Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

Mental health is a completely separate issue that's being used as a distraction. It's certainly worthy of discussion but it does not belong as part of the gun debate.

I am not for banning weapons.

I would, however, set the bar for ownership so high that only committed hobbyists would own the most extreme weapons.

The more potentially impactful the weapon, the higher the bar. I have no problem with someone casually walking into a store and buying a bolt-action .22 target rifle or a break action sporting shotgun with a fast background check. The licensing, training and security check requirements would then grow progressively stringent until you get to fast shooting, large ammo capacity, medium-large caliber weapons. At which point there should be annual training and recertification requirements, in-home verification of safe storage compliance, thorough background checks and anything else.

Any committed hobbyist is already training regularly with their firearms and storing them safely. The certification requirements are no more than a verification of the practices they already follow. What's needed is to weed out the casual purchasers, the revenge-fantasy dreamers and the paramilitary idiots.

Good points.

I'm not a gun nutadvocate, but I have friends who are. I have shot a fairly wide range of guns with them, including an AR-15. For myself, I only ever owned BB guns and a .22 pellet air rifle, for target shooting and varmint control on my family farm. I did go pheasant hunting with borrowed 20 and 12 gauge shotguns a couple times.

My friend that owns the AR-15 is a responsible gun owner. Do I think he needs it? Hell no. But he likes it. Do I need a PC with an i7 processor and nVidia 1060 GPU? Hell no. But I like it.

So I guess it becomes a question of to what extent the things that we like can be used for negative purposes. My nVidia 1060 is unlikely to be used to facilitate a crime (unless games or bitcoin mining get criminalized). However, even though AR-15s might be one of the primary firearms of choice for murderous wackos, the percentage of people that own AR-15's who are murderous wackos is also extremely low.

If banning AR-15s would significantly reduce the rate of mass shootings and/or the average number of deaths per incident, it could be well worth doing even though it would annoy many responsible owners like my friend. ...But, I just don't think that would be the case. Not by itself.

I think we're at a point where we NEED to do something. If the something that we decide to do is to ban AR-15s, well, so be it I guess. But I don't think we'd be pleased with the long-term results of that. It'd be cutting the flower off of the top of the weed. We need to dig deeper, and I think that registration and licensing are sane ways to attempt to do that.

Your video, Test firing a custom 4 gauge shotgun, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

For people unfamiliar with "gauge": 4(12) gauge basically means that your barrel diameter is equal to the diameter of a lead ball weighing 1/4(1/12) pound.

In case of this 4 gauge shotgun, we're talking about a barrel diameter of almost 27mm.

I used to use my 400watt Klipsch subwoofer for my game seat. You could really feel the grenade launcher and shotgun.

From the thumb, it looked like a a fire-spitting flying spider!

Does anyone know what the return policies are on shotguns?

lol. I dunno. Even the body armor might not do much good if the police pull out shotguns with slugs. At that distance.

Suicidal kinda of thinking.

To me, that seems like a very rational stance on concealed carry.

A clear, logical list of rules that must be followed, which are (it sounds) fairly and universally applied (at least in Texas).

I'm enough of a "gun nut" (even though I don't actually own any guns or currently reside in the US) that I wouldn't want to see ALL of those rules applied to ownership of rifles and shotguns that are used for hunting or pest control / other utility on a farm.

Taking a class, test, and range test are good requirements. Not having felony convictions is another goodrequirement. But beyond that, for hunting/farm owners, it seems like many more requirements could just be misapplied to deny ownership to whoever the state deems "undesirable".

I tend to think that the NRA stance that any control or limits whatsoever are unconstitutional is very counterproductive for legitimate owners of hunting / farm firearms, as well as CCW people like yourself.

I'm quite pro gun rights generally, but to me it seems insane that "self defense" is the #1 stated reason for owning a gun in the US now.

Jim Jeffries' bit on self defense covers my concerns in a pretty funny but honest way. In your home, keeping your guns in an accessible place where they could easily be used in a self-defense situation makes them not safe. Much more likely to have accidents, or have a criminal end up with them and using them on you. Securely storing them away from ammo to prevent those issues precludes using them for self defense. Catch-22.

For concealed carry, that's a bit different. With the right kind of setup, I suppose that I must admit that the risks of accidents could be low, the chances of needing to use the weapon low, but some real potential for situations where some people would be better off having a weapon than not.

...There are some *major* caveats to that, though. For example, if I was black, I'd never concealed carry because that seems like a recipe for disaster. Is that fair, or reasonable? Fuck no. But it is reality.

I think personally as a white country-bumpkin dude, if I was going to carry semi-frequently, I'd go with the old redneck standby of a shotgun or hunting rifle on a rack in the back window of my pickup. Lock it to the rack with a combination lock, and keep ammo separately in a glove compartment or something with another combination lock. If I actually needed it, it would be there.


One thing I do agree with @Mordhaus 100% on is that suicides should NOT be considered, or at the very least should be specifically denoted as suicides, when showing numbers for "gun violence" or "gun crimes".

I agree that the restriction on the CDC shouldn't be happening.

As far as the limitation of what type of weapons we can have, I'm fine with the system in place. Civilians can own machine guns if they get the proper papers and tax stamp. If we want to classify semi auto rifles in the same class, sure. We can even go back to the Assault Rifle ban if we need to. I just don't see it stopping mass shootings, but that's my opinion.

As far as AR-15's specifically go, they aren't what I would consider to be the best weapon to kill people. At short range and with the shorter barrels most of the civilian ones have, the bullet isn't close to being as effective as a handgun. A Glock 22 has a 15+1 round capacity in a .40 caliber. Carrying 2 of them, firing one empty and then the other (not at the same time), assuming you are remotely able to aim, would net you far more DRT people than a 30 round .223 rifle. Tuck one under your arm, swap clips, release the slide catch, repeat for the second, and you are ready to go. Heck, even a pump or semi auto shotgun with the limiter tube removed and using buckshot is likely to get you more dead people.

North of the border, anyone wishing to buy a gun or ammunition must have a valid licence under the Firearms Act, and to obtain a firearms licence, all applicants must undergo a screening process, which includes a safety course, criminal history and background checks, provision of personal references, and a mandatory waiting period. The law further prohibits military-grade assault weapons such as AK-47s and sawn-off rifles or shotguns. Handguns are generally classified as restricted weapons, while rifles and shotguns are usually non-restricted.

There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection."

Based on your article and what else I've read, that means that pump, bolt action, and single shot rifles/shotguns are ok. Everything else is pretty much a no go. Sounds like some pretty heavy restrictions, although I did note there is a huge demand for ar-15 style rifles to be allowed in Canada.

But yes, the bulk of our shooting issue is the culture of our country. We are very diverse in culture, as well as familial structure. I would say that our culture and population is unlike any other in the world (except Australia, oddly. from what I've seen, I think they are sort of the USA lite version). Realistically, barring massive limitations to gun ownership, we are not going to stop mass shootings in the USA. I honestly don't think we will stop it then either, what with the sieve of a border we have, guns will just become the new coke/meth. Not to mention AR-15 style rifles aren't exactly hard to build. Other than the barrel and the bolt, most of the other pieces can be hand milled out of semi finished pieces that are completely legal for anyone to have.

Maybe we could do like Switzerland, their gun control seems to work.