Discussion in 'The Sanctum Santorum' started by Gabe Lewis, Dec 14, 2012.
Can we please just admit that this thread is terrible finally?
This is a Sanctum Santorum thread, they are by definition, terrible.
Yeah, well, this is why the good guys need guns. One could just very improbably save your life one day 25 years ago.
Here in Canada sound suppressors are prohibited for civilians. The government's reasoning is that they don't want a deranged shooter to use them. Flash suppressors and muzzle brakes are legal.
Before I got laid off I was looking into getting a Ruger SR-22 because with the price of ammo going up I thought of getting a 10/22 rifle to practice. It was very hard to find a SR-22 with a threaded rifle (I want the option of added a flash suppressor).
I'm still surprised that training requirement isn't mandatory as it would cut down the number of preventable gun-related accidents and deaths. We require people to pass a driving test. But I guess that's the difference between the American right to bear arms and having a privilege (gun ownership, like driving a motor vehicle, is a privilege in Canada).
Until last spring all firearms in Canada had to be registered. The Conservative government killed the Long Gun Registry, which mean all Non-Restricted firearms (most shotguns and long-barrel rifles) would no longer needed to be registered (and those already registered, their info would be destroyed except in Quebec). As a gun owner, registration meant carrying each firearms' registration paperwork whenever I take them to the range (or out in the woods, if they hunted). Gun control advocates and police chiefs said that the registration would help police find guns used in crimes, although there appears little data to support that shotguns and long-barrel rifles are used in gun-related crimes (most gangs used illegally obtained pistols).
Has the firearms registry in Canada lead to a dictatorship? No.
Has it lead to a wide scale confiscation of legally owned guns? No.
Is it a big bureaucratic mess? Yes. The Liberal federal government that introduced the Canadian Firearms Registry back in the mid-1990s and they said it would only cost $2 million and would pay for itself through registration fees but fast forward years later and the registry wound up costing taxpayers over $2 billion.
Hanzii, Data uses stun.
Do you have any data to support that? Because I've never been asked to provide proof of NRA membership at any range I've visited. Not that I shoot a lot, but the range I've used here in Seattle has no such requirement, nor have I seen it listed on the websites of other gun ranges I've considered visiting.
It IS often required, but definitely not at all of them. The notable local ones are little members-only things where some limited number of members have a key to an un-staffed site. I assume this is almost entirely because of the insurance that comes along with NRA membership ($5000 if you are killed or dismembered by a firearm! Yay!). I think there might be one or two staffed ranges that require it, but I'm not sure. I've occasionally been tempted to join for the $2500 theft/damage insurance, but then everything else about the NRA kills that right quick.
Honestly, it's the NRA-ILA and LaPierre and the rest of board that piss me off the most. The NRA does do a lot of great things in terms education/training, competition, and hunting, but their political machine has turned into such a fucked-up nightmare that I just can't support them. I have heard, but cannot confirm, that NRA membership doesn't fund NRA-ILA, but even then, LaPierre has sullied all of it.
Nothing official, but here's a story and relevant excerpt. It's true of every range within about 50 miles of me and a constant bitch from the gun owners at the office:
MA has a new version of the NRA due to this, golden something or other? But the idea is they make deals with the ranges to also accept their membership, and they aren't a naked political lobby.
If you want to be more depressed, look into the NRA's history and it started off as an amazingly sane group dedicated to gun safety and training. At some point they had a mild civil war and the side that supported massive political lobbying and was anti any form of regulation took control and gave us the modern NRA.
Oh, I know. And that makes me very sad.
Hanzii complained I don't put an editorial on the images I post:
I thought this image was a dumb analogy.
All of those are features, with the exception of colour, are designed to increase the utility of the object in question. This is unproblematic because it's a boot. Guns, on the other hand, can kill people with ease, and as such features designed to increase the utility of the gun are not absurd to discuss in the context of gun regulation.
Haha can't believe I missed that.
You know, you can buy that assault boot at Walmart . . .
This is annoying, because every other post of yours makes sense and seems reasonable, and then you post stupid shit like this and all the YouTube videos with no comments added, which leads me to believe you agree with the terribly idiotic arguments they're making.
I thought the image was a dumb analogy. I found it on FB from a friend who's a military vet, a Tea Party supporter, and think that progressives/liberals are trying to take away Americans' guns. (I have no opinion on the 2nd Amendment stuff).
I subscribe to a number of gun-related Youtube channels for information on guns and tactics. I get turn off when they talk about politics, mostly because they tend to be very right-wing (I consider myself left of centre). For example, I subscribe to James Yeager's Tactical Response channel but I lost interest when a few weeks ago he lost his temper and posted a video that he would start shooting people if they tried to take his guns away. To me that just goes everything that a responsible gun owner should not say or do (but then again I'm Canadian with no stake in the 2nd Amendment debate).
(BTW, I wear hiking boots)
Just going to leave this here.
I'm surprised that gun didn't have rims on it.
Guns don't kill people, children do.
It's incidents like this that makes me furious. These accidental deaths are preventable. You rarely read about these accidental shootings in Canada because gun safety courses are mandatory in order to get your gun license.
And there are laws about how you store your guns, with automatic criminal charges in situations where gun safety wasn't followed.
Wow dude, racist much?
Now there's an effective ambassador for the cause.
Hey, let's see how many gun safety rules she broke:
Col. Jeff Cooper's rules:
All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Well, she followed Rule #3.
The NRA's gun safety rules:
ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
She followed Rule #2.
The Canadian gun safety rules:
Assume every firearm is loaded.
Control the muzzle direction at all times.
Trigger finger off trigger and out of trigger guard.
See that the firearm is unloaded. PROVE it safe.
She followed Rule #3.
This is why there are hundreds, if not thousands, of accidental shootings in the US each year. People are idiots who can't follow these basic fundamental gun safety rules.
As far as I'm concerned, pointing a loaded gun at someone without cause should be a crime. Perhaps one that makes you ineligible to own a gun, at least for a time.
In Canada pointing a gun, loaded or unloaded, is against the law (self defense would be a lawful excuse). If you're convicted you would probably lose your gun license and have your firearms confiscated.
Isn't it considered "brandishing a firearm" which is illegal in most states if not all?
Anyway these types of incidents are what should be the front line cases for gun control. These are easily prevented deaths so either people need to treat firearms with the respect they deserve or they shouldn't have them. Also I fucking hate the bullshit downplaying hand guns get. Handguns are responsible for more gun related deaths than any other firearm by orders of magnitude and they basically get a pass for no reason at all. Fuck assault rifle bans, ban handguns, collect them an melt them down and watch the annual preventable death count in the US plummet.
It can be scary out there. Most range visits I don't notice anything amiss or anyone being really unsafe. One time a friend and I were at an outdoor range and there was a couple of gentlemen there in their 40's probably. They really exuded the type of people that finally decided to get that ol' revolver out of the closet that you never got around to shooting after buying it 20 years ago. This range had a alarm system, when you planned to go down range to setup a target you would flip a light switch. Once flipping it, a bunch of red lights under the shooting canopy would light up, and a very loud buzzer alarm would sound every so many seconds. With this on the rules are that you have your guns on the table and under no circumstances are you to handle them. While my friend was down range these guys starting fumbling with a jam in their pistol and were banging it on the table....
Luckily the guy who ran the entire park (a large outdoor sporting park with multiple ranges and skeet shooting) happened to be there and gave these guys a verbal thrashing.
This was a members only park/club, and before they put in a card activated entry fence they would have to deal with the random people that decided to come up and shoot. One of the rangers told me about a guy that got out of his car with an AK47, and began firing it down range at the outdoor range as he "approached" the range from the parking lot. When asked what he did about it, he basically said that they don't do anything about those kinds of people aside from maybe calling the police, they aren't looking to get shot by some nutjob at the range.
So there's definitely a fair amount of education and safety training that is needed out there for some gun owners. Although the vast majority (I'd say 98-99% maybe?) of the people I come across at the gun ranges act very professional and are very safe.
But yeah, you should always always always treat a weapon as if it's loaded. Heck, even when I go to a gun store and ask to see a gun, even after the person has checked the chamber before handing the weapon to me, I make sure to not point it at anyone. I hate seeing people picking up a rifle to get a feel of it, then they go and sweep the entire store with it and aim it in the direction of other customers. In reality, I don't know that I have ever heard of a rifle on the sales floor of a gun shop being "loaded" and gone off. But it's still a safety and respect thing, and people should always live by it, no matter how many times you double or triple check a firearm.
'Brandishing' is defined by your state's laws; however it is typically the word in common use even with the weapon is being displayed legally. Where I've lived if you are waving around a weapon menacingly or threatening with a weapon, then that would be brandishing. If you are showing someone a weapon in public where legal, but not intentionally threatening anyone* then you are displaying weapon. Most likely either way, you are about to have a conversation with a police officer.
*One exception is in the case of self defense. If you have met all requirements in your state's laws for legal self defense, and you draw a firearm with the intent to stop the threat with deadly force but do not fire. You will likely not be charged with Brandishing because the display of a weapon stopped the threat in which you were legally allowed to use deadly force.
This senator irresponsibly handled the situation and her firearm, either way the story went down. First, if someone asks me to see a firearm of mine, I clear it. I remove the magazine and remove any chambered round and check the chamber before handing it to them. At that point I advise them to do the same procedure or show them how. If they want to see how a laser sight worked, or point the firearm, I would advise a safe direction with a suitable backstop, and maintain a safe distance that I can intervene if they suddenly forget muzzle control.
From VICE a short documentary on America's love for guns and its gun laws.
A pretty good vid, I've always liked Vice, they seem to do a pretty good job in their investigations and generally don't come across as biased or having an agenda.
Hahahaha I hope this is sarcasm
I think this hasn't been posted yet, it's an interesting review of how closely tied to the heavy-firepower firearms industry the NRA has become.
Per usual, John Stewart does a better job of discussing the issue of gun control than any news person I've seen do so thus far. Informative, non-confrontational, and with the usual bits of humor.
What the shit.
It even includes the Civil War. Damn.
According to Reddit, the following is what the State of California intends to impose for its stricter gun control laws. These seem even more restrictive than Canada's gun laws -- we don't need gun liability insurance, there is no registration nor limit on rounds purchased, we don't have "bullet buttons", hollow point bullets are legal, nor are our magazines have to be fixed.
Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds.
10 round magazine limit
ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder — Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
Bullet Buttons will become illegal — All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance
Separate names with a comma.