White House to Push Gun Control

[Brigandier]

Sometimes it's not your choice. Especially with gangs of today who beat on outsiders for shits and giggles. Your only choice is to be a victim or defend yourself.

I've never felt like an outsider, sorry. The way you carry yourself is very important, if you look like you're going for a pack of smokes, then you'll be fine, if you look like a tourist, not so much. I have the luxury of being younger and able to blend in, I guess. If you're in the ghetto, don't look around and act like you belong there.

Having a gun won't even save you, if they see you doing something sketch, they'll blast you, they aren't dumb. I think having a gun in that situation would be a liability unless you don't go for it, if they find it on you and you weren't dumb enough to go for it, they'll respect you.

You can't opt out of crime by having a gun, and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken. By the time you got your gun, the decision would be made, upon you going for a weapon. Sure, you could be Billy the Kid and get the quick draw, but if you aren't, and if you don't you just escalated the situation. The best bet in the ghetto is to not carry wealth, and if you get hit up, look at the ground and empty your pockets. It sucks, but that's what you have to do to live, and even Rambo could see that.

 

[yottabit]

I honestly think, like many popular political hot topics today, more education to the general public would go a long ways to removing their fears of guns and "assault" weapons.

That being said as a gun enthusiast I would honestly be willing to give up my right to buy high capacity magazines and assault weapons. I honestly don't need any of those for any foreseeable situation.

I honestly don't think the argument of "having guns in case we need to rebel" is valid or realistic anymore. There is such a technology gap between what is available to the consumer and to the military that an organized rebellion wouldn't stand any chance these days. I think it's OK to let go of the idea that you are being some hero by stockpiling assault weapons. For my own personal self defense and the defense of my family I don't need more than a handful a rounds and the ability to reload. Same goes for hunting, and target shooting.

It's honestly the uneducated people I worry about. There's no kind of real proficiency requirements to own a firearm. And guns are so inaccurately represented in the media. People need to be educated on what they are, extremely powerful and dangerous tools. Not an evil item you need to fear. They do however need to be treated with a great amount of respect.

I think the average person should understand the basic differences between different types of guns in both power and application. They should have an understanding of how far a stray bullet can go, what gunshots sound like, and how loud guns are in real life. Take the scariness and myths out of something that should be nothing but scientific.

To the person who posted pictures of the AK's saying "they will never be used for a crime", sadly that is not something you can say with certainty. You may never use them in a crime, but they could be stolen from you, or you may decide to sell them to someone and they will end up in someone else's hands. Inevitably when you die they will go to someone else, and who knows what will happen from there. It's just important to realize the distinction...

 

[xj0hnx]

I honestly think, like many popular political hot topics today, more education to the general public would go a long ways to removing their fears of guns and "assault" weapons.

That being said as a gun enthusiast I would honestly be willing to give up my right to buy high capacity magazines and assault weapons. I honestly don't need any of those for any foreseeable situation.

I honestly don't think the argument of "having guns in case we need to rebel" is valid or realistic anymore. There is such a technology gap between what is available to the consumer and to the military that an organized rebellion wouldn't stand any chance these days. I think it's OK to let go of the idea that you are being some hero by stockpiling assault weapons. For my own personal self defense and the defense of my family I don't need more than a handful a rounds and the ability to reload. Same goes for hunting, and target shooting.

It's honestly the uneducated people I worry about. There's no kind of real proficiency requirements to own a firearm. And guns are so inaccurately represented in the media. People need to be educated on what they are, extremely powerful and dangerous tools. Not an evil item you need to fear. They do however need to be treated with a great amount of respect.

I think the average person should understand the basic differences between different types of guns in both power and application. They should have an understanding of how far a stray bullet can go, what gunshots sound like, and how loud guns are in real life. Take the scariness and myths out of something that should be nothing but scientific.

To the person who posted pictures of the AK's saying "they will never be used for a crime", sadly that is not something you can say with certainty. You may never use them in a crime, but they could be stolen from you, or you may decide to sell them to someone and they will end up in someone else's hands. Inevitably when you die they will go to someone else, and who knows what will happen from there. It's just important to realize the distinction...

You are the "Trojan Horse" gun supporter, an anti-gunner in a pro-gun shell. If they are some how stolen it isn't their fault, no my fault if they are used in a crime, so why should I, or any other law-abiding gun owner be punished for the crimes of others. It doesn't really matter if YOU don't think there's a need for them.

That being said as a gun enthusiast I would honestly be willing to give up my right to buy high capacity magazines and assault weapons. I honestly don't need any of those for any foreseeable situation.

This says everything needed to know about you. You go ahead and give up those rights, then give up some more, and just a few more, because you've got nothing to hide, so it doesn't matter if cops just come and search you when ever they want right? You certainly don't need the freedom of press because well gee, you surely aren't going to be reading some people's ideas. It's disgusting.

 

[alkemyst]

No, there's not, only with idiots like you that think that because a gun looks a certain way it is any more dangerous than another.

No, that is not what I said at all.

The problem is a gun doesn't make one a hunter any more than a car makes someone Parnelli Jones.

Ziff and his friends decide to all see who can get the most outfitted AR15's...they finally can't do anything more and decide the next step is to go shoot animals.

They get their licenses and see who can take the longest shot.

They don't care if the animal goes down or not, they aren't even in it for the meat.

Does this happen with a 30-06, at times sure...

 

[HAL9000]

Europeans have guns so I don't even know what you're talking about. There are hunters in England. In Switzerland when i was there people were going to a shooting festival. I was actually scared little bitch like you are being a kid and all and seeing all these people tote guns around on the way. My mom is like it's a shooting festival don't worry son. My cousins in Sweden have guns. I have a friend in Austria who has guns. I'm going hunting with him sometime this year. Are you English? Or a migrant from some third world shithole with police state? It's the only way you can't recognize Europe has a rich gun culture and be so ignorant to it..

Don't feel sorry for me. I love freedom. Hunting. Three gunning. I don't really carry a gun though even though I'm entitled. I live in a good area like most Americans and have no worries.

In the UK the vast majority of gun owners have a licence they get checked by the police ones a year, a police officer comes round your house to check it's locked away and secure.

no, in reality all speech is not.

Saying you THINK so and so is a child molester is different than saying you KNOW so and so is a child molester.

Yelling FIRE in a crowded room to create a panic is also different than standing on a soap box talking about a topic.

Good call, but in that context I was talking types of speech i.e. talking on the internet to talking on the radio. Sure on reaches more than the other generally but it's the same type of speech

 

[yottabit]

You are the "Trojan Horse" gun supporter, an anti-gunner in a pro-gun shell. If they are some how stolen it isn't their fault, no my fault if they are used in a crime, so why should I, or any other law-abiding gun owner be punished for the crimes of others. It doesn't really matter if YOU don't think there's a need for them.

This says everything needed to know about you. You go ahead and give up those rights, then give up some more, and just a few more, because you've got nothing to hide, so it doesn't matter if cops just come and search you when ever they want right? You certainly don't need the freedom of press because well gee, you surely aren't going to be reading some people's ideas. It's disgusting.

You're wrong. I'm a pretty strong defender of my rights, this just happens to be one thing that I think is a sensible concession to make. I happen to think that it is a GOOD thing that Rocket Launchers, anti-tank weapons, explosives, and other such weapons aren't consumer products. Personally, I tend to group an M4 carbine with a 100 round C-clip into that same category. I know they aren't often used in crimes, if at all, but I think it is a disproportionate amount of firepower for a citizen to have.

As part of having a federal and state government we make concessions like this all the time. If another entity wages war against us part of the reason I'm paying taxes is so that our government with our superior means and technology can efficiently dispatch them. At the state level my state troopers and police department are supposed to be protect me, but obviously they can't be everywhere at once. Personal gun ownership bridges that gap for my defense until the police are able to arrive.

There are many things we let only the government have. Not because the government is a scary evil entity, but because it's been proven that it's too dangerous for consumers/citizens to handle on their own. I'm not saying hi-capacity magazines and assault weapons SHOULD be in this category, but I'm not entirely opposed to it either. I'm a rational person, and if I hear a good counter-argument against this I'll take it to heart.

I think I would personally be much more willing to accept a high cap mag. ban than assault weapon. Mostly because thinking back to the old assault weapon ban, it had some ridiculous restrictions and made it hard for collectors of vintage rifles and such. And an AK or SKS is a handy and cheap rifle. And there is very little separating them from a semi-auto hunting rifle. Don't get me wrong, whatever legislation is proposed I would very carefully go through to make sure it's not some over-reaching grab.

Someone tell me: what do high capacity magazines do for you, and why should average citizens be allowed them?

 

[mizzou]

B.S.

Ever since Gore lost the election handily due to Clinton's Gun Control business, Democrats won't TOUCH the issue...however they certainly won't SUPPORT it either

 

[nick1985]

Someone tell me: what do high capacity magazines do for you, and why should average citizens be allowed them?

They allow me to defend my home.

 

[yottabit]

They allow me to defend my home.

If you were only allowed 10 round clips instead of 12 rounds (as pictured) would you feel less safe? Don't you think 10-12 rounds is a good number for home defense? That's hardly a high cap mag.

I'm talking about the 30, 50, 100 round capacity mags. What do those do for you, and why should average citizens be allowed them?

 

[alkemyst]

In the UK the vast majority of gun owners have a licence they get checked by the police ones a year, a police officer comes round your house to check it's locked away and secure.



Good call, but in that context I was talking types of speech i.e. talking on the internet to talking on the radio. Sure on reaches more than the other generally but it's the same type of speech

In reality there isn't much different on any media. People think the internet is make-believe until they are served papers on libel, harassment, etc.

Some mom around here got pissed she found naked pics on her son's computer of his girlfriend...dumbass decided to mass email and post them up on various websites.

She's now on the sexual offenders list for child porn and almost lost rights to her son.

 

[alkemyst]

If you were only allowed 10 round clips instead of 12 rounds (as pictured) would you feel less safe? Don't you think 10-12 rounds is a good number for home defense? That's hardly a high cap mag.

I'm talking about the 30, 50, 100 round capacity mags. What do those do for you, and why should average citizens be allowed them?

I don't know so much about high capacity mags much beyond 10 or so...starts making the gun unwieldy in any serious caliber.

Hell most of the 1911 guys rather have single stacks than doubles and they a limited on capacity already.

With practice reloading a modern handgun is a pretty quick endevour.

Still I don't believe in limiting magazines, if someone wants them there is no way to stop them from getting them.

What's insane is if you have the cash getting fully automatic weapons is not too difficult.

I was invited to a private hunting lodge one christmas. Tommy guns, AK47's, M16's, some machine 9mm pistol and one guy had a 50 caliber. These guys probably made $250k a year or more at the low end. One had a Mercedes with a custom holster built into his door panel. They love guns and are a bit out there in the pursuit of their hobby.

The most insane gun though was this sniper rifle. Big ass bullet, shot pretty silent but the shockwave felt like a punch to the gut. I can't remember the distance they fired, but it was freaking far as hell...we couldn't see the target at all.

Bullseye though. If you were the target you'd have no idea WTF just happened to you.

 

[Hacp]

If you were only allowed 10 round clips instead of 12 rounds (as pictured) would you feel less safe? Don't you think 10-12 rounds is a good number for home defense? That's hardly a high cap mag.

I'm talking about the 30, 50, 100 round capacity mags. What do those do for you, and why should average citizens be allowed them?

Sure, then the thugs come at you with 100 rounders brought in from mexico, I'm sure you'll feel safe with a 12 round magazine.

 

[alkemyst]

Sure, then the thugs come at you with 100 rounders brought in from mexico, I'm sure you'll feel safe with a 12 round magazine.

This is a terrible argument.

If you are 1 on 1 with a guy, it's going to come down to a couple shots. It's not going to matter.

If you are heavily outnumbered capacity can help, but unless you are behind some heavy fortification you are going to be dead if they can get away with an extended fire fight.

You usually have a half dozen shots exchanged in any of these situations.

 

[yottabit]

This is a terrible argument.

If you are 1 on 1 with a guy, it's going to come down to a couple shots. It's not going to matter.

If you are heavily outnumbered capacity can help, but unless you are behind some heavy fortification you are going to be dead if they can get away with an extended fire fight.

You usually have a half dozen shots exchanged in any of these situations.

This is what I'm trying to get at. In my minds, 100 Round clips are for waging war, not self defense. And citizens shouldn't be waging war against each other within our country. Think of all the stray bullets.

100 Round clips aren't unwieldy, an M4 or MP5 with a C mag is scarily compact. Nor are 30 rd clips in an AK or any other similar rifle.
http://www.betaco.com/products.asp?cat=556

Do you think we all should be able to buy these??? Or should we reserve them for our military and police forces? Personally, I think I would feel safer knowing they are reserved for our military. The fact that you have a 100 round clip for self defense scares the shit out of me because I know if you try to defend yourself it's almost definitely going to result in innocent bystanders getting hit with stray bullets in the crossfire. Think of how far a stray rifle bullet can go, and then multiply that by 100. There are implications beyond protecting yourself.

 

[alkemyst]

100 rounds is heavy, there is no changing the physics of that. Makes for an unwieldy rifle. extended clips in a pistol also make for something hard to carry and fire.

In a war type situation they are useful when you are trying to provide cover fire or take someone out behind a wall.

I still don't see a problem in the magazines...

One has to understand weapons and the like are a world-wide market and all that it takes to be admitted is cold-hard cash.

 

[nick1985]

If you were only allowed 10 round clips instead of 12 rounds (as pictured) would you feel less safe? Don't you think 10-12 rounds is a good number for home defense? That's hardly a high cap mag.

I'm talking about the 30, 50, 100 round capacity mags. What do those do for you, and why should average citizens be allowed them?

Its a magazine, not a clip.

Your gun control fanbois feel my firearm is unsafe, it's high capacity.

Tell me that's not dumb as fuck. I understand you are talking about 100 round drums, got it. THEY are talking about my 12 round handgun. What a load of bull.

 

[nick1985]

This is what I'm trying to get at. In my minds, 100 Round clips are for waging war, not self defense. And citizens shouldn't be waging war against each other within our country. Think of all the stray bullets.

100 Round clips aren't unwieldy, an M4 or MP5 with a C mag is scarily compact. Nor are 30 rd clips in an AK or any other similar rifle.
http://www.betaco.com/products.asp?cat=556

Do you think we all should be able to buy these??? Or should we reserve them for our military and police forces? Personally, I think I would feel safer knowing they are reserved for our military. The fact that you have a 100 round clip for self defense scares the shit out of me because I know if you try to defend yourself it's almost definitely going to result in innocent bystanders getting hit with stray bullets in the crossfire. Think of how far a stray rifle bullet can go, and then multiply that by 100. There are implications beyond protecting yourself.

I'll paypal you $5 right now if you can show me a crime that was committed with an M4 with a 100 round drum.

Do you know how far a stray M4 bullet can go? Something tells me you have no god damn clue, since you dont even know the difference between a mag and a clip. You are ignorant of what you speak of.

 

[bfdd]

If you were only allowed 10 round clips instead of 12 rounds (as pictured) would you feel less safe? Don't you think 10-12 rounds is a good number for home defense? That's hardly a high cap mag.

I'm talking about the 30, 50, 100 round capacity mags. What do those do for you, and why should average citizens be allowed them?

anything larger than those regular style magazines or double stacked are just ridiculously unreliable. there only purpose is novelty, so why don't you want people to have novelty items? You are trying to tell me that I should be allowed to prevent you from owning things I don't want you owning simply because I don't see a reason to own them? THANK GOD no one lets me be dictator or this shit would be worse than Russia. Tractor for all, fuck your wasteful SUV. No more Apple, EeePCs for all, all that other shit is expensive and wasteful!

 

[alkemyst]

Its a magazine, not a clip.

Your gun control fanbois feel my firearm is unsafe, it's high capacity.

Tell me that's not dumb as fuck. I understand you are talking about 100 round drums, got it. THEY are talking about my 12 round handgun. What a load of bull.

The real scare is those with high capacity weapons in attached dwellings. One looks at that as the owner is banking on missing a lot.

Even in detached dwellings, at zero lot lines those rounds are going to still have major penetration power.

 

[nick1985]

The real scare is those with high capacity weapons in attached dwellings. One looks at that as the owner is banking on missing a lot.

Even in detached dwellings, at zero lot lines those rounds are going to still have major penetration power.

It all depends on what type of round you are shooting. I could shoot a 30 round mag of .223 in my house and not have 1 bullet leave if I loaded it up with frangible defense ammo.

But the anti-gun crowd, being ignorant of firearms, doesn't understand this. All they know is FMJ ammo that pierces engine blocks and goes for miles....

 

[bfdd]

My gun isn't really for home defense so it doesn't really come out. I also live in a condo, attached-dewelling, with average/thinish walls. My gun is for hobby. I like going to the range. Although I do plan on picking up a shotgun this year that would fill the "home defense" line. I just don't own my pistol for that.

 

[yottabit]

I'll paypal you $5 right now if you can show me a crime that was committed with an M4 with a 100 round drum.

Do you know how far a stray M4 bullet can go? Something tells me you have no god damn clue, since you dont even know the difference between a mag and a clip. You are ignorant of what you speak of.

I'm sure it would be lethal past 200 yards if it hit you in the right spot. Muzzle velocity is around 3000 fps depending on barrel length and bullet weight. There's no reason to get angry here, I'm trying to be intelligent about this. Sorry I mixed my words.

I primarily shoot a 1911 and when I have extra time I handload my own rounds for target practice with cast lead semi wadcutters and the brass I collect. I feel perfectly safe at home knowing I have 8+1 rounds of CORBON 230 gr +p hollow points at quick access.

The gun you have is a Springfield XD which is amalgam of a glock and 1911 technology. It's one of the safer guns out there with its combination of trigger and grip safety and internal mechanisms. Polymer frame, steel slide. The 40 S&W you are shooting is a shortened version of the 10mm AUTO that was proposed as a replacement cartridge for carry by the FBI. The 10mm had too much recoil, although I love the Glock 20. The 40 is pretty squarely between the 9 mm and 45 in stopping power. Although people love to argue about stopping power all the time.

This isn't supposed to be a shitting grounds for who has more gun knowledge. I love guns, I just don't see the need to have a 100 round mag in my collection...

 

[yottabit]

It all depends on what type of round you are shooting. I could shoot a 30 round mag of .223 in my house and not have 1 bullet leave if I loaded it up with frangible defense ammo.

But the anti-gun crowd, being ignorant of firearms, doesn't understand this. All they know is FMJ ammo that pierces engine blocks and goes for miles....

I know that there are plenty of people dumb enough out there to use a M4 for home defense WITHOUT frangible ammo. I personally know people who buy a rifle like that for home defense in the densely populated CITY I live in even though I try to talk them out of it and it makes me sick. One of the points I'm trying to make is that you currently aren't required to have any proficiency testing or training to buy this equipment right now (depending on where you live I guess, maybe some states do). I've seen so many people that buy an assault rifle and when I ask them why they are buying it they say "it's badass" or "it looks cool". These are the people I worry about, not you and I, educated gun owners.


I guess there are two central issues I see:
I guess I have a different definition of "high capacity" than the politicians you're talking about Nick. I think a 12 or 15 rd mag (as would come standard in a double stack handgun) is fine.... I also don't see it as a big deal if you're limited to a 10 rd mag in a double stack handgun (aka many states like Massachusetts), but I can see why people would feel safe with more. It's the 50-100 rd mags that I don't think consumers need access too, unless someone can tell me why...

I think the main thing I'd like to see out of gun control is just education and training. One time I went to a firing range and a group of kids next to me had rented a shotgun. There is a form you need to fill out to rent it and they had filled out "expert" down the line so they didn't receive any instruction. The proceeded to point the shotgun at each other, me, and others and make jokes about it while loading it. Everybody gave them a piece of our minds thankfully but stuff like that shouldn't happen. You'd be surprised how ignorant a lot of gun owners are. I'm all for more training and background checks.

 

[bfdd]

why would someone buy a .40S&W XD when you can get a .45ACP XD? which is what I own.


also so you don't see a point in owning a 100 rnd drum, but maybe someone else does so why shouldn't they be able to? does them owning it put your life in danger? no, them using it would and unless you believe everyone is guilty until proven innocent, you have an irrational fear of your life being in danger by them owning said drum.

 

[alkemyst]

It all depends on what type of round you are shooting. I could shoot a 30 round mag of .223 in my house and not have 1 bullet leave if I loaded it up with frangible defense ammo.

But the anti-gun crowd, being ignorant of firearms, doesn't understand this. All they know is FMJ ammo that pierces engine blocks and goes for miles....

Frangible defense ammo is a wide range. Many could land you in a lawsuit.

Also the concept works on not overpenetrating a bad guy and richocets. You plain miss and it can easily punch through most walls.

There are videos on this. Much like those that think shotguns won't go through a wall.