Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

[MichVandal]

Doves will fly in groups and you can take out 2-4 birds on a single pass. And this is without even getting into what is needed on a South American "Dream" trip. This is a specific example where a Semi-Auto will greatly improve accuracy and this style of hunting is what pushed semi-auto designs.

I'll be honest in that your ignorance of the sport of hunting is coming off as very MAGA, just with a perspective from the left. You are so set against something you aren't willing to listen to the actual logic behind it and are using blanket coverage to cover an area that is extremely diverse. You ignore the actual logical reasoning, and just form things to fit your end goal. You come off as someone who views anyone who wants to partake in hunting/fishing as below you, and that's frankly not cool. Especially for someone who lives in Michigan, a state where hunting/fishing tourism accounts for roughly 30-40% of all tourist dollars spent.

Ok, I'm fine with that.

I was a hunter, too. I have put out logic to explain my position of reducing the deadliness of weapons by reducing their firing rate and the number of rounds they can put out.

Does the "need" to shoot so many doves at once justify the mass shootings we have? Or can a compromise of pump action be suffice?

BTW, it was not until THIS post where any explanation of why a semi-auto weapon is used for hunting. So stop with the "not listening to logic" BS- logic has to be presented before it can be ignored.

Do I look down on deer hunters because they think they need a semi-auto, heck yes, I do. You get one chance, and the deer, or elk, or moose will bolt. Skill (which I will brag that I had at one point) will ensure one shot, one kill.

I never went hunting for any birds, so I have no problem learning about that. But I fail to see why they can't compromise on how many and fast rounds have to be shot off.

My overall proposal is to reduce the deadliness of shootings based on the number of rounds they get off and the speed they are put out.

Do you have a counter proposal, or just reasons that you have to have fast shooting weapons? Or should we just accept the constant mass murders so that hunters can shoot multiple doves at once?

Or are you just going to hide behind the "you don't know what you are talking about" excuse? That's just childish to me.

[Drew S.]

Weren’t you the one who said CNN doesn’t show enough stories of good guys with guns stopping bad guys? Yes, yes you were.

All I said is that CNN wouldn't show a good guy with a gun story.

All of these mass shootings the last month or two are very unsurprising. Our country has been through a horrible time of the past 15 months and I'm sure there are millions of people in a really bad way. How you fix it I have no idea.

[Kepler]

All of these mass shootings the last month or two are very unsurprising. Our country has been through a horrible time of the past 15 months and I'm sure there are millions of people in a really bad way. How you fix it I have no idea.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-p...s-r-1819576527

[psych]

All I said is that CNN wouldn't show a good guy with a gun story.

All of these mass shootings the last month or two are very unsurprising. Our country has been through a horrible time of the past 15 months and I'm sure there are millions of people in a really bad way. How you fix it I have no idea.

We’ve averaged one mass shooting/day for longer than 15 months. I don’t doubt CNN has either shown a good guy with a gun being a hero on TV, or in print somewhere on their site. The exception doesn’t prove the rule, and reinforcing that all we need is more good guys with guns kind of defeats the purpose of what you’re also saying too, doesn’t it?
You’re smarter than having “no idea.” As a gun owner, I’m assuming responsible since you’re posting on a message board, aren’t in prison, and can still vote for morons like Susan Collins, do you not agree with some of the suggestions for reducing gun violence on here?

[Drew S.]

We’ve averaged one mass shooting/day for longer than 15 months. I don’t doubt CNN has either shown a good guy with a gun being a hero on TV, or in print somewhere on their site. The exception doesn’t prove the rule, and reinforcing that all we need is more good guys with guns kind of defeats the purpose of what you’re also saying too, doesn’t it?
You’re smarter than having “no idea.” As a gun owner, I’m assuming responsible since you’re posting on a message board, aren’t in prison, and can still vote for morons like Susan Collins, do you not agree with some of the suggestions for reducing gun violence on here?

I've given my suggestions but folks don't want to hear them. There's no doubt there are things we can do, but the fundamental issue is folks who want to cause mass harm. To fix that you would need changes across a vast range of things and it doesn't seem like there is much appetite for that.

[psych]

I've given my suggestions but folks don't want to hear them. There's no doubt there are things we can do, but the fundamental issue is folks who want to cause mass harm. To fix that you would need changes across a vast range of things and it doesn't seem like there is much appetite for that.

What were those suggestions? Can’t say I’ve seen them since I discovered the cafe board with my new username.

[RaceBoarder]

Ok, I'm fine with that.

I was a hunter, too. I have put out logic to explain my position of reducing the deadliness of weapons by reducing their firing rate and the number of rounds they can put out.

Does the "need" to shoot so many doves at once justify the mass shootings we have? Or can a compromise of pump action be suffice?

BTW, it was not until THIS post where any explanation of why a semi-auto weapon is used for hunting. So stop with the "not listening to logic" BS- logic has to be presented before it can be ignored.

Do I look down on deer hunters because they think they need a semi-auto, heck yes, I do. You get one chance, and the deer, or elk, or moose will bolt. Skill (which I will brag that I had at one point) will ensure one shot, one kill.

I never went hunting for any birds, so I have no problem learning about that. But I fail to see why they can't compromise on how many and fast rounds have to be shot off.

My overall proposal is to reduce the deadliness of shootings based on the number of rounds they get off and the speed they are put out.

Do you have a counter proposal, or just reasons that you have to have fast shooting weapons? Or should we just accept the constant mass murders so that hunters can shoot multiple doves at once?

Or are you just going to hide behind the "you don't know what you are talking about" excuse? That's just childish to me.

The thing is that you are thinking that Deer/Elk/Big Game hunting logic applies to all forms of hunting when that is further from the truth. Birds/Small Game absolutely can require multiple shots. A semi-automatic shotgun functions by taking recoil energy and repurposing it to eject the spent round and load the next one. Because the shooter does not need to move their hands/arms they can stay on target much easier. With small game this is critical. Also because some recoil energy is spent on the reloading process, less energy is left in the recoil of the gun. The shooter takes less recoil. This is critical for young/novice/senior/disabled shooters. "Semi-Auto" absolutely has a place in the world.

I've said numerous times before, 5+1 capacity limit on long guns is plenty. But simply saying "Semi-Autos are banned" is fully unacceptable. Instead of banning types of firearms, lets start by severely punishing those that are irresponsible with their firearms (if a minor discharges your firearm without you knowing, 5 year minimum prison time for example). Let's start by getting rid of all the BS regulations an replace them with "common sense" (Example: You currently can build what is basically an AR-15 style military firearm and have it be classified as a "pistol". Looks like a duck, walks like a duck. Fix that). Close gun sale loopholes. Get full background checks.

Banning anything is going to get the DERPS in a frenzy. If you quietly close some of the holes I have mentioned, you can have a much smoother political process and take away much of the DERPs ground without them knowing it.

[Drew S.]

What were those suggestions? Can’t say I’ve seen them since I discovered the cafe board with my new username.

A waiting period would be great. Having some sort of national gun license where they do a background check and make sure you know how to safely carry a gun and shoot would be good. There should be a lot more attention given to first time gun buyers to make sure they are stable and buying a gun for the right reasons. I think all of those would be a lot more successful than background checks or banning certain guns.

[psych]

A waiting period would be great. Having some sort of national gun license where they do a background check and make sure you know how to safely carry a gun and shoot would be good. There should be a lot more attention given to first time gun buyers to make sure they are stable and buying a gun for the right reasons. I think all of those would be a lot more successful than background checks or banning certain guns.

Who dismissed that? A waiting period is great. Can we make sure the waiting period extends until the background check is actually completed? Too many people seem to be getting their guns during that waiting period before background checks are completed since they’re underfunded and toothless at the moment. Agreed about a national license. Standardize it across states, and allow states to create stricter gun laws if they so choose. Require the license to be renewed every year. Close loopholes that allow domestic violence perpetrators to get their guns back.
I liked the really strict sh-t Handy and others were suggesting. I don’t ever see it happening, but as MichVandal has said over and over again, it should be harder to obtain and keep a gun than to vote.

[MichVandal]

The thing is that you are thinking that Deer/Elk/Big Game hunting logic applies to all forms of hunting when that is further from the truth. Birds/Small Game absolutely can require multiple shots. A semi-automatic shotgun functions by taking recoil energy and repurposing it to eject the spent round and load the next one. Because the shooter does not need to move their hands/arms they can stay on target much easier. With small game this is critical. Also because some recoil energy is spent on the reloading process, less energy is left in the recoil of the gun. The shooter takes less recoil. This is critical for young/novice/senior/disabled shooters. "Semi-Auto" absolutely has a place in the world.

I've said numerous times before, 5+1 capacity limit on long guns is plenty. But simply saying "Semi-Autos are banned" is fully unacceptable. Instead of banning types of firearms, lets start by severely punishing those that are irresponsible with their firearms (if a minor discharges your firearm without you knowing, 5 year minimum prison time for example). Let's start by getting rid of all the BS regulations an replace them with "common sense" (Example: You currently can build what is basically an AR-15 style military firearm and have it be classified as a "pistol". Looks like a duck, walks like a duck. Fix that). Close gun sale loopholes. Get full background checks.

Banning anything is going to get the DERPS in a frenzy. If you quietly close some of the holes I have mentioned, you can have a much smoother political process and take away much of the DERPs ground without them knowing it.

That's a start.

I'm honestly betting two things- 1) even with universal background check and punishing the irresponsible- that's not really going to help. More than once, it's reported that the shooter got the guns legally. And normally holding them responsible means giving them a decent burial. Like the most recent shooting.

2) (not your proposal) but the mental health coverage of this isn't going to go anywhere. Just like the above, how many more times do we have to hear "they were so NORMAL, this is a shock" before we see that it's impossible to actually detect someone who will do a mass shooting.

As for keeping your pistols, the fact that one can be made to be essentially an AR15 is why they are not needed. The "assault weapons ban" was a good idea, but a bad execution. Once the floodgates opened, it's been accelerating.

So I'm going to stick with my dream of getting rid of guns that 1) can shoot at finger rate, and 2) has more than 5 in the magazine, but I can compromise.

In addition to the background checks, can we add registration that is exactly the same as voter registration? Both have protections in the Bill of Rights- so I don't see any reason why gun ownership and voting can't have the same registration requirements. Fight shooter fraud.

[SJHovey]

I've never opposed waiting periods or background checks before you purchase a gun. However, as I've written numerous times before on this board, those measures are not going to have any impact on the types of events like that in San Jose. Of the various mass shootings that we've all read about over the last decade or two, how many of them have been committed by convicted felons or people who would have been flagged by a background check? None come to mind that I can think of. In pretty much every instance the shooter has been someone who looks and acts just like you and me. They live in a middle class home, possibly have a family, are a student, hold a job, etc...


The vast majority of these shooters are white and male, and they have found themselves at one of two significant crossroads that all of the rest of us men have (or will have) gone through. That point between maybe the ages of 16 and 25, or in middle age (late 30's to early 50's). Those can be difficult times. They can be times where you experience loss or frustration with your place in the world, with problems or difficulties with the opposite sex, work or career questions, etc...

Some men push through. Some have affairs or buy an unnecessary car. Some go completely over the edge and shoot up their school or their place of employment or whatever.

I don't know the answer, but it certainly lies somewhere in figuring out the psychology of those points in men's lives, identifying those who may be struggling to get through them, and addressing the problem before it gets out of control.

[ScoobyDoo]

I've never opposed waiting periods or background checks before you purchase a gun. However, as I've written numerous times before on this board, those measures are not going to have any impact on the types of events like that in San Jose. Of the various mass shootings that we've all read about over the last decade or two, how many of them have been committed by convicted felons or people who would have been flagged by a background check? None come to mind that I can think of. In pretty much every instance the shooter has been someone who looks and acts just like you and me. They live in a middle class home, possibly have a family, are a student, hold a job, etc...


The vast majority of these shooters are white and male, and they have found themselves at one of two significant crossroads that all of the rest of us men have (or will have) gone through. That point between maybe the ages of 16 and 25, or in middle age (late 30's to early 50's). Those can be difficult times. They can be times where you experience loss or frustration with your place in the world, with problems or difficulties with the opposite sex, work or career questions, etc...

Some men push through. Some have affairs or buy an unnecessary car. Some go completely over the edge and shoot up their school or their place of employment or whatever.

I don't know the answer, but it certainly lies somewhere in figuring out the psychology of those points in men's lives, identifying those who may be struggling to get through them, and addressing the problem before it gets out of control.

This is just not true. The last one in Colorado (or at least the last one I remember) the law they tried to pass and implement would have prevented the shooting. Unfortunately the Republicans blocked it and it did not. It's also very interesting that all of this correlates with the sunset of the assault weapons law from the '90's that never got reinstated.

[psych]

I've never opposed waiting periods or background checks before you purchase a gun. However, as I've written numerous times before on this board, those measures are not going to have any impact on the types of events like that in San Jose. Of the various mass shootings that we've all read about over the last decade or two, how many of them have been committed by convicted felons or people who would have been flagged by a background check? None come to mind that I can think of. In pretty much every instance the shooter has been someone who looks and acts just like you and me. They live in a middle class home, possibly have a family, are a student, hold a job, etc...


The vast majority of these shooters are white and male, and they have found themselves at one of two significant crossroads that all of the rest of us men have (or will have) gone through. That point between maybe the ages of 16 and 25, or in middle age (late 30's to early 50's). Those can be difficult times. They can be times where you experience loss or frustration with your place in the world, with problems or difficulties with the opposite sex, work or career questions, etc...

Some men push through. Some have affairs or buy an unnecessary car. Some go completely over the edge and shoot up their school or their place of employment or whatever.

I don't know the answer, but it certainly lies somewhere in figuring out the psychology of those points in men's lives, identifying those who may be struggling to get through them, and addressing the problem before it gets out of control.

What message board do you think you’re on? If it were up to me, and basically anyone on this board EXCEPT you, Sic, and maybe a couple others, we’d ban/restrict pretty much everything. I’d make it so hard to own a gun that we’d look like Japan. But then you’d come here and tell us that doing that isn’t politically feasible, because only you know that.
OF COURSE those things (background checks, waiting periods, etc.) don’t stop everything, or even make much of a dent. Better than not doing anything. As for “figuring out the point in men’s lives where they lose their ****ing sh-t”, good luck with that. Having worked in the mental health field for almost two decades, might as well be chasing a unicorn. We barely fund mental health as it is.

[The Sicatoka]

You still owe the example of why an AR15, or any other automatic weapon like that is needed for hunting.

An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon. (It takes advanced Federal permitting to own an automatic weapon in the US.)

[psych]

One more thing: suicides make up the vast majority of gun deaths. You know this. I know this. Yes, no doubt some of those people may find another way to kill themselves, but firearms are obviously by FAR the easiest way. There’s a reason we ask/check for firearms during the patient’s safety crisis discharge plan, and then work to secure those firearms with the patient’s guardian before the patient goes home or their next placement. We could cut out all the mass shootings, and we’d still be killing way more people with guns than anywhere else in the world. Does that not signal it’s not necessarily a people problem?