The Liberal Gun Club Forum

I want to state that I believe that a discourse needs to happen with "gun safety" advocates so we can solve problems that concern us all.

To that end, what do you think is the goal of gun violence prevention advocates?

As an engineer, I am TROUBLED by the use of slippery language by such individuals.

WTF, is rapid fire?

Can they not specify the practical mechanical rate of fire for firearms they find troublesome?

What specifically makes an AR15 More deadly if we cannot communicate on basic scientific terms.

If it's the rounds then present graphs of differing bullets and the displacement they produce.

Penetration? Easy enough for a lab experiment. I could conduct it if they wanted.

Here we see the terms being used in Australia:

A new version of a controversial rapid-fire shotgun is being imported into Australia, bypassing a year-long ban imposed in the wake of the fatal Sydney siege.

The Adler lever action shotgun was previously subject to a year-long importation ban across the country, as governments re-examine gun laws.

The ban applied to guns that could fire more than five rounds without reloading.

The new Adler model shoots five rounds, down from the earlier model's eight.

Despite meeting importation requirements, Greens senator Nick McKim told the ABC that the guns still pose a huge threat if in the wrong hands.

The Tasmanian described the weapon as "clearly not far off a pump-action shotgun".

"This is a dangerous, rapid-fire weapon, regardless of whether the magazine holds five or seven rounds," he said.

Link:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-0 ... an/6831360

So you can see why I am confused. The term can be applied to ANYTHING. Heck, I hear that AR15'S are not needed but a pump shotgun is best for defense. But now as we see in Australia, even those are considered too dangerous.

I kind of suspect a moving of the goalposts if you will without an absolute, infallible, and infinitely specification of terms.

So what do you think is the end goal?

P.S. I ask this after reading the NYT Opinion page.

The goal is civilian disarmament. It's easier than addressing the real problems.

As you can see, gun prohibitionists believe guns sold in the 19th century (lever action shotguns) are too dangerous for civilians.

senorgrand wrote:As you can see, gun prohibitionists believe guns sold in the 19th century (lever action shotguns) are too dangerous for civilians.

Then they should state that X/rate of fire, that produces Y amount of measured displacement, and with Z rounds is what we m deem is too dangerous and we will never pursue anything below these values.

I just finished a report on a Quay Crane.

If I used the words, the motor ran HOT on a LARGE amount of days resulting in damages to SOME circuits, I would be fired and rightfully so.

It's not that difficult to create exact mechanical specifically of what is a dangerous firearm and what is not.

Yeah -- you're being too logical. When 50 cal rifles were banned, it wasn't because of the Ft/Lbs they generated, it was because 50 calibers are dangerous.

I live in California and can have a 10 shot pistol that fires 45 +p acp, but I can't have a pistol that holds 12 rounds of 22lr.

Don't look for the sense in it.

LGBTGunner wrote:So you can see why I am confused. The term can be applied to ANYTHING.

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

- Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center

The confusion you're experiencing is not a bug, it's a feature. It's the same reason that the terms "mass shooting" and "school shooting" are being redefined by the media. They're aggressively spreading misinformation to influence public policy and law because they're not getting what they want with facts.

simply stated, they want to prohibit all guns.
but they know that's too big a chunk to take all at once, so they'll cut it up in smaller pieces, like a hunting party bringing home a downed mammoth.
first they want semiautos with removable box magazines.
next they'll want any magazine- or cylinder-fed repeaters, including revolvers.
eventually they will go for single-shot weapons using metallic cartridges.
then breechloading paper-cartridge or loose powder single-shot rifles and handguns.
finally, any device capable of launching a projectile, including airguns, bows, slingshots, atl-atls and blowguns.
farfetched, you say?
the town i'm moving to prohibits discharging any of the above in city limits.
i'm considering building a small trebuchet to toss tennis balls for my dogs to chase, but i'll investigate the penalties first.

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:

LGBTGunner wrote:So you can see why I am confused. The term can be applied to ANYTHING.

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

- Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center

The confusion you're experiencing is not a bug, it's a feature. It's the same reason that the terms "mass shooting" and "school shooting" are being redefined by the media. They're aggressively spreading misinformation to influence public policy and law because they're not getting what they want with facts.

I think I remember that guy. He wrote an article of Huffington Post about carry of a concealed gun. He presented some data that X individuals had murdered with CCW but did not present how many had CCW to begin with.

I remember as I had gotten a report in on a crane that took 5 mins to reach a point in the yard. I believe the comparison I thought of was if no one told me the between what points the five minutes elapsed in.

LGBTGunner wrote: I think I remember that guy. He wrote an article of Huffington Post about carry of a concealed gun. He presented some data that X individuals had murdered with CCW but did not present how many had CCW to begin with.

Statistically speaking, CCW holders are less prone to violent and non-violent crime than pretty much any demographic you can come up with.

5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

source: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-my ... led-carry/

But nevermind the general populace, statistics suggest that CCW holders are less likely to commit crimes than the police!
source: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/compar ... t-holders/

Anyway. Grabbers' gonna grab...

LGBTGunner wrote:So what do you think is the end goal?

As Wrboz stated, civilian disarmament is the end goal, and we should not be painted as part of the problem for pointing that out. It's unfortunate, but gun owners are not in a position to govern the intent of gun prohibitionists.

The federal gun restrictions we have are more than enough, and those of most states are already too restrictive. Rather than a regime of trying to ban our way to utopia, I support root cause mitigation in addressing violence. This has been discussed elsewhere to a nauseating extent.

With regard to living in a country with perhaps 300 million guns, I advocate repealing the NFA of 1934 and onerous gun laws and instituting unprecedented incentivization of safety and skills training--a carrot approach. Classes would need to be very affordable and numerous, with substantial, envy-inducing perks going to those who train harder.

For example: take classes A, B, and C and you get a voucher for a decent safe (if you don't have one) and more ammo to encourage more training. D, E, and F and you get a voucher for a vintage Winchester 94, M1911, 5000 rounds of ammo, or some CMP hardware. G, H, I, and J get you a certificate signed by the president and a voucher for a vintage P08, real AK-47, M4, M16, FN FAL, H&K G3, TAR-21, M14 or reproduction FG-42, plus more ammo and a voucher for a competition or concealment holster of your choice. Perhaps ranges could adopt some kind of nationally recognized punch card system for similarly rewarding those who shoot often. Suppressors could be encouraged. Crew-served MG competitions could be held. Dangle M60s, M249s, and reproduction BARs for very high achievers--along with more ammo. The point would be to create a culture in which being a well-trained civilian is held in high-regard and being an unskilled slacker is frowned upon (but not legislated against). Obviously others could come up with better incentives than those in my examples.

LGBTGunner wrote:

senorgrand wrote:As you can see, gun prohibitionists believe guns sold in the 19th century (lever action shotguns) are too dangerous for civilians.

Then they should state that X/rate of fire, that produces Y amount of measured displacement, and with Z rounds is what we m deem is too dangerous and we will never pursue anything below these values.

I just finished a report on a Quay Crane.

If I used the words, the motor ran HOT on a LARGE amount of days resulting in damages to SOME circuits, I would be fired and rightfully so.

It's not that difficult to create exact mechanical specifically of what is a dangerous firearm and what is not.

This may be a good approach. Using different words. At least attempt to control the tone.

LGBTGunner wrote:Then they should state that X/rate of fire, that produces Y amount of measured displacement, and with Z rounds is what we m deem is too dangerous and we will never pursue anything below these values.

I actually saw someone try to do this. Trouble is, when people who know nothing about guns decide on this kind of thing, it quickly becomes ridiculous. His proposed limit was 2 rounds per second—anything faster was "spraying lead". So he'd ban every semi-automatic, revolver, and double-barrel, and possibly some pumps and lever actions as well.

Of course, when it's manually operated, some people can't get to that speed and some people can. Is the gun banned or not banned based on how fast the shooter can work the action?

LGBTGunner wrote:I think I remember that guy. He wrote an article of Huffington Post about carry of a concealed gun. He presented some data that X individuals had murdered with CCW but did not present how many had CCW to begin with.

I won't soft-pedal it, Sugarmann's a lying sack of shit. His organization presents a list of "Concealed Carry Killers" that has been found to contain people who never had a CCW ever, were counted multiple times on the list, or both. He should be anathema to anyone who calls themselves "liberal". The gun control industry he's a part of is like someone threw the anti-vaccine, anti-choice, pro-racist, and authoritarian loons all in a blender.

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:

LGBTGunner wrote:I think I remember that guy. He wrote an article of Huffington Post about carry of a concealed gun. He presented some data that X individuals had murdered with CCW but did not present how many had CCW to begin with.

I won't soft-pedal it, Sugarmann's a lying sack of shit. His organization presents a list of "Concealed Carry Killers" that has been found to contain people who never had a CCW ever, were counted multiple times on the list, or both. He should be anathema to anyone who calls themselves "liberal". The gun control industry he's a part of is like someone threw the anti-vaccine, anti-choice, pro-racist, and authoritarian loons all in a blender.

The funny thing is that I ran the numbers, and even if you accept every single one of his inflated statistics as being true and accurate, concealed carriers are still four times less likely to murder you than the average person. He can't even lie well!

senorgrand wrote:Yeah -- you're being too logical. When 50 cal rifles were banned, it wasn't because of the Ft/Lbs they generated, it was because 50 calibers are dangerous.

I live in California and can have a 10 shot pistol that fires 45 +p acp, but I can't have a pistol that holds 12 rounds of 22lr.

Don't look for the sense in it.

Are you certain of your facts? I'm fairly certain that .22 rimfire firearms are given exceptions from both the capacity and design laws. Like a 22 designed with the dreaded handle grips are allowed. I pretty sure....

lurker wrote:simply stated, they want to prohibit all guns.
but they know that's too big a chunk to take all at once, so they'll cut it up in smaller pieces, like a hunting party bringing home a downed mammoth.

love the analogy ..

lurker wrote:simply stated, they want to prohibit all guns.
but they know that's too big a chunk to take all at once, so they'll cut it up in smaller pieces, like a hunting party bringing home a downed mammoth.
first they want semiautos with removable box magazines.
next they'll want any magazine- or cylinder-fed repeaters, including revolvers.
eventually they will go for single-shot weapons using metallic cartridges.
then breechloading paper-cartridge or loose powder single-shot rifles and handguns.
finally, any device capable of launching a projectile, including airguns, bows, slingshots, atl-atls and blowguns.
farfetched, you say?
the town i'm moving to prohibits discharging any of the above in city limits.
i'm considering building a small trebuchet to toss tennis balls for my dogs to chase, but i'll investigate the penalties first.

Most cities generally prohibit the discharge of firearms within city limits. It only makes sense. Most cities also have a procedure for the Police Chief to provide exceptions. You have two issues. First in higher density population areas you don't want a cookoo whizzing bullets everywhere. Second is the noise which is not insignificant with firearms. If you can address both those issues then you should talk to your police chief.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

senorgrand wrote:Yeah -- you're being too logical. When 50 cal rifles were banned, it wasn't because of the Ft/Lbs they generated, it was because 50 calibers are dangerous.

I live in California and can have a 10 shot pistol that fires 45 +p acp, but I can't have a pistol that holds 12 rounds of 22lr.

Don't look for the sense in it.

Are you certain of your facts? I'm fairly certain that .22 rimfire firearms are given exceptions from both the capacity and design laws. Like a 22 designed with the dreaded handle grips are allowed. I pretty sure....

All detachable 10 round + mags are restricted in CA. Tubular .22 mags have an exception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BKinzey wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

senorgrand wrote:Yeah -- you're being too logical. When 50 cal rifles were banned, it wasn't because of the Ft/Lbs they generated, it was because 50 calibers are dangerous.

I live in California and can have a 10 shot pistol that fires 45 +p acp, but I can't have a pistol that holds 12 rounds of 22lr.

Don't look for the sense in it.

Are you certain of your facts? I'm fairly certain that .22 rimfire firearms are given exceptions from both the capacity and design laws. Like a 22 designed with the dreaded handle grips are allowed. I pretty sure....

All detachable 10 round + mags are restricted in CA. Tubular .22 mags have an exception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here.

BKinzey wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

senorgrand wrote:Yeah -- you're being too logical. When 50 cal rifles were banned, it wasn't because of the Ft/Lbs they generated, it was because 50 calibers are dangerous.

I live in California and can have a 10 shot pistol that fires 45 +p acp, but I can't have a pistol that holds 12 rounds of 22lr.

Don't look for the sense in it.

Are you certain of your facts? I'm fairly certain that .22 rimfire firearms are given exceptions from both the capacity and design laws. Like a 22 designed with the dreaded handle grips are allowed. I pretty sure....

All detachable 10 round + mags are restricted in CA. Tubular .22 mags have an exception.

Cause they haven't figured out how to block them to take only 10 rounds.

TrueTexan wrote:

BKinzey wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

senorgrand wrote:Yeah -- you're being too logical. When 50 cal rifles were banned, it wasn't because of the Ft/Lbs they generated, it was because 50 calibers are dangerous.

I live in California and can have a 10 shot pistol that fires 45 +p acp, but I can't have a pistol that holds 12 rounds of 22lr.

Don't look for the sense in it.

Are you certain of your facts? I'm fairly certain that .22 rimfire firearms are given exceptions from both the capacity and design laws. Like a 22 designed with the dreaded handle grips are allowed. I pretty sure....

All detachable 10 round + mags are restricted in CA. Tubular .22 mags have an exception.

Cause they haven't figured out how to block them to take only 10 rounds.

Aww Hell, that's easy. You do it the same way you restrict pump and semiauto shotgun tubes, by restricting length. Sheesh...

I think the ultimate goal was clearly expressed by Darth Feinstein herself in 1995:

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the senate of the United States for an outright ban - picking up every one of them, Mr and Mrs America turn 'em all in - I would have done it. I could not do that, the votes weren't here."

No amount of disarmament will ever be good enough for authoritarians. In England a few years ago there was a discussion about how "nobody needs a knife longer than 3 inches." Gun prohibitionists simply try to veil their end goal in an incremental approach, justifying inch by precious inch with claims of "reasonable" "common sense" restrictions.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

senorgrand wrote:Yeah -- you're being too logical. When 50 cal rifles were banned, it wasn't because of the Ft/Lbs they generated, it was because 50 calibers are dangerous.

I live in California and can have a 10 shot pistol that fires 45 +p acp, but I can't have a pistol that holds 12 rounds of 22lr.

Don't look for the sense in it.

Are you certain of your facts? I'm fairly certain that .22 rimfire firearms are given exceptions from both the capacity and design laws. Like a 22 designed with the dreaded handle grips are allowed. I pretty sure....

In California rimfire rifles are exempt from some of the "evil features" of assault weapons, so I have a GSG-5 with a pistol grip, fore grip, adjustable stock and barrel shroud. However ALL detachable magazines are subject to the 10 round maximum, and even .22lr is not exempt from that.

Tube fed .22lr rifles are exempt because there's no detachable magazine.

When I went to a Bass Pro shops in Alberta Canada, I found it both amusing and sad that Canucks can own 25 round magazines for the Ruger 10/22, but as a Californian I cannot!

The votes never will be there at the Federal level as long as one Senator can kill a bill.

Now, what can the LGC do about this situation?

I say we differentiate "gun control," i.e. about gun laws, from "gun safety", i.e. preventing unintentional possession.

I'm a gun safety advocate. I don't want an eight year old boy seeing my steel revolver magnetically stuck to the ceiling "where only I can reach it" and getting a chair and a broom and shooting my dog.

Now, if you've ever tried to shoot a dog with a broom, you can see why we need clarification and unity on this issue.

Srsly, there's "misinformation"--misuse of factual information, and there's "disinformation"--intentional false information. The media allows itself to conflate "gun control" and "gun safety", which could be seen as disinformation for the purpose of making laws, and it suggests we're fucked if we don't advocate properly.

CDFingers