American Gun Laws

[Paddy O Fernature]

I have over 40, with plans to expand upon that in the next few months. I mainly collect vintage military firearms that have documented historical value as investments, but I also collect various modern firearms that peek my interests and suite my day to day needs. I also reload as a hobby, as well as a cost effective means for replacing some hard to find cartridges that you can't exactly find on a regular basis, and have nearly 15,000 loaded rounds with another 10-15k ish waiting to be reloaded that I can't be arsed into doing now that winter has hit and I can't shoot as often anymore.

I can only imagine, the internal hemorrhaging that must be going on with some on the forums here after reading that.

Waits to be called violent mass murder or other such nonsense again in 5...4...3...

I have a goal: to catch up to your collection.

I wish you luck in that endeavor. It's taken me nearly a decade to reach this state, and the care and patient understanding of a really fantastic GF who understand me and my hobby.

[Patridam]

Except when the law doesn't help and protect people, and instead hurts more than helps. Even hen the law is in the right the police are often powerless to help, or are, worse, unwilling to help.

An interesting point. Do you have any specific examples for laws hurting the people more than actually aiding them?

Almost anything connected to the war on drugs is a prime example.
https://www.aclu.org/drug-war-new-jim-crow
http://www.countthecosts.org/blog/new-r ... ung-people

[Socialist Czechia]

but certain knives are made specifically to hurt other people / animals.

but that's the reason why i own and wear combat/tactical knife. if i am attacked by two junkies with bottles (for example), i don't want to be completely defenceless and without chance to survive.

same in the forest. there are dangerous animals, and blade in your hand can be difference between life and death.

shortly, i don't want to hurt people / animals, but if they are going to hurt me, i want to be prepared to hurt them.

and knife is totally safer to your surroundings than possibly an idiot with AR-15.

[Big Jim P]

Let's face it: Nobody who goes out to buy an assault rifle is going to bring it wherever they go for self-defence. Maybe it'll be stashed in their car or something but they won't have it on them at all times. It is very likely, however, that someone who wants to go on a killing spree will buy an assault rifle and also stack up on bulletproof vests and the whole getup before going out.

Then there is the mental aspect. If there are gunshots in the building and you're armed to the teeth you may go to find out what it is or you may try to help in some way, which is good, but how will you decide between shooter and victim? If there are multiple armed people in the area how will you know who is friend and who is foe? You will just end up panicking and shooting everything most likely. Remember, you are not trained for this nor do you have the will to kill people. Then the police arrive and what do they do? There is anarchy going on with everyone armed and dangerous.

If it was just one disgruntled madman with a weapon then the police would be able to handle it easier but adding armed civilians who think they are helping is not a good idea.

Assault rifles are not just stashed in the car. Those things cost $10,000 plus. When not on the range thee are kept in a safe (unless the owner is a total idiot).

[Big Jim P]

assault rifle....assault rifle...

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

I am certain he doesn't.

[Patridam]

but certain knives are made specifically to hurt other people / animals.

but that's the reason why i own and wear combat/tactical knife. if i am attacked by two junkies with bottles (for example), i don't want to be completely defenceless and without chance to survive.

same in the forest. there are dangerous animals, and blade in your hand can be difference between life and death.

shortly, i don't want to hurt people / animals, but if they are going to hurt me, i want to be prepared to hurt them.

and knife is totally safer to your surroundings than possibly an idiot with AR-15.

I'm fairly certain no civilian carries an AR-15 as a self defense weapon, or any rifle for that matter. I don't have anywhere near the skills necessary to wield a knife competently so I instead use a 5 shot .38, and while I don't desire to hurt anyone, I would much rather someone(thing) else die than I if that's what it comes down to.

[Big Jim P]

Fair enough. In that case I will change my argument.

In this sector I feel more strongly: If it is easy for people to get weapons there will be more gun violence.

Bring on the criticism.

Restrictions on carrying guns in public are being eased, gun sales are at a record pace, and gun violence is going down. Your argument is invalid.

[Imperializt Russia]

In the UK where we have four million privately owned firearms, strict licensing with severe penalties, and do not see "self-defence" as legitimate reason to own a firearm (except NI) - we've somehow managed to keep firearm crime, firearm deaths absurdly low and mass shootings nonexistent by comparison to the US.

And I believe this is far more due to culture than the measures of gun control we actually have.
American gun culture stinks.

Would you like to explain what exactly you think is "gun culture" and how that affects crime?

About two thousand gun killings in the US are the escalation of some description of argument.
This is one part of American gun culture, in that while guns are elevated to this pedestal of freedurm, guns are not respected for what they are - lethal pieces of equipment.

If they were, two thousand people wouldn't be shot because someone wanted to end an argument.

[Patridam]

Would you like to explain what exactly you think is "gun culture" and how that affects crime?

About two thousand gun killings in the US are the escalation of some description of argument.
This is one part of American gun culture, in that while guns are elevated to this pedestal of freedurm, guns are not respected for what they are - lethal pieces of equipment.

If they were, two thousand people wouldn't be shot because someone wanted to end an argument.

I'm willing to wager "drug deal gone wrong" may be a significant contribution to the "escalation of argument" category, in which case, the legality of guns likely has little to no impact on that violence. In any case, the lack of respect for firearms is something more to do with a lack of proper training and stupidity on the part of the owner than it does "gun culture".

And please do not misspell freedom.

[Big Jim P]

I have a goal: to catch up to your collection.

I wish you luck in that endeavor. It's taken me nearly a decade to reach this state, and the care and patient understanding of a really fantastic GF who understand me and my hobby.

At one gun a month or more I should be able to do it in three years.

[Patridam]

I wish you luck in that endeavor. It's taken me nearly a decade to reach this state, and the care and patient understanding of a really fantastic GF who understand me and my hobby.

At one gun a month or more I should be able to do it in three years.

I've got 5, which is enough for me, until such a time that I am lucky enough to have a gf that asks for her own.

[Big Jim P]

At one gun a month or more I should be able to do it in three years.

I've got 5, which is enough for me, until such a time that I am lucky enough to have a gf that asks for her own.

I currently have two. My next one will be a Glock 30 for EDC when I get my CHL.

After that, I start collecting.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I'm fairly certain no civilian carries an AR-15 as a self defense weapon, or any rifle for that matter.

I've actually carried a AR-10 in the mountains for self defense before. I've also carried a rifle on numerous occasions as well over the years.

[Big Jim P]

I'm fairly certain no civilian carries an AR-15 as a self defense weapon, or any rifle for that matter.

I've actually carried a AR-10 in the mountains for self defense before. I've also carried a rifle on numerous occasions as well over the years.

How is the recoil, relative to a .223 AR15? (I am assuming the AR10 was a .308).

[Socialist Czechia]

I'm fairly certain no civilian carries an AR-15 as a self defense weapon, or any rifle for that matter. I don't have anywhere near the skills necessary to wield a knife competently so I instead use a 5 shot .38, and while I don't desire to hurt anyone, I would much rather someone(thing) else die than I if that's what it comes down to.

That's the very reason why wars became so brutal with massive use of firearms. You need years of practice with blades, be it classic sword, saber, katana or anything, while it takes minimum to teach people to shoot other people.
Just how to load, aim, clean it.

There are not many firearms in the population, so knife (or telescopic batton) is enough there, not mentioning the fact, that in such very close combat, tactical knife can be superior weapon (and if it's not, you need only minor distraction to throw knife to criminal's neck).
You must only practice a little more.

But no law about knives whatsoever there very contrasts with restrictions, when use of the firearm is justified: judges there tends to side with injured criminal more than often.
Basically, you can't simply shot a guy, if he's not holding firearm too. It can be junkie with axe, running against you and you will be still prosecuted as you are criminal.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm fairly certain no civilian carries an AR-15 as a self defense weapon, or any rifle for that matter.

I've actually carried a AR-10 in the mountains for self defense before. I've also carried a rifle on numerous occasions as well over the years.

Indeed. Prior to purchasing and practicing with my .500 revolver to where I was comfortable with it, I'd regularly take my .300 Win Mag with us when we went out fishing/hiking/etc. just because bears or moose can be nasty business to run into and even if I was never a Boy Scout 'be prepared' is a pretty legit motto.
Also it usually gave me an excuse to practice a little bit and make sure the rifle was sighted in for the hunting-season proper.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I've actually carried a AR-10 in the mountains for self defense before. I've also carried a rifle on numerous occasions as well over the years.

How is the recoil, relative to a .223 AR15? (I am assuming the AR10 was a .308).

It was.

The recoil was actually slightly less then my Rem700 in the same cal, and certainly kicks more then my Riverman LLC 5.56. However, it's not uncontrollable even when firing in rapid succession.

[Big Jim P]

I'm fairly certain no civilian carries an AR-15 as a self defense weapon, or any rifle for that matter. I don't have anywhere near the skills necessary to wield a knife competently so I instead use a 5 shot .38, and while I don't desire to hurt anyone, I would much rather someone(thing) else die than I if that's what it comes down to.

That's the very reason why wars became so brutal with massive use of firearms. You need years of practice with blades, be it classic sword, saber, katana or anything, while it takes minimum to teach people to shoot other people.
Just how to load, aim, clean it.

There are not many firearms in the population, so knife (or telescopic batton) is enough there, not mentioning the fact, that in such very close combat, tactical knife can be superior weapon (and if it's not, you need only minor distraction to throw knife to criminal's neck).
You must only practice a little more.

But no law about knives whatsoever there very contrasts with restrictions, when use of the firearm is justified: judges there tends to side with injured criminal more than often.
Basically, you can't simply shot a guy, if he's not holding firearm too. It can be junkie with axe, running against you and you will be still prosecuted as you are criminal.

That is fucking stupid. Any potentially lethal attack, or attack that may potentially result in severe bodily harm, armed or unarmed, is a legitimate justification for the defensive use of lethal force, including shooting.

[Socialist Czechia]

That is fucking stupid. Any potentially lethal attack, or attack that may potentially result in severe bodily harm, armed or unarmed, is a legitimate justification for the defensive use of lethal force, including shooting.

Tell that to our judges. It's reality there and part of the reason, why I always rather practised with blades.

Even a cop can't shoot a person armed 'only' with, let's say, stones. Well, he can, but he will have a problems with 'human rights' junkies.
These 'human rights' groups in every corner are real bane of Europe, and I am saying that as a leftist.

[Havenburgh]

Americans have held onto their weapons dearly since the beginning when the redcoats came marching to take them. Then the feeling was strengthened with the Whiskey rebellion then the civil war. They felt like they had to protect themselves from the government comes a knocking. Problem is they still think that every democrat is going to kick down their doors and take everything or that somehow a dictatorship will magically appear in the US. They dont seem to remember however its physically impossible for the US to become a dictatorship due to a thing called balance of power. The closest you can get is an autocratic oligarchy, for example if the president somehow got the whole congress as their devout supporters and bought off the judges, then somehow managed to convince the military to march on its own soil to tear apart each state government.
Like said, impossible.

[Vassenor]

Americans have held onto their weapons dearly since the beginning when the redcoats came marching to take them. Then the feeling was strengthened with the Whiskey rebellion then the civil war. They felt like they had to protect themselves from the government comes a knocking. Problem is they still think that every democrat is going to kick down their doors and take everything or that somehow a dictatorship will magically appear in the US. They dont seem to remember however its physically impossible for the US to become a dictatorship due to a thing called balance of power. The closest you can get is an autocratic oligarchy, for example if the president somehow got the whole congress as their devout supporters and bought off the judges, then somehow managed to convince the military to march on its own soil to tear apart each state government.
Like said, impossible.

Shh... You're interfering with the narrative...

[Patridam]

Americans have held onto their weapons dearly since the beginning when the redcoats came marching to take them. Then the feeling was strengthened with the Whiskey rebellion then the civil war. They felt like they had to protect themselves from the government comes a knocking. Problem is they still think that every democrat is going to kick down their doors and take everything or that somehow a dictatorship will magically appear in the US. They dont seem to remember however its physically impossible for the US to become a dictatorship due to a thing called balance of power. The closest you can get is an autocratic oligarchy, for example if the president somehow got the whole congress as their devout supporters and bought off the judges, then somehow managed to convince the military to march on its own soil to tear apart each state government.
Like said, impossible.

Ah yes, because the only dangerous thing wer might need to protect ourselves from in America is the government; not wildlife or criminals, no sirree, bears just want a hug and muggers are trying to brighten up your day.

[Imperializt Russia]

About two thousand gun killings in the US are the escalation of some description of argument.
This is one part of American gun culture, in that while guns are elevated to this pedestal of freedurm, guns are not respected for what they are - lethal pieces of equipment.

If they were, two thousand people wouldn't be shot because someone wanted to end an argument.

I'm willing to wager "drug deal gone wrong" may be a significant contribution to the "escalation of argument" category, in which case, the legality of guns likely has little to no impact on that violence. In any case, the lack of respect for firearms is something more to do with a lack of proper training and stupidity on the part of the owner than it does "gun culture".

And please do not misspell freedom.

Why should I not have the freedurm to intentionally misspell words for emphasis?

The availability of guns does have an impact on that violence because in Britain, most people aren't shot dead.
If you entirely subtract firearm homicides, homicides in the US and UK are actually comparable.

Just that in the UK, firearm homicides make up 10% of homicides, not 75%

[Socialist Czechia]

Ah yes, because the only dangerous thing wer might need to protect ourselves from in America is the government; not wildlife or criminals, no sirree, bears just want a hug and muggers are trying to brighten up your day.

Are there some statistics how many criminals were eliminated, when they encountered decent, armed citizens?

[Fanosolia]

That is fucking stupid. Any potentially lethal attack, or attack that may potentially result in severe bodily harm, armed or unarmed, is a legitimate justification for the defensive use of lethal force, including shooting.

Tell that to our judges. It's reality there and part of the reason, why I always rather practised with blades.

Even a cop can't shoot a person armed 'only' with, let's say, stones. Well, he can, but he will have a problems with 'human rights' junkies.
These 'human rights' groups in every corner are real bane of Europe, and I am saying that as a leftist.

Other than the questions of self defense, which is honestly of the few times can be on the same page with gun owners (though I'd have to judge on case by case basis, which is why I'm not a judge), how just of bane are we talking?