# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 159
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3161 "2013-10-03T21:56:08Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > And there lies the disagreement. I for one do not agree that you should have a “right” to all of that, especially the high capacity magazine.\* A privilege, perhaps, for some items. But I do have that right. Any threat of limitation only makes me buy more. Such that I’ll never be wanting even if I sell some of my stash for a tidy profit at a later date. > [@](#): > > But high capacity magazines are of no value outside of killing large numbers of people. They have value for all sorts of recreation. Also to secure a free state. > [@](#): > > And I do not agree you should have a “right” to do that. Perhaps a privilege, for example, as a member of the armed forces with proper oversight and supervision. But a right? No. OK, but I have that right just the same. > [@](#): > > The rhetoric is paranoid and overbearing. And, often, as demonstrated by the NRA pamphlet linked above, tinged with racism. Minorities are buying up guns too. Didn’t you know or aren’t you friends with any? > [@](#): > > \*(ETA) I acknowledge under recent judicial interpretation you do have the right to at least most of that. But I do not agree that the judicial decision leading to this was in the best interest of liberty, democracy, or a functional and stable society. I acknowledge that your kind wants to take away my rights and ban my guns. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3162 "2013-10-03T23:02:59Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > “Obama tried to ban guns” > > You really believe this, don’t you? I mean, you honestly, deep down believe that Obama tried to ban guns. > > There is no hope whatsoever to have any sort of reasonable discourse at this point. When you interpret the phrase “Obama tried to ban gun” as “Obama tried to ban ALL guns” its no wonder that noone you argue with sounds reasonable to you. > [@steronz](#): > > By that standard, guns are already banned. Not the ones he was trying to ban. > [@Knorf](#): > > Which is one reason why I mentioned it, to bring it to the attention of the people in this thread at least. I would bet a LOT of money that we wouldn’t have these stupid attempts to ban guns if people weren’t focusing on incidents like Newtown. > [@](#): > > For the vast majority of communities in the nation, I stand by my comment. Over 80% of Americans live in urban areas. I have no idea what percentages we are talking about but its still a significant percentage. > [@Knorf](#): > > No right is absolute. You do not have the right to yell “Fire!” in a public theatre, and you do not have the right to spread lies about someone in the press. > > Similarly, you do not have the right to own every armament under the sun, such as, for example, tactical nuclear warheads. > > People are basically disagreeing over where the line should be drawn. And the NRA/gun nut reaction is fairly summarized as egregious, paranoid overreaction. Of course no right is absolute but for the most part, we require some justification for a law that infringes on a constitutional right. When we have a ten year history with an AWB with no noticable reduction in gun violence and you want to institute another one, I think you have to come up with some data or some really good reason why this time it will make enough of a difference to justify infringing on my rights. > [@Kable](#): > > Minorities are buying up guns too. Didn’t you know or aren’t you friends with any? For the most part, gun collecting is a middle class hobby and the middle class is pretty white. Poor folks don’t collect guns, they may have a gun but thats about it. Every gun show I have been to has been very white. I don’t detect any racism from anyone there but its kind of like skiing but without the women and children, not racist just a lot of white dudes. > [@](#): > > I acknowledge that your kind wants to take away my rights and ban my guns. Only some of them. Bend over, they only want to stick in the tip, they’ll stop after that… no really… just the tip. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3163 "2013-10-03T23:40:35Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > But I do have that right. Any threat of limitation only makes me buy more. Such that I’ll never be wanting even if I sell some of my stash for a tidy profit at a later date. Yes, you’re obsessed with firearms. I already knew that. > [@](#): > > They have value for all sorts of recreation. Also to secure a free state. High capacity magazines have no place at all in sport hunting, where the use of such in many or even most cases is constitutionally prohibited. Similarly, they are are of no use in target shooting, where the extra weight does nothing beside screw up your aim. The “value for all sorts of recreation” argument is nonsense. Besides, the constitutionality of your “right,” such as it was recently decided by the supreme court, has nothing to do with your personal recreational interest in such things, any more than loving Formula One would give you the right to drive an F1 race car on the local highway. As to the latter statement, about securing a free state, it’s comic that people still trot that out. I know, you and the rubes in your neighborhood think that you could hold off an invading army if need be. What stupidity. First of all, no army is going to march up your street, ever. Second of all, if an invading army did march up your street under arms in time of war, there is _nothing_ you and your bad of obsessed gun owners could do to stop it. All you would do is add entries to the list of civilian causalities. Obsessed gun ownership does _not_ make the free state more secure. It makes life tremendously more dangerous for law enforcement, it results in more deaths of innocent people, and it does not reduce crime. If anything your obsession makes the free state _less_ secure. > [@](#): > > OK, but I have that right just the same. Yes. And the state is less secure for it. > [@](#): > > Minorities are buying up guns too. Didn’t you know or aren’t you friends with any? No one said buying guns is in itself racist, you idiot. The comment was that some of the overheated rhetoric against gun control is tinged with racism, as exhibited in the NRA pamphlet linked above, and as easily witnessed in almost any target facility in any rural county in the U.S. It’s one of the things that led me to question the validity of the NRA years ago, the casual racism I witnessed on a regular basis among gun “enthusiasts.” > [@](#): > > I acknowledge that your kind wants to take away my rights and ban my guns. First of all, I am not “a kind.” I am a knowledgeable user of firearms who first started shooting and hunting before my teenage years and who was on my high school rifle team. I simply want to draw the line in a different place than you do. You already seemed to agree that you don’t have a right to a nuclear arsenal. You probably also agree that you don’t have a right to things like RPGs, tanks stocked with live ammunition, helicopter-mounted chain guns, autocannons, and the like. It is clear that I would draw the line in a different place than you would. But that does not make me your enemy, and leads me to: Second of all, “take away my rights” and “ban my guns” is a ludicrous parody of anything I wrote. If I said, “driving a car should be a licensed privilege, not a right,” does that mean I want to run out and ban all automobiles? If I say, “F1 race cars do not belong on the nation’s highways,” does that mean I want to take away everyone’s Hondas and Jeeps? Obviously not. Similarly, my saying that certain armaments do not belong in civilian use, and should require a special privilege to possess and use, does not mean that I want to ban or remove from your household your conventional hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Which, by the way, no one empowered in the U.S. government has argued for, either. If I say there should be a more rigorous process for licensing and purchasing firearms, to make it more for difficult more criminals and mental unfit people to own firearms, that still does not mean I wish to remove the conventional hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns from law-abiding responsible people. Thus your statement is a typical example of the paranoia and overreaction I referred to earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3164 "2013-10-03T23:47:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Over 80% of Americans live in urban areas. I have no idea what percentages we are talking about but its still a significant percentage. Yes, and, in the vast majority of urban neighborhoods, the statement that ownership of firearms is necessary for personal safety remains ludicrous, in my opinion. > [@](#): > > Of course no right is absolute but for the most part, we require some justification for a law that infringes on a constitutional right. When we have a ten year history with an AWB with no noticable reduction in gun violence and you want to institute another one, I think you have to come up with some data or some really good reason why this time it will make enough of a difference to justify infringing on my rights. That’s fair. > [@](#): > > For the most part, gun collecting is a middle class hobby and the middle class is pretty white. Poor folks don’t collect guns, they may have a gun but thats about it. Every gun show I have been to has been very white. I don’t detect any racism from anyone there but its kind of like skiing but without the women and children, not racist just a lot of white dudes. Go check out that pamphlet from the NRA linked above. My experience with gun enthusiasts has been quite different, where casual racism was quite common, sad to say, especially regarding Latinos. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3165 "2013-10-04T01:26:16Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Yes, you’re obsessed with firearms. I already knew that. Well I’m a competitive shooter. I like to call myself an enthusiast. > [@](#): > > High capacity magazines have no place at all in sport hunting, where the use of such in many or even most cases is constitutionally prohibited. I’m not so much of a hunter, but in the right area varmint hunters will sometimes kill hundreds of prairie dogs in a day. Also for an AR15, 20 and 30 round magazines cost less than 5 round magazines (economies of scale and all that). > [@](#): > > Similarly, they are are of no use in target shooting, where the extra weight does nothing beside screw up your aim. Really dipshit? Tell me then why pretty much all target rifles, shotguns and pistols weigh considerably more than sporting rifles and pistols? > [@](#): > > The “value for all sorts of recreation” argument is nonsense. I guess you have never done 30 round mag dump on a M16. It’s a lot of fun. > [@](#): > > Besides, the constitutionality of your “right,” such as it was recently decided by the supreme court, has nothing to do with your personal recreational interest in such things, any more than loving Formula One would give you the right to drive an F1 race car on the local highway. Right it has more to do with securing a free state, and as such private citizens should have the same firearms and capacities as is in common use with the military. > [@](#): > > As to the latter statement, about securing a free state, it’s comic that people still trot that out. I know, you and the rubes in your neighborhood think that you could hold off an invading army if need be. What stupidity. First of all, no army is going to march up your street, ever. Second of all, if an invading army did march up your street under arms in time of war, there is _nothing_ you and your bad of obsessed gun owners could do to stop it. All you would do is add entries to the list of civilian causalities. OK, well, we think you know as much about that as you do on all your proceeding statements. > [@](#): > > Obsessed gun ownership does _not_ make the free state more secure. It makes life tremendously more dangerous for law enforcement, it results in more deaths of innocent people, and it does not reduce crime. If anything your obsession makes the free state _less_ secure. Great, so I’ve told you what drives us gun enthusiasts to buy more military type weapons. What you should do with that is oppose gun control measures like the assault weapon ban that have no effect on crime and only serve to sell millions more assault weapons, which contrary to your thesis seems to have no effect on crime. > [@](#): > > Yes. And the state is less secure for it. OK well, you all asked for it. > [@](#): > > No one said buying guns is in itself racist, you idiot. The comment was that some of the overheated rhetoric against gun control is tinged with racism, as exhibited in the NRA pamphlet linked above, and as easily witnessed in almost any target facility in any rural county in the U.S. Right dipshit, and you all want to ban assault weapons to keep them out of the hands of dangerous minorities. I’d happily invite you to my range, a few black guys there, a number of hispanics are there, and Filipinos out the wazoo. But then I’m not exactly in a rural environment. So maybe your sheltered and don’t know. > [@](#): > > First of all, I am not “a kind.” I am a knowledgeable user of firearms who first started shooting and hunting before my teenage years and who was on my high school rifle team. Are you serious? Why then do you think extra weight in a gun screws up your aim? > [@](#): > > I simply want to draw the line in a different place than you do. You already seemed to agree that you don’t have a right to a nuclear arsenal. You probably also agree that you don’t have a right to things like RPGs, tanks stocked with live ammunition, helicopter-mounted chain guns, autocannons, and the like. It is clear that I would draw the line in a different place than you would. So you consider yourself more of a stooge for gun control I guess. OK, I’ll try to remember and identify you as such going forward. > [@](#): > > But that does not make me your enemy, and leads me to: What? > [@](#): > > Second of all, “take away my rights” and “ban my guns” is a ludicrous parody of anything I wrote. If I said, “driving a car should be a licensed privilege, not a right,” does that mean I want to run out and ban all automobiles? If I say, “F1 race cars do not belong on the nation’s highways,” does that mean I want to take away everyone’s Hondas and Jeeps? Obviously not. If I have guns that are legal, and you want to make them illegal then yes you are trying to ban my guns and take away my rights. Don’t try to pretend anything else you phony. > [@](#): > > Similarly, my saying that certain armaments do not belong in civilian use, and should require a special privilege to possess and use, does not mean that I want to ban or remove from your household your conventional hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Right asshole, you don’t want to take away traditional hunters guns, you want to take away “my” guns. Who do you think you are kidding? > [@](#): > > Which, by the way, no one empowered in the U.S. government has argued for, either. If I say there should be a more rigorous process for licensing and purchasing firearms, to make it more for difficult more criminals and mental unfit people to own firearms, that still does not mean I wish to remove the conventional hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns from law-abiding responsible people. Right, but you do want to take away a fair number of my guns. And if you really want to save lives, why are you not wishing to ban “traditional” handguns? Be honest. > [@](#): > > Thus your statement is a typical example of the paranoia and overreaction I referred to earlier. Are you saying you don’t want to ban my guns? I have a pretty good collection of military type weapons. More so than what I imagine you mean by “conventional” hunting type firearms. Be honest. ---
**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3166 "2013-10-04T01:33:25Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Right it has more to do with securing a free state, and as such private citizens should have the same firearms and capacities as is in common use with the military. I would love to see all the idiots like you try to take on the military with the weapons you somehow think are capable of it. No really; it would make my day. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3167 "2013-10-04T02:08:13Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > I would love to see all the idiots like you try to take on the military with the weapons you somehow think are capable of it. No really; it would make my day. You gun grabbers always say that. Who’s to say all or some of the military wouldn’t be on our side? I know A LOT of military people. As a group they seem to be rather gun rights oriented. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3168 "2013-10-04T02:13:27Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > You gun grabbers always say that. Who’s to say all or some of the military wouldn’t be on our side? If the military is on your side, what do you need all the guns for? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3169 "2013-10-04T02:28:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > If the military is on your side, what do you need all the guns for? Tyrannical governments both foreign and domestic, criminals, recreation, pleasure of ownership (like Nigel Tufnel and his many guitars). With efforts of gun grabbers to ban guns it makes us enthusiasts think about not just getting what guns we need now, but any guns we imagine we might ever need. For example I have no immediate need for a .338 Lapua, but I thought someone might think to ban it, so I bought one last year before demand runs up the price. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3170 "2013-10-04T16:17:17Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > High capacity magazines have no place at all in sport hunting, where the use of such in many or even most cases is constitutionally prohibited. Similarly, they are are of no use in target shooting, where the extra weight does nothing beside screw up your aim. The “value for all sorts of recreation” argument is nonsense. Besides, the constitutionality of your “right,” such as it was recently decided by the supreme court, has nothing to do with your personal recreational interest in such things, any more than loving Formula One would give you the right to drive an F1 race car on the local highway. I did one of these obstacle courses (where they give you modified weapons that have covered muzzles that shoot little infrared beams (and fire blanks so you get recoil to cycle the action and give you the feel of firing real guns)) and by the end of the day they had us shooting at moving targets while we were also moving. Like I said, I’m a bad shot but I can almost always hit the target; that dropped to maybe 66% when the target started moving slowly in a straight line; then it dropped to 50% when it started moving slowly but unpredictably; then they asked me to shoot at these targets while I was also moving and my hit rate was probably under 20%. Worse with a pistol, better with a rifle. So Kable might not need those high cap magazines but a poor shot like me would find them useful. > [@](#): > > Similarly, my saying that certain armaments do not belong in civilian use, and should require a special privilege to possess and use, does not mean that I want to ban or remove from your household your conventional hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Which, by the way, no one empowered in the U.S. government has argued for, either. You don’t think there is really a difference between a conventional semiautomatic hinting rifle and an AR15, do you? If not then what guns would you take out of the civilian home? > [@Knorf](#): > > Yes, and, in the vast majority of urban neighborhoods, the statement that ownership of firearms is necessary for personal safety remains ludicrous, in my opinion. So are you saying that we should subject the right to bear arms to a needs test? Thats what they have in NYC and they generally don’t give out gun licenses to people who live in shitty neighborhoods. And who judges what’s necessary for personal safety? Why are you a better arbiter of what is necessary for my personal safety than the constitution and the supreme court? > [@](#): > > Go check out that pamphlet from the NRA linked above. > > My experience with gun enthusiasts has been quite different, where casual racism was quite common, sad to say, especially regarding Latinos. Did you read the pamphlet or just the article? The picture is taken a bit out of context and the mostly prominent faces in that picture seem to be black and Asian. I think that a lot of that racism you see has more to do with geography than some sort of connection between racism and gun ownership. If you go to gun shows, I don’t think you see more racism than you would see in the neighborhoods within a few miles of the gun show. Its like saying that drinking mint julips is racist. [http://www.meetthenra.org/board-list](http://www.meetthenra.org/board-list) Here is the board of directors, mostly white males with maybe half a dozen minorities. Their political views all trend to the right but they’re not all Ted Nugent either. > [@Kable](#): > > Well I’m a competitive shooter. I like to call myself an enthusiast. I like guns but I’m a bad shot, I like to call myself a gun nerd… but to a lot of people we’re all just gun nuts. > [@](#): > > And if you really want to save lives, why are you not wishing to ban “traditional” handguns? Be honest. Because they lost that battle a long time ago. You know what the Brady Campaign used to be called? It had the word handgun in the title to clarify that they weren’t going after rifles. Then they lost the argument on handguns so now they’re called the Brady campaign. They are going after this tiny insignificant source of gun violence (Assault Weapons) because they can’t go after any other type of gun. They are that point where they would rather make a political point than make a difference. > [@Kable](#): > > With efforts of gun grabbers to ban guns it makes us enthusiasts think about not just getting what guns we need now, but any guns we imagine we might ever need. For example I have no immediate need for a .338 Lapua, but I thought someone might think to ban it, so I bought one last year before demand runs up the price. I am buying right now. I couldn’t justify buying at the inflated post Newtown prices but I did a LOT of window shopping and the prices seemed to drop after the Navy yard shooting (😕 near as I can figure, the lack of a push for gun control made people realize that the post newtown prices are not coming back soon and they might as well get rid of their inventory at market prices). ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3171 "2013-10-04T18:59:46Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Well I’m a competitive shooter. I like to call myself an enthusiast. Call yourself a mushroom if it pleases you. You’re a radical, obsessive nutcase. > [@](#): > > I’m not so much of a hunter, but in the right area varmint hunters will sometimes kill hundreds of prairie dogs in a day. Also for an AR15, 20 and 30 round magazines cost less than 5 round magazines (economies of scale and all that). None of this is justification. Or sporting in any sense of the word. > [@](#): > > Really dipshit? Tell me then why pretty much all target rifles, shotguns and pistols weigh considerably more than sporting rifles and pistols? _sigh_ Ok, since you apparently aren’t in the know, a high capacity magazine can mess with the balance of a firearm used for competitive target shooting, especially as the weight distribution is altered as rounds are expended. > [@](#): > > I guess you have never done 30 round mag dump on a M16. It’s a lot of fun. I have, in fact. The M60 is even more fun, in my experience. Neither is justification for the easy availability of such powerful weapons to anyone and everyone. Only [semi-automatic versions of the M60 (and the M16 for that matter) are generally legal for sale](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun) to the general public, the laws concerning which being entirely constitutional. No right is absolute. > [@](#): > > Right it has more to do with securing a free state, and as such private citizens should have the same firearms and capacities as is in common use with the military. And now we know what a lunatic you are. Really? It should be ok for people to own autocannons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, howitzers, tanks, attack helicopters and the like? How about railguns? Oh, wait, those aren’t really in common use yet in the military, being still under development and all. We’re safe there. _You’re insane._ And clearly not worth talking to. There’s no getting through to a fanatic wacko like you. > [@](#): > > Great, so I’ve told you what drives us gun enthusiasts to buy more military type weapons. What you should do with that is oppose gun control measures like the assault weapon ban that have no effect on crime and only serve to sell millions more assault weapons, which contrary to your thesis seems to have no effect on crime. I do not agree with your analysis of the situation. But you’re a wacko, so no surprise there. > [@](#): > > Right dipshit, and you all want to ban assault weapons to keep them out of the hands of dangerous minorities. I’d like to recommend that you spend some time learning about the [straw man fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). > [@](#): > > Are you serious? Why then do you think extra weight in a gun screws up your aim? As I mentioned above, it’s an issue of weapon balance, which is important in competitive target shooting > [@](#): > > Right, but you do want to take away a fair number of my guns. And if you really want to save lives, why are you not wishing to ban “traditional” handguns? Be honest. As I mentioned upthread, I have no illusions as to the feasibility of gun bans and taking anything away from lunatics in possession of firearms that the general public has no business owning, (excepting perhaps non-functional collections and displays, which are legit.) It isn’t happening, and was never in any real danger of happened. The best solution is for a change in gun culture, where the obsession for inappropriate for the public weaponry has faded into irrelevance. I’m not expecting this to happen in my lifetime But I don’t know what specific guns you have, so I can’t comment as to whether any of them should be taken from you. Most people would say there is a legitimate issue of public safety here, and if someone is in possession of certain armaments, let’s say nuclear warheads, those armaments should be legitimately and legally removed from their possession. Mostly I think the line as drawn is acceptable–i.e. no publicly available fully automatic weapons. But I think it worth considering other elements, such as high capacity magazines, the only obvious purpose for which being killing people. > [@](#): > > Are you saying you don’t want to ban my guns? I have a pretty good collection of military type weapons. More so than what I imagine you mean by “conventional” hunting type firearms. Be honest. Those weapons probably should not be available to the general public, but I don’t what weapons you have specifically, so it’s hard to answer. If you behave yourself and play nice, it might be ok to let _you_ keep them, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a serious issue of public safety involved if those weapons are readily and legally available to anyone who can scrape the cash together. I confess I’m starting to doubt it’s ok to allow _you_ to own a slingshot. But let’s just take another look at this statement of yours: > [@](#): > > Right it has more to do with securing a free state, and as such private citizens should have the same firearms and capacities as is in common use with the military. We’re done here. That sentence shows that you’re a radical gun whackjob and not someone to have a reasoned discussion with. As opposed to **Damuri Ajashi** , who is worth engaging on these issues. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3172 "2013-10-04T19:56:50Z")
Quote: Right it has more to do with securing a free state, and as such private citizens should have the same firearms and capacities as is in common use with the military. > [@Knorf](#): > > We’re done here. That sentence shows that you’re a radical gun whackjob and not someone to have a reasoned discussion with. In all sincerity, let me ask two questions: 1.Would the people who debated and ratified the Constitution have agreed or disagreed with the statement “Civilization cannot endure unless the government possesses the overweaning might to suppress rebellion”? I would have supposed that originally at least, the federal government had only a tiny standing army, the states were forbidden to possess professional troops, and the public order was to be maintained by mustering the citizens into a militia when needed. That the government simply would not possess the power to enforce a grossly unpopular regime against a supermajority of the citizenry. So- 1. If this was indeed the situation at the end of the 18th century, then when exactly did it become accepted that the people should be _helpless_ to rebel, against the overwhelmingly superior armed might of the government? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3173 "2013-10-04T21:03:49Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So Kable might not need those high cap magazines but a poor shot like me would find them useful. Take a look at [these images of target shooting rifles](https://www.google.com/search?q=target+shooting+rifle&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nStPUuuBL4rniAKjy4CIDg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1341&bih=757&dpr=1#q=olympic+target+shooting+rifle&tbm=isch&imgdii=_). You’ll notice that almost all of them are bolt-action, single shot rifles. Weight distribution and balance are very important characteristics determining the accuracy of these rifles. When I was on my high school rifle team, we used .22 ca bolt-action rifles. I forget what maker, it was a long time ago. They were a dream to shoot, because they were so very accurate, assuming you did everything right in terms of breathing, trigger control, and so on (and assuming it was sighted properly for the distance.) > [@](#): > > You don’t think there is really a difference between a conventional semiautomatic hinting rifle and an AR15, do you? There is no effective difference. > [@](#): > > If not then what guns would you take out of the civilian home? None beyond what are already illegal. > [@](#): > > Why are you a better arbiter of what is necessary for my personal safety than the constitution and the supreme court? I’m not. But I wonder whether you would ask the question the same way if [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) had gone the opposite direction. It was 5-4, after all, and could have gone the other way very easily. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3174 "2013-10-04T21:09:25Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Call yourself a mushroom if it pleases you. You’re a radical, obsessive nutcase. And you’re a gun grabber. > [@](#): > > None of this is justification. Or sporting in any sense of the word. Sure it is. > [@](#): > > Ok, since you apparently aren’t in the know, a high capacity magazine can mess with the balance of a firearm used for competitive target shooting, especially as the weight distribution is altered as rounds are expended. OK, now your changing your story. Most target shooting only requires a few rounds per string and you generally are required by rules to unload in between so mag capacity does not matter. Topping off a 20 round magazine with a service rifle does not change the weight anymore than using a harder to find and more expensive 5 round magazine. Go to a 3-gun competitions with anything other than the highest capacity magazine allowed and you are going to get your ass handed to you. And contrary to your initial statement, heavier is generally considered more stable and reduces felt recoil, both desirable for target shooting. > [@](#): > > I have, in fact. The M60 is even more fun, in my experience. M2 even better. > [@](#): > > Neither is justification for the easy availability of such powerful weapons to anyone and everyone. Only [semi-automatic versions of the M60 (and the M16 for that matter) are generally legal for sale](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun) to the general public, the laws concerning which being entirely constitutional. What makes a M16 too powerful? It’s just a .223. Full auto is pretty ineffective for hitting anything. And you want to ban the semi-auto versions of them don’t you? > [@](#): > > No right is absolute. Right, and you gun grabbers will use that reasoning to ban everything but a muzzle loader, until someone gets shot with a muzzle loader. > [@](#): > > And now we know what a lunatic you are. I pass a lot of background checks. Even for class 3 weapons. > [@](#): > > As I mentioned upthread, I have no illusions as to the feasibility of gun bans and taking anything away from lunatics in possession of firearms that the general public has no business owning, (excepting perhaps non-functional collections and displays, which are legit.) It isn’t happening, and was never in any real danger of happened. The best solution is for a change in gun culture, where the obsession for inappropriate for the public weaponry has faded into irrelevance. How’s all your strategies working out thus far? Sure seems you gun grabbers have done is put “assault weapons” at the top of everyone’s buy list. > [@](#): > > But I think it worth considering other elements, such as high capacity magazines, the only obvious purpose for which being killing people. What’s the 2nd Amendment for again? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3175 "2013-10-04T21:11:02Z")
Gentlemen, we’re straying from the purpose of this thread. [Here](http://www.azfamily.com/news/Accidental-shooting-by-boyfriend-leaves-woman-dead-226079871.html). ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3176 "2013-10-04T21:13:46Z")
Sorry I hit reply accidentally. Continuing: > [@](#): > > Did you read the pamphlet or just the article? The pamphlet. It’s not hard to find. > [@](#): > > I think that a lot of that racism you see has more to do with geography than some sort of connection between racism and gun ownership. Absolutely. I never said there was a connection between ownership itself and racism. I said there was a racist tinge to some of the paranoid, overheated gun advocacy rhetoric, a playing on white fear as a means to drum up emotional support. I also said I was disturbed in the past by the casual racism I witnessed among some white gun enthusiasts I used to encounter while hunting, shooting skeet, target practice, and so forth. It exists, believe me. > [@](#): > > If you go to gun shows, I don’t think you see more racism than you would see in the neighborhoods within a few miles of the gun show. True enough. > [@Lumpy](#): > > In all sincerity, let me ask two questions: > > 1.Would the people who debated and ratified the Constitution have agreed or disagreed with the statement “Civilization cannot endure unless the government possesses the overweaning might to suppress rebellion”? The world has changed quite a lot since the late 18th century. Whether they would agreed or disagreed is immaterial to the reality of the 21st century, where nations do indeed have the overwhelming might to suppress rebellion. The idea of arming civilians so they could theoretically go toe to toe with our nation’s military is insanity. > [@](#): > > 1. If this was indeed the situation at the end of the 18th century, then when exactly did it become accepted that the people should be _helpless_ to rebel, against the overwhelmingly superior armed might of the government? “Accepted”? Who knows. But it became reality certainly by WWI. Frankly, in this day and age, Ghandi’s approach to civil resistance is far more likely to be effective than trying to arm the citizenry and take on the military directly. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3177 "2013-10-04T21:27:33Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > And you’re a gun grabber. I’m not. At all. > [@](#): > > Sure it is. Rubbish. Magazine capacities are limited for many (most?) kinds of sport hunting, and rightly and legally (constitutionally) so. > [@](#): > > Most target shooting only requires a few rounds per string and you generally are required by rules to unload in between so mag capacity does not matter. Exactly my point. “Most.” But I am perfectly willing to accept the potential legitimacy of licensing fully automatic and extended round magazines to civilians for competition purposes, similary to licensing for any number of competitive but dangerous sports, like NASCAR or F1. I do not agree that automatic weapons should be generally available to the public outside of the controlled, legally licensed environments. > [@](#): > > And contrary to your initial statement, heavier is generally considered more stable and reduces felt recoil, both desirable for target shooting. My point was balance and weight distribution, not just weight per se. I’m attempting to clarify my statement. > [@](#): > > M2 even better. Wouldn’t know. > [@](#): > > And you want to ban the semi-auto versions of them don’t you? Not at all. > [@](#): > > Right, and you gun grabbers will use that reasoning to ban everything but a muzzle loader, until someone gets shot with a muzzle loader. Don’t forget to take some time to learn about the [straw man fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). > [@](#): > > I pass a lot of background checks. Even for class 3 weapons. That’s terrific. > [@](#): > > How’s all your strategies working out thus far? Sure seems you gun grabbers have done is put “assault weapons” at the top of everyone’s buy list. I’m not a gun grabber. Mainly what I don’t like is the direction the discussion takes, especially when whackos like you say with a straight face that you think citizens should have a right to anything the military “commonly” uses. That’s insane. Flat-out insane. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3178 "2013-10-04T21:54:54Z")
For those who think that everyone should have a right to own anything the military commonly uses… Is that because you genuinely feel that this would lead to a much more peaceful society with less crime, fewer gun accidents and a reduced suicide rate? Or is it more along the lines of “it’s my right, so FREEDOM!”? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3179 "2013-10-04T22:08:29Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Take a look at [these images of target shooting rifles](https://www.google.com/search?q=target+shooting+rifle&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nStPUuuBL4rniAKjy4CIDg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1341&bih=757&dpr=1#q=olympic+target+shooting+rifle&tbm=isch&imgdii=_). You’ll notice that almost all of them are bolt-action, single shot rifles. Weight distribution and balance are very important characteristics determining the accuracy of these rifles. Check out these images for target shooting rifles: [https://www.google.com/search?q=ipsc+rifle&hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4GZGN\_enUS488US488&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MDpPUu\_xJaasigLAzIH4BQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ\_AUoAQ&biw=1164&bih=768&dpr=1#hl=en&q=multi+gun+rifle&qscrl=1&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=ipsc+rifle&hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4GZGN_enUS488US488&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MDpPUu_xJaasigLAzIH4BQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1164&bih=768&dpr=1#hl=en&q=multi+gun+rifle&qscrl=1&tbm=isch) > [@](#): > > None beyond what are already illegal. You just want to grab magazines then? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/3180 "2013-10-04T22:21:16Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > I’m not. At all. What capacity do you think magazines should be limited to? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=158) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=160)