Slinging.org Forum
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl
General >> Other Topics >> Shooting
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1567363422

Message started by Rat Man on Sep 1st, 2019 at 2:43pm

Title: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 1st, 2019 at 2:43pm
† † I got my first gun when I was twelve.† A Remington .22 that I still have.† I started hunting legally when I was about seventeen with a 12 gauge shotgun. When I joined the army at nineteen I was a pretty good but not great shot.†
† † One thing the military does is teach you how to shoot.† I am aware that Marines get more hands on target practice training so generally they are better shots.† That doesn't mean that soldiers can't shoot.† No one graduates Basic without being at least a marksman.
† †† What the army taught me about shooting boils down to three basic things.† First is attaining the most stable shooting position possible.† Most of the time that's laying prone on the ground.† Sometimes you can't see your target if you're laying down.† If you have to stand it's best to find something, usually a tree, to support and steady yourself with.† When that isn't possible there's a standing,† unsupported position but this is your least desirable option.
† † Next, and this is extremely important, is breathing.† Prior to the army I paid no attention to how I breathed when I shot.† With all the practice in the world I only could have been so good without utilizing proper breathing.† It's very simple.† Before you shoot expel the air in your lungs.† Then aim and shoot. Don't inhale until after the shot.† Your normal breathing will make the end of your barrel rise and fall.† Even the smallest fraction of an inch can make a huge difference four hundred yards downfield.† Breathing is VERY important.
† †† Finally, whenever possible, don't jerk the trigger.† Slowly squeeze it so that it's a bit of a surprise when your rifle goes off.† This is much more important when you're shooting a pistol.† If you jerk the trigger your wrist will rise and the barrel will lower when† you shoot causing you to undershoot your target.†
† †† Of course the military makes you practice these things until they're second nature but that's basically what they teach you.† Simple and it works.† †
† † Incidentally, I haven't hunted in probably forty years.† I'm not morally opposed to properly regulated, legal hunting and I could hunt again if there was an absolute need.† For me killing animals quickly lost all of it's charm.† I don't like to kill anything that I don't have to.† I even feel guilty killing bugs or weeds.†

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 1st, 2019 at 10:44pm
Shooting of all kinds is a wonderful past time. There's something about projectile weapons of all kinds that's almost part of a humans DNA.

The only guns I've owned so far are a Ruger 10/22 and a Weatherby Vanguard .223. Both fun but I need to get some pistols as well. Especially now that I have a 10 year old daughter. She needs a big mean German Shepherd and a tazer. A pistol when she gets old enough. 😃 That's the game plan anyways. Too many weirdos these days.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by walter on Sep 1st, 2019 at 11:26pm
Trained by a hunter/ trapper (my dad). Advanced training at Ft. Dix in the NJ pine barrens. Still have a 12 gauge, Remmington .22 (nylon 66) and a .357 Ruger revolver, which I have carried concealed for over 30 years now.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Curious Aardvark on Sep 2nd, 2019 at 7:15am
Got nothing against hunting for meat and everything against hunting for 'trophies'.

Guns are fine and a useful tool. Which is the general british attitude to them and the main reaosn most brits don't own a gun or want to own a gun.

Contrary to popular belief there are very few barriers to owning a gun in the uk. You have to have No criminal convictions and not been sectioned under the mental health act.
You need to show a use for the weapon. This can be as basic as: 'I've joined a gun club and want to shoot at targets'.

If you intedn to hunt with a firearm you need to show that you have a landowners permission to shoot on their land and that the land is sufficiently large that you won't endanger anyone not on the land.

Most small animal hunting: rats, rabbits, pigeons - is done airguns. Which generally don't need to be licensed.
The uk is one of the largest markets for High end air weapons in the world.† †

You can legally own almost any weapon, with the exception of full auto and non-antique pistols. So called 'antique' weapons are currently fully Unlicensed. Weird but true. A blackpowder gun will kill you just as dead as a modern weapon.:noidea:

You can also buy weapons in the uk that are illegal in many us states. Moderated or silenced weapons are fully legal.
My dad used to have a fully moderated shotgun, which would have been illegal in much of the us.

So the whole uk versus us gun issue - is purely down to attitude.
We think of them as tools that most people don't need. Most americans seem to think of them as an essential appendage, without which you are not a whole person.

I've used and fired a variety of weapons over the years. I'm good with all projectile weapons, always have been.
But to me It's just another skill - not overly useful and not something I do very often. I do own the best .22 spring air rifle that's ever been made: weirauch 97k. After 20 years it's still factory spec power.
Heavy as crap lol But a great rifle.

I don't personally hunt, just not my thing. Nothing against people who do - as long as it's for meat.†

IN a long term, end of the world scenario. A crossbow would be much more use than a firearm. As all it's parts could be replaced and bolts can be bodged up from a huge variety of items.
A catapult or slingshot would be more use for hunting than a sling, as food - over here anyway -would be mostly small animals, and a stored energy weapon that you can aim - is a lot more practical than a sling for any short range hunt :-)

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 2nd, 2019 at 4:59pm
it's not that it's "an essential appendage" it's more "there are situations where not having one could be fatal". So it's not "If I don't have it I'm not a man" it's "there are situations where not having that tool could mean I fail in my duty as a human".

The British attitude (and the gun control side here in the states as well) hinges on that "most people don't need it" and then adds obstacle on obstacle, and it's no big deal because you don't need it. While the more American attitude is "anyone could need it".

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by walter on Sep 2nd, 2019 at 8:49pm

perpetualstudent wrote on Sep 2nd, 2019 at 4:59pm:
it's not that it's "an essential appendage" it's more "there are situations where not having one could be fatal". So it's not "If I don't have it I'm not a man" it's "there are situations where not having that tool could mean I fail in my duty as a human".

The British attitude (and the gun control side here in the states as well) hinges on that "most people don't need it" and then adds obstacle on obstacle, and it's no big deal because you don't need it. While the more American attitude is "anyone could need it".


The revolver has saved me three times so far. Did not have to use it; just show it.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 1:35am
I like the idea of shooting but donít get out to actually do it enough. I particularly like to take out-of-town clients to the local range where you can rent a fully automatic WWII grease gun with a suppressor... very good entertainment for the 15 seconds before you run out of ammo!

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by vetryan15 on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 6:10am
Well as you know, NJ has some of the strictest gun laws now. One of the resons i hated the state and wanted to move out. Only time i dealt with firearms were in the military.  After i moved up here. My family gave me around 7 firearms which i can say i can without a problem.  Open my door and shoot out.. Maine has a constitutional carry law that was passed a couple years back. So anyone that is allowed to own a firearm,  you can legally carry it open or concealed if you want.  I usually have a 45 cal semi automatic military issue 1911 while walking around the property,  and neighborhood.  I had to pull it on a persone once. Never saw them since.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 9:39am

Quote:
So the whole uk versus us gun issue - is purely down to attitude.
We think of them as tools that most people don't need. Most americans seem to think of them as an essential appendage, without which you are not a whole person.


@CA You are correct that attitude is different but a little off about how we differ. Itís actually not really about guns but about power and authority. Americans who own guns generally believe that the right to self defense is fundamental and transcends the authority of the state. Brits (and most others) own weapons at the pleasure of the state, which means the state also has the authority to take away a citizenís means of self defense. This means that citizens are virtually powerless if the state ever  becomes corrupt. The American Constitution explicitly limits the stateís authority regarding ďarmsĒ on the assumption that corruption is inevitable and therefore the stateís powers over people should be limited so that corruption cannot take root for long.

Of course, one big problem with the American philosophy is when some psycho citizen with a little charisma holds some extreme definition of ďcorruptionĒ, gathers a group together, and decides to take a stand against the government.  Thatís obviously bad, but itís also extremely rare. On the other hand, using a gun for self defense is quite common, and, like walter said, it usually doesnít even require pulling the trigger.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 4:03pm
I think that's the most commonly misunderstood point about the second amendment and US citizens themselves are often the most guilty of it.

The founding fathers lived in a time when tyrannical rule was the most pressing issue of the day. When they wanted the citizenry to have guns it was largely due to the common understanding of the founders that the people should at least have the means to fight back if such tyranny ever happened again. Their writings constantly point to that possibility,

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants..."

They were scholars of history. They understood what eventually happens to all governments that are around long enough. It's not about hunting and while personal self-defense is important I think if they thought of that it was secondary to maintaining freedom.

"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." Or Franklin's well known quote when asked what kind of government they had given the people "A Republic if you can keep it."

The understanding was pretty clear. Freedom doesn't last forever and when it wanes the people need the means to try to restore it.

I always look at it like flood insurance. You may pay on it for 50 years and never use it or you may have it two years and it saves your entire livelihood. That's what the second amendment is. Insurance you don't want to pay but are willing to keep just in case the big one hits.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by JudoP on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 5:43pm
I am curious (genuinely) about how effective an armed populace would be in the face of a tyrannical government with the resources of the US.

It seems to me that if the army is under control- you are basically a goner, and if it isn't- they have nothing anyway. To me personal gun ownership seems a rather antiquated defence given most regimes do have control of a modern(ish) army.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 5:51pm
    All of that said, mass shootings are now commonplace.  Something has to be done. This can't continue.  I don't think there's a perfect solution.  Background checks like those in New Jersey that vetryan hates are at  least a partial solution.  My gun purchasing permit was so old that it was invalid so I had to go through the whole process again a couple of years ago.  I am currently permitted to buy shotguns and rifles.  If I wanted to I could jump through the hoop a few more times and be allowed to buy handguns.  Though a bit of a butt pain I don't mind such precautions.  Yes, there are holes in the process but at least it's something. 

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 7:29pm

JudoP wrote on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 5:43pm:
I am curious (genuinely) about how effective an armed populace would be in the face of a tyrannical government with the resources of the US.

It seems to me that if the army is under control- you are basically a goner, and if it isn't- they have nothing anyway. To me personal gun ownership seems a rather antiquated defence given most regimes do have control of a modern(ish) army.


That's a fair point Judo. I honestly don't have a good answer for that. If you say conservatively speaking that the military is "just" 30 years in advanced of what they admit to having, hell if you say they only have what they admit to having which isn't likely then probably still not much. Still, it's something. Im not in a huge gun guy personally but I think if America is ever completely disarmed it's going to happen one of two ways.

One, in another 30-40 years the populace swings over to disarming enough that they freely give up the guns. That's still going to take awhile though. Or two, a massive terrorist attack, bigger than 9/11  or some other national emergency happens to America leading to civil unrest which accelerates the disarming.

As much as I hate the mass shootings, I don't see that causing the public to disarm. It's a horrible thing but I just don't see that happening. If they push the point it's going to get ugly. At least in 2019 it will. 2030 maybe a completely different story.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 7:36pm
My issue with that argument is that I don't find the idea of being driven down by a hijacked truck while Christmas shopping with my family to be preferable to being shot. If you have large groups of people someone with avg intelligence and a modicum of premeditation can come up with some horrific things. And the truly horrific mass shooting of children in Connecticut took place with an assault weapon ban and gun registration as the status quo. The husband and wife shooting in CA,likewise was a state with very strict gun control.

I agree that there does need to be an answer but the gun control one just buys some time before somebody has an idea and it trickles out into the community. The idea that ideologies (including the ignored nihilism) need to be responded to is the heart of the issue imo.

@Judo
Depends what you see a political break-up or civil war as constituting. You're quite right that a shotgun vs a tank isn't a contest. But the US hasn't done so well very recently in Afghanistan. Iraq it was more explosives but Afghanistan rifles were a very large factor. And civil wars imply that there is not a monopoly on the armed forces and in such a situation I would certainly prefer to have a firearm to not having one. We've been preaching the "end of the rifleman" for a long time, hasn't happened yet.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 8:19pm
@Morphy: it took me a second to realize that you were agreeing with me :)

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 9:59pm

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 8:19pm:
@Morphy: it took me a second to realize that you were agreeing with me :)


Oh I agree completely. But if I didn't word vomit all over the screen and still leave you wondering it wouldn't be like me now would it?  :D

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 4th, 2019 at 3:05pm
† † Gun control means† different things to different people.† There's a phobia on the far Right that Big Brother is going to come to their house and take their guns away.† And there are some factions on the far Left that would like to see that occur. I don't see that happening in the near future.†
† † To me as a middle of the roader and a lifelong gun owner gun control means making it illegal for the mentally ill and convicted criminals to purchase or own firearms.† As I said, there is no perfect solution. Some criminals and nuts will still be able to get guns.† And there are many ways to kill many people without guns.† But right now under the current law in many (most?) states any nut bag can just walk in† and legally buy an AR 15. There is no logical argument that can make sense of this. It's just plain wrong.† Whatever the solution, we can't be having a mass shooting every other week.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 4th, 2019 at 7:03pm
If you've ever been involuntarily committed (ie a medical professional has said you're a danger to yourself or others), you are already banned from owning a firearm in all 50 states.

[edit: forgot to include]
If you've ever been convicted of any felony doesn't matter if it was violent or nonviolent (including plea bargains where you plead guilty to something that could have been a year in prison but served only probation) you are likewise prohibited from owning any firearm.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by AlexZaamii on Sep 9th, 2019 at 12:42pm

perpetualstudent wrote on Sep 3rd, 2019 at 7:36pm:
@Judo
Depends what you see a political break-up or civil war as constituting. You're quite right that a shotgun vs a tank isn't a contest. But the US hasn't done so well very recently in Afghanistan. Iraq it was more explosives but Afghanistan rifles were a very large factor. And civil wars imply that there is not a monopoly on the armed forces and in such a situation I would certainly prefer to have a firearm to not having one. We've been preaching the "end of the rifleman" for a long time, hasn't happened yet.


On top of that, proper militaries can be defeated or slowed down by a lot of people armed with simple firearms. Off the top of my head, the resistance in Yugoslavia in WW2 managed to take back the entire country by the end of the war and in Poland there was a failed uprising in Warsaw in 1944, but it took a while for it to be defeated. When Japan invaded China the Chinese most of the time didn't have much more than rifles. Like you pointed out, as many tanks and airplanes you have, you still need boots on the ground.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 12th, 2019 at 4:28pm

perpetualstudent wrote on Sep 4th, 2019 at 7:03pm:
If you've ever been involuntarily committed (ie a medical professional has said you're a danger to yourself or others), you are already banned from owning a firearm in all 50 states.

[edit: forgot to include]
If you've ever been convicted of any felony doesn't matter if it was violent or nonviolent (including plea bargains where you plead guilty to something that could have been a year in prison but served only probation) you are likewise prohibited from owning any firearm.


Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. ... Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

† †
background.JPG (38 KB | 6 )

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 15th, 2019 at 10:34pm
While private sellers do not have the capability to run background checks, if you as a private seller sell it to a prohibited possessor that is itself a felony. It's a risky thing and most gun owners don't.

This is actually a place where I'd be willing to meet in the middle. Background checks mandatory but no charge for running them. Turn it into a sin tax (I'm looking at you CA) and we part ways.

I doubt it would have much effect. It's drummed up as a big deal, but the consequences for selling to a prohibited possessor are already high enough that there's not a whole heck of a lot of it.  But "gunshow loophole" has a lovely scary ring to it.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 16th, 2019 at 12:17pm

perpetualstudent wrote on Sep 15th, 2019 at 10:34pm:
While private sellers do not have the capability to run background checks, if you as a private seller sell it to a prohibited possessor that is itself a felony. It's a risky thing and most gun owners don't.


So if the seller doesn't do background checks how is he supposed to know if he's selling to a prohibited possessor?  This discussion seems to be leaving the realm of logic.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 16th, 2019 at 12:26pm
† † I started this as a thread about shooting mechanics.† Somehow it's morphed into a discussion on gun control, which is fine.† Many of our threads take off in their own direction.
† † As I've mentioned many times, I've had guns since I was a child.† In my state of New Jersey there have always been background checks, throughout my entire life. There is no gun show loophole here.† The purpose of this process is to make it illegal for criminals and mentally ill† people to purchase firearms.† It's not perfect but at least it's something.† There is no sensible argument† against such precautions. Period.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 16th, 2019 at 7:51pm
law often leaves common sense logic behind. In any of its realms. Fact remains if you were to sell one of your firearms to somebody who was a prohibited possessor that's your crime.

As I mentioned, that is common ground provided it doesn't morph into what it has in CA. Where it effectively becomes 100 dollar sin tax to buy a firearm. If the goal is simply to make sure all sales are legal, then there is no problem for the Feds providing that background check free of charge.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 17th, 2019 at 9:24pm
There was a charge for my background check here in Jersey.  I don't recall exactly what it was but it was reasonable. 

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 18th, 2019 at 7:51pm
@RM, your argument is missing the point. The baseline should be whether a legal burden on all citizens is worth the cost to achieve the intended goal. If the goal is to reduce criminal violence, then background checks fail miserably at the objective. Thereís no evidence that mandatory background checks prevent crime. In fact, many of the high profile mass shootings recently were done with guns purchased legally and included background checks. Iím also not aware of any gun used in a mass shooting that was purchased from a gun show. The so-called loophole is a separate conversation, but it also doesnít seem to matter for crime statistics.
The fact that this requirement is only a small burden that is bearable or ďreasonableĒ is irrelevant if the background checks donít prevent the murders they were designed to prevent.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 20th, 2019 at 4:55pm
† So the solution is???  If background checks are useless this  seems to leave us with only two options.  To continue to live with mass shootings as a regular part of our culture or to ban guns completely.  Neither is a desirable option.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by joe_meadmaker on Sep 20th, 2019 at 6:18pm

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Sep 18th, 2019 at 7:51pm:
Iím also not aware of any gun used in a mass shooting that was purchased from a gun show. The so-called loophole is a separate conversation, but it also doesnít seem to matter for crime statistics.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-loophole-allowed-west-texas-mass-shooting-suspect/story?id=65363861

I have zero problem with law abiding people owning guns, or selling them to other law abiding people.† But if someone who isn't allowed to legally purchase a firearm can easily get one illegally, I think that's a big problem.† I don't know how to fix that.† It's something to be figured out by someone much smarter than I am.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 21st, 2019 at 2:47am

Rat Man wrote on Sep 20th, 2019 at 4:55pm:
† So the solution is???† If background checks are useless this† seems to leave us with only two options.† To continue to live with mass shootings as a regular part of our culture or to ban guns completely.† Neither is a desirable option.


I agree. Neither one is a reasonable option. My vote is to enforce the current laws, fix interoperability among databases so background checks can work better, improve mental health support systems, and as a last resort... allow trustworthy people to shoot back. The vast majority of mass shootings happen in places where carrying a gun is illegal. That just means that the only people who are armed are the criminals. The mass shooter will always have the element of surprise, but effective armed citizens can help minimize the damage. Strangely, most mass shooters flip a switch and give up as soon as they see some resistance. Itís not uncommon for the perp to either surrender or commit suicide when the police arrive, but by then the damage is done. 

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 21st, 2019 at 8:24am
@Joe_m... ok you really want to go there? Letís go there.
That article doesnít say the gun was purchased at a gunshow, just that it was a private sale. Thatís not a ďloopholeĒ, by the way. There is a fundamental limit on the federal governmentís authority to regulate private transactions within a single state. We should think long and hard before we decide to remove the governmentís limits on intruding on private transactions.

The shooting is obviously a tragedy, but giving the government the power to ďdo somethingĒ that restricts the freedom of all law abiding citizens would be another tragedy that ultimately affects more than private gun sales and still would not prevent crazies from committing murder. Look at all of the incidents in Europe (and New York, California...) where a truck or car was used as a murder weapon. Should we require a background check before you hand your car keys off to your friend too?† Even that wonít stop crazy from being crazy unless we also regulate knives and clubs that could be used to steal a truck to run over a crowd...
I donít think the government can prevent this stuff, and if they canít stop it, I donít want to sacrifice my freedoms for the sake of some politicianís virtue signals and moral pronking.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 21st, 2019 at 9:02am
I think the heart of the disagreement here and the reason there's a right left split on this issue is the simple difference
"we have to try something" vs "we ought use government force sparingly"

We all agree we don't want mass shootings (or mass killings generally). And the well meaning people on the left just want to try anything to get it to stop, because to them there's no appreciable downside. Meanwhile on the right, because they are wary of governmental overreach (NYC, CA, Britain, Australia being unmissable examples) want to pull everything apart and only approve an increase if it would directly help. Then we immediately get to the second order effects. If you don't approve this thing which probably won't help you WANT mass shootings. If you just want to do anything you WANT to take all firearms. It takes real effort to continue the discourse.

I keep get driven back though to the attacks in Europe the last few years where they proved irrefutably that you don't need firearms for mass killing, and that mass killers can get their hands on firearms. It's not the tools. It's the person behind the tool. And the ideology behind the person. And we seem utterly committed to ignoring that.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 21st, 2019 at 9:42am
This problem will never be fixed until the true root of the problem is addressed. Our culture is sick. There was a time not too long ago when kids would bring their shotguns to school and keep them in the locker so they could shoot after school with the coaches. I know people that did this. Also during this time school shootings we're almost unheard of.

What changed? Find out what changed and you will find out what needs to be fixed.

† †

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 21st, 2019 at 9:51pm
@perpetualstudent: itís not about limited government versus ďdo somethingĒ.  Itís really about doing the right thing... or at least choosing the best of the available bad choices. If the government had a solution and could prove that it would save lives, I would get on board. Iím not so callous or selfish as to believe that my enjoyment of firearms is worth the life of someone elseís child. Unfortunately, making guns illegal outside of heavily restricted sporting contexts (i.e. Germany, Australia, or the UK) doesnít actually reduce violent crime. In fact, when violence occurs with knives and clubs, the advantage goes to the strongest person. In a gunfight, an 80 year old at least stands a chance against a younger and stronger thug. Show me a legal framework that solves the problems better than a self-sufficient, responsible armed populace, and I am willing to consider it. But I havenít heard any suggestions or seen evidence that other approaches work better than the 2nd Amendment yet.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Jauke on Sep 22nd, 2019 at 8:09am
I like Pelletguns, Slings and Bows. Very few restrictions on those here. Never liked firearms, too loud.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 22nd, 2019 at 1:46pm

Morphy wrote on Sep 21st, 2019 at 9:42am:
This problem will never be fixed until the true root of the problem is addressed. Our culture is sick. There was a time not too long ago when kids would bring their shotguns to school and keep them in the locker so they could shoot after school with the coaches. I know people that did this. Also during this time school shootings we're almost unheard of.

What changed? Find out what changed and you will find out what needs to be fixed.

† †


    It was a very different world when some of us grew up.  Kids respected the teachers.  If you got hit by a teacher you wouldn't dare complain to your parents or they'd hit you worse.  All schools were completely wide open to the public.  There was absolutely no such things as guards in schools right through my college years.  Things are different, parents are different, people are different, and I don't think there is any going back.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Sep 22nd, 2019 at 1:52pm

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Sep 21st, 2019 at 2:47am:

Rat Man wrote on Sep 20th, 2019 at 4:55pm:
† So the solution is???† If background checks are useless this† seems to leave us with only two options.† To continue to live with mass shootings as a regular part of our culture or to ban guns completely.† Neither is a desirable option.


I agree. Neither one is a reasonable option. My vote is to enforce the current laws, fix interoperability among databases so background checks can work better, improve mental health support systems, and as a last resort... allow trustworthy people to shoot back. The vast majority of mass shootings happen in places where carrying a gun is illegal. That just means that the only people who are armed are the criminals. The mass shooter will always have the element of surprise, but effective armed citizens can help minimize the damage. Strangely, most mass shooters flip a switch and give up as soon as they see some resistance. Itís not uncommon for the perp to either surrender or commit suicide when the police arrive, but by then the damage is done.†


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 22nd, 2019 at 6:36pm

Rat Man wrote on Sep 22nd, 2019 at 1:46pm:

Morphy wrote on Sep 21st, 2019 at 9:42am:
This problem will never be fixed until the true root of the problem is addressed. Our culture is sick. There was a time not too long ago when kids would bring their shotguns to school and keep them in the locker so they could shoot after school with the coaches. I know people that did this. Also during this time school shootings we're almost unheard of.

What changed? Find out what changed and you will find out what needs to be fixed.

† †


† † It was a very different world when some of us grew up.† Kids respected the teachers.† If you got hit by a teacher you wouldn't dare complain to your parents or they'd hit you worse.† All schools were completely wide open to the public.† There was absolutely no such things as guards in schools right through my college years.† Things are different, parents are different, people are different, and I don't think there is any going back.


True. Things are different. That is the usual response I've gotten to my above point. I'm not sure that makes my point any less valid though.

Assuming that culture/society can only go in one direction: moral to immoral, we are essentially accepting the eventual death of that culture one way or the other. An immoral society cannot stay free. It will eventually collapse from the weight of it's own corruption. We are seeing that collapse right now in slow motion. Well, slow to us, but in the grand scheme of things as far as previous history is concerned it's all happening in the blink of an eye due to the sped up nature of our more interconnected world.

Morality is the means by which the individual self-regulates one's own actions in the interest of long term prosperity and freedom both for that person and for their society as a whole. Without it, the individual seeks government to implement penalties or regulations against those whom they feel have wronged them, giving the government more power.

Eventually, usually fairly early on, the government realizes that the creation or fomentation of social unrest is a means to greater power and seeks ways to divide the people to that end.

My conclusion by the way isn't that you are wrong. I personally believe we are the proverbial train running towards the unfinished bridge. We will not change, not because it's not possible but because it's more convenient to kick the can down the road then it is to make hard decisions while things are still relatively peaceful and prosperous.†

When critical mass is eventually reached it will be too late. People will look at the events as if they are all unrelated, spontaneous acts of misfortune. It won't be. This is a cycle that happens over and over in history. We won't change and most likely our kids will suffer because of it.


So, there's my spiel. That's my soapbox, I'll get off it now. By the way, I'm not a nihilist on this subject, closer to a fatalist. I'm not worried at all about the future, but I do enjoy philosophy and history. It's hard not to see the signs and mention them when the subject presents itself.


Title: Re: Shooting
Post by woodssj on Sep 23rd, 2019 at 9:58am
Speaking also from the US as an avid shooter, I still don't see why we haven't used the National Firearms Act to any effect in the recent environment.

Adding so-called assault weapons (I understand the technical difficulties with that, and the need for a workable definition, but bear with the common usage for a moment) to the NFA as a category while leaving previous laws in place essentially as-is would be a massive help for ease-of-acquisition problems, while not adding anything but some inconvenience for bona-fide purchasers.

Yes, there'd be waiting for the ATF checks to go through...

Yes, there's already millions of the things around.

Simply add the requirement for any future sales including private-sellers, grandfather existing rifles until they are sold, with an ability for Federal Firearms Liscencees to buy them into their dealer stock from private persons to allow for people to get them out of their hands easily if the need arose (need cash/estate sales/etc).

Then, nobody who has one is going to want to part with it lightly, thus removing the likelihood of black-market sales. Nobody who wants to commit a mass shooting can just get one same-day. They're still available for people who are just that interested and invested in having them for lawful purposes.

Within ten years, the illegal supplies will have dried up almost entirely, spare parts will be less available for keeping illegal arms in operation, and eventually the threat will diminish.

I see this as still a significant compromise, but I think one that could be met by the majority of gun owners and gun-control fans. It addresses both sides as much as possible while leaving the vast majority of firearms alone and putting a check on the mass-shooting supply issue, while adding no new laws, just implementing a new rule or three that is already familiar.

Of course, there's a hell of a lot more to do with Guns in the US Legal system (MA/NJ/CA/NY, I'm glaring at you in particular...) to make things a little more uniform in carry requirements, state-to-state reciprocity, and a lot else. But this seems like a decent approach to the current crisis which could calm things down a wee bit and give both political and rhetorical space to manouver in that wider debate.

Just my thoughts.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 23rd, 2019 at 3:30pm
Where is the difference between "compromise" and a "ratchet"? CA and NY prove that a "as understood" ban will not be enough for them and they will continually demand more. What benefit for the other side? That we can then discuss even more regulation and tax and bans? I'm not buying your case here....

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by woodssj on Sep 25th, 2019 at 10:20am
Think of it as putting a house on jacks while you fix a foundation:

If you just leave it there, you're in a bad position, and the whole thing will likely collapse over time.

If you fix the foundation and put it back down, you're going to be in good shape for another century or three, depending on the foundation.

I'm assuming there'd be room and political will to actually come up with a simplified, more uniforms and more Just set of firearm Laws in the US after the NFA modification, and preferably something that puts limits on state-line problems we currently have, of course.

With the current US political climate, that may be asking a bit too much. It's really hard to get things done during an Imperial Collapse.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 25th, 2019 at 12:37pm
I know this is a contentious issue and I don't want to come across as rude to anyone. We should all be able to discuss this dispassionately but I find that that rarely happens.

I'm ok with pulling an engine or jacking up a house so the car or house will last. But in exchange for banning millions of firearms (even if just scary weapons are banned it'd be millions, if we followed Australia's example it would include pump and lever action rifles and shotguns and that'd be millions more and somewhere in between would be only allowing semiauto in .22s but no matter what we're talking millions). That's just putting in on the jacks in your metaphor.

Then come compromises where, presumably, the gun rights side will give up even more in exchange for perhaps some sort of concealed carry license that could cross state lines and buy and sell across state lines. Stuff that the gun control side will fight tooth and nail to keep from happening.

I still can't see how this is "shoring up a foundation". Especially when the assault weapon bans are demonstrably incapable of stopping mass killings. And again, I don't find my family being run down while Christmas shopping to be a preferable situation. 

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by woodssj on Sep 25th, 2019 at 5:28pm
Well, and there's the real issue: With a lack of widespread buy-in on one side and next to no technical knowledge on the other, it gets really hard to get anything done.

That's also why you'd have to Grandfather those ARs and other "Scary Type" weapons already in private hands, and not confiscate those, which would add a tiny bit of padding, as I mentioned, thus only effecting further new sales.

But again, this is all assuming a dispassionate, rational, technically-knowledgeable, and compromise-minded public and power structure in which to make these decisions.

That clearly doesn't exist in the US now, nor  likely will in the near-or-mid-term future.

We are likely stuck with our current situation for another two to three generations.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 25th, 2019 at 8:22pm
Grandfather the scary ones??? Iím sorry.† It is with the utmost dispassion that I must say that this is a technically ill-informed suggestion too. California has tried to ban guns based on ďscaryĒ features for decades and thatís why innovative people created bullet buttons and thumbhole stocks that satisfied the laws without affecting the technical functions of the guns. Shockingly, violent crime did not decrease in California when pistol grips and bayonet lugs and 30-round magazines were declared too scary for civilian ownership.

Show me data that suggests that pistol grips and hand guards cause more crimes, and then I will consider supporting a ban on  them. Until then it just sounds like a red herring at best.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by woodssj on Sep 25th, 2019 at 9:40pm
Yup. Exactly the same thing has happened to Short Barreled Rifles, and a whole slew of other things that have now been circumvented, which is why I argue a basically complete re-write is in order. Some of those systems are very old, though, like the stripper-clip type system attached to AR ejection ports. They just adapted an idea from the 1880s to the modern weapon.

The reason for the grandfathering is to clear space for debate and avoid the "Gun Confiscation is all you're after!" red herring. That way, it only applies to new purchases, and not those still existing, but that current supply will dwindle over time from use and breakage and police captures if used illegally.

Regardless, the whole thing still needs people to meet at some common ground with good faith. I don't see that happening any time in the future of the current USA.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 26th, 2019 at 8:52am
Lol. It's hard to call it a red herring with old Beto coming right out and admitting he's going to confiscate guns if he gets elected.

There was a time when you could call it a red herring. In the present day that ship has sailed.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by woodssj on Sep 26th, 2019 at 11:33am
Yeah, but he's about as electable as an actual red herring, so I don't see him as a viable threat.

A great rhetorical foil for his opposition and a godsend to propagandists, most certainly. A viable candidate for much of anything, I think not.

The best of political plans laid out to solve problems and save lives while respecting dangerous hobbies don't work if everyone constantly jumps to the extremes of the argument, relying on outliers, anecdotes, fringe positions, and the Slippery Slope Fallacy from both damn sides. Since that's principally what I see happening in the US on pretty much every issue, I'm just going to assume that we won't have meaningful change in my lifetime.

Plus, since there's no reliable data on the issue in the first place for the US and gun issues, where the hell would you start a well-thought-out policy to begin with? There's no uniform reporting requirements, statistics gathering, or other significant research to back either side because funding for it has been banned for 2 decades and more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Morphy on Sep 26th, 2019 at 1:04pm
Beto is not wildly left of center of the current Democrat party so it doesn't really matter if it's him or someone else.

Slippery slope is often referenced but it's pretty clear historically speaking it's been one regulation after another. There is no good or logical reason for anyone to assume that trend is not going to continue.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by perpetualstudent on Sep 26th, 2019 at 6:47pm
But you have to look at why the CDC got banned from research. And technically it's banned from advocating for gun control not research per se. If you dig into why that became the status quo you find that it's that they were already publishing a goal to decrease handgun ownership in the US, before actually doing any research. Politics, not study. The bellesiles debacle likewise shows that detached objective research is an elusive goal. Most people are bringing an ideological axe to grind.

The thing is that the gun rights may be paranoid of gun control, but significant portions of the gun control advocates and organizations really are out to destroy gun rights entirely. Whether its fienstein or beto or going back to debates 50 years ago with handgun inc (renamed to Brady campaign because Americans weren't signing on for banning handguns) and even in more academic arguments taking a look at "Debating Gun Control: How much regulation do we need?"  By Degrazia and Hunt, the gun control side outlines an argument for the utter destruction of gun rights. So it's not irrational. Might be unproductive, but it's not irrational.

The two cores of this issue are not irrational. But they are diametrically opposed on a number of philosophical issues. Any research is a cudgel because data can't answer a philosophical issue.

Slightly related: I do highly recommend "All the way down the slippery slope: gun prohibition in england" by Kopel. It's a meticulously sourced history showing what "reasonable compromise" led to.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Sep 27th, 2019 at 12:13am
https://youtu.be/MyvZFxYZWPM

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by Rat Man on Oct 1st, 2019 at 2:15pm
   I want an AR-15 but I don't think anyone else should be allowed to have one.

Title: Re: Shooting
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Oct 1st, 2019 at 11:15pm

Rat Man wrote on Oct 1st, 2019 at 2:15pm:
† †I want an AR-15 but I don't think anyone else should be allowed to have one.


I think that is the most honest pro gun control argument Iíve ever heard!

Slinging.org Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2019. All Rights Reserved.