America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
Tell me again which party is mine?unsung said:
No your party just uses it when they are standing on graves raising funds for their radical agenda.HughFreakingDillon said:
I'd bet those same phrases are on signs advertising products at gun conventions.unsung said:Dont forget "high powered" and "designed to kill".
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Carry on belittling those that see a problem for what it is... and keep washing that blood from your hands perpetuating it.Post edited by Thirty Bills Unpaid on"My brain's a good brain!"0
-
The problem is that many politicians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and should not be trying to create laws based on their ignorance. I will continue mocking them, thanks.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Carry on belittling those that see a problem for what it is... and keep washing that blood from your hands perpetuating it.
0 -
The problem is also that many people don't know what the fuck they are talking about as well and stymieing progress with their ignorance.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that many politicians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and should not be trying to create laws based on their ignorance. I will continue mocking them, thanks.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Carry on belittling those that see a problem for what it is... and keep washing that blood from your hands perpetuating it.
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Amen, brotha!Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
The problem is also that many people don't know what the fuck they are talking about as well and stymieing progress with their ignorance.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that many politicians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and should not be trying to create laws based on their ignorance. I will continue mocking them, thanks.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Carry on belittling those that see a problem for what it is... and keep washing that blood from your hands perpetuating it.
0 -
lolPJPOWER said:
Amen, brotha!Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
The problem is also that many people don't know what the fuck they are talking about as well and stymieing progress with their ignorance.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that many politicians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and should not be trying to create laws based on their ignorance. I will continue mocking them, thanks.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Carry on belittling those that see a problem for what it is... and keep washing that blood from your hands perpetuating it.
I think I'd like you."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
I'm a pretty cool dude when I'm not anonymously venting on online forums, lolThirty Bills Unpaid said:
lolPJPOWER said:
Amen, brotha!Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
The problem is also that many people don't know what the fuck they are talking about as well and stymieing progress with their ignorance.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that many politicians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and should not be trying to create laws based on their ignorance. I will continue mocking them, thanks.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Carry on belittling those that see a problem for what it is... and keep washing that blood from your hands perpetuating it.
I think I'd like you.0 -
Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners:
We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun.
We are fine with reasonable restrictions.
We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy0 -
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.mace1229 said:Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners:
We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun.
We are fine with reasonable restrictions.
We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
the rest of what you say I can get down with.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that.
Otherwise great post.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Poll time! Lol. Who here believes that US Citizens should not be allowed to privately own firearms? Raise your hands now. Oh wait, people don't give a shit and don't answer surveys anymore! I think we witnessed that in the previous election...HughFreakingDillon said:
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.mace1229 said:Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners:
We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun.
We are fine with reasonable restrictions.
We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
the rest of what you say I can get down with.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I'd say that the 99% is too high in general, at least on some of those conditions.HughFreakingDillon said:
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.mace1229 said:Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners:
We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun.
We are fine with reasonable restrictions.
We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
the rest of what you say I can get down with.0 -
The 1% of any group is always the loudest. If I went by what people post on AMT as a baseline for anything we'd be screwed.HughFreakingDillon said:
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.mace1229 said:Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners:
We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun.
We are fine with reasonable restrictions.
We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
the rest of what you say I can get down with.
Just like with anything else, people who aren't afraid of losing their guns don't go posting about it. You only hear from that 1%.
Maybe it's an exaggeration, but easily a large majority if not 99%. Ignoring the sample on AMT, but talking to real people it's easily over 90% would agree with everything I said.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
I certainly hope so. some of the "don't take my fucking guns" people here sound like moronic paranoids.mace1229 said:
The 1% of any group is always the loudest. If I went by what people post on AMT as a baseline for anything we'd be screwed.HughFreakingDillon said:
that 99% is nowhere near indicitive of the percentage of folks on this website that believe the democrats are vying for your guns. unless this fanclub is a massively gross exaggeration of that perception, I'd say that figure is quite high.mace1229 said:Every time gun control comes up, I always see the same misconceptions. From my experience as a gun owner and knowing a lot of other gun owners, I would say the following is true for 99% of gun owners:
We want gun control. No gun owners want just anyone to go and buy a gun.
We are fine with reasonable restrictions.
We don't think Obama (or the next democratic president) is going to come in our house and take our guns.
Background checks are good. No one wants a violent criminal owning a gun. But sometimes the process is just stupid. In California a safety test is required every 2 years. Good in theory, but the test is so stupid a well-trained monkey can pass it. With a state fee and a retailer fee to administer it, it is often seen as just a deterrent to purchasing a gun more than implementing safety rules. When purchasing multiple guns in a single order, often multiple background checks are required on the same person. What is the point in that? Again, the fee associated with that is often seen as just another deterrent.
Many of the gun restrictions are pointless. Many (not all) of the restrictions would not prevent a single crime, but are truly based on some politician's uneducated guess on how to make guns safer (or, more likely, harder even for a law-abiding citizen to obtain). Some features of a gun are banned based on their looks, and not their functionality. Just stupid. Limiting the purchases to 1 new gun per month. Maybe sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I can buy 1 gun a month all year, but if I don't buy any guns all year and there's a good black friday special, I cannot buy 2 of them to give to my 2 sons. Or what's even more dumb, I can buy 50 used guns, but only 1 new one, as if the used ones are less deadly? They just don't make sense, or were written with little thought. Most often they are though to be designed to hurt gun manufacture's, so they stop making and selling guns without changing the 2nd amendment. Other gun restrictions are a result of gun manufactures refusal to pay for the right to sell a gun in CA, since no other state requires it. Again, usually seen as a deterrent or money-making opportunity than actually dealing with the gun problem.
No one will come and take our guns. But the most realistic concern related to this, that has already started to take form, are restrictions on ammo that make it so expensive no one will be able to afford it. Restrictions and regulations that prohibit the sale of online ammo and limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased has already been challenged in California. And you may think "who needs 500 rounds?" Just like everything else, ammo is a lot cheaper online and in bulk. A box of 50 rounds may cost $25, while a box of 500 rounds online may be only $100. And if you take 3 or 4 friends shooting for an afternoon, you can go through 500 rounds in 2 hours of target shooting. A push to serialize ammo will increase the cost. I believe California just passed a law restricting re-loading ammo. My dad owns several unique collector guns that if you happen to find ammo it is $2-$3 a round (and it is very difficult to find even at that price). Many people rely on reloading, especially for ammo that is just too ridiculous to buy
the rest of what you say I can get down with.
Just like with anything else, people who aren't afraid of losing their guns don't go posting about it. You only hear from that 1%.
Maybe it's an exaggeration, but easily a large majority if not 99%. Ignoring the sample on AMT, but talking to real people it's easily over 90% would agree with everything I said.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings.mcgruff10 said:Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that.
Otherwise great post.
The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.0 -
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?mace1229 said:
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings.mcgruff10 said:Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that.
Otherwise great post.
The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/09/how-to-reload-ammunition/#axzz4RbDUouiQHughFreakingDillon said:
I admittedly know nothing about guns. I didn't understand what you meant by "no reloading". What does that mean?mace1229 said:
I don't live there anymore, but all of my family still does. My brother who follows gun laws closely told me about it. I think it takes effect sometime next year, and would include factory reloads. Which is really dumb because factory reloads is just recycling used casings.mcgruff10 said:Mace, you can't reload in California?! Wtf? Where is the rationale behind that.
Otherwise great post.
The rational behind the law is to restrict and limit ammo purchases. There would be no way to limit it if you could just reload your own. Which is why the majority of gun owners don't really think Obama is going to take their guns away, but legislature is just going to make it too difficult/expensive to bother instead. This is a big step in that direction for California, making ammo too expensive to make shooting a hobby.
Most avid competition shooters do this, not only because of the cost efficiency, but you can create very accurate loads. There is virtually no way of stopping people from doing this.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Funny, I thought that only the right wing "gun nuts" feared having to protect themselves from a domestic threat with a firearm...? You are going to need more than a rubber band gun if you are prepping for a civil war, just FYI.vaggar99 said:Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help