaning it occasionally? I personally enjoyed shooting an old Rabbit GTi, getting sideways and slipping through all the traffic at the range. Statistically speaking, it was pretty dangerous, like all automobile use. Think about how much less dangerous cars would be if people only took their cars out of the garage a few times a year.
3 Likes
