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
Example?
Here's a list of banned features in California. Taken from different descriptions of what could make a gun banned in California.
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock.
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(B) A second handgrip (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
As cool as it looks in Hollywood, no one who actually knows anything about a gun would use a pistol grip and shoot from the hip.
Threaded barrels that can accept a grenade launcher sound bad, but many vintage military rifles have these and people just want to collece them. Besidse, where do you even get the grenade launcher and grenades?
There seems to be a big hatred for pistol grips, even though they have no real practical function. I think it was Fienstien who even said some guns "look mean."
The one that gets me is the shroud to prevent the barrel from burning you. Banning a safety feature? Good one California.
So why do they exist if they have no real practical function? An even better question is why do you care if it is banned if it has no real practical function?
The answer is simple. They DO have a practical function, and it makes them more dangerous in a mass murder scenario. You know it, gun manufacturers know it, gun enthusiasts know it, everybody knows it?
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
Example?
Barrel shrouds
A barrel shroud is a covering attached to the barrel of a firearm, that partially or completely encircles the barrel which prevents operators from injuring themselves on a hot barrel.
So basically it's purpose is to let the shooter to shoots as many rounds as possible? That sounds like a ban on function, not form.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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
Example?
Barrel shrouds
A barrel shroud is a covering attached to the barrel of a firearm, that partially or completely encircles the barrel which prevents operators from injuring themselves on a hot barrel.
So basically it's purpose is to let the shooter to shoots as many rounds as possible? That sounds like a ban on function, not form.
I don't mean any disrespect, but a lot of comments on this thread I've seen over the months are the same thing gun owners complain about. They seem to be coming from someone who has no real knowledge of guns. Its like when teachers complain about how someone in the state office tells them the best way to be teachers, even though they've never been in a classroom.
What you said really isn't true, but would easily seem the case to someone who has no experience with guns, and that's how dumb laws are created. I gave the example of a floating barrel, which serves the same purpose (to cool the barrel) as a shroud, it just is not completely attached allowing air to flow around it. This is also banned. You don't have to shoot a lot of rounds for the barrel to get very hot. Some very accurate competition rifles have floating barrels and are bolt action rifles. one shot at a time. but darn that floating barrel.
Fully automatic guns, hi capacity magazines, detachable magazines are outlawed in California anyway. So this ban serves no real function if you're worried about people shooting too fast.
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
Example?
Here's a list of banned features in California. Taken from different descriptions of what could make a gun banned in California.
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock.
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(B) A second handgrip (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
As cool as it looks in Hollywood, no one who actually knows anything about a gun would use a pistol grip and shoot from the hip.
Threaded barrels that can accept a grenade launcher sound bad, but many vintage military rifles have these and people just want to collece them. Besidse, where do you even get the grenade launcher and grenades?
There seems to be a big hatred for pistol grips, even though they have no real practical function. I think it was Fienstien who even said some guns "look mean."
The one that gets me is the shroud to prevent the barrel from burning you. Banning a safety feature? Good one California.
So why do they exist if they have no real practical function? An even better question is why do you care if it is banned if it has no real practical function?
The answer is simple. They DO have a practical function, and it makes them more dangerous in a mass murder scenario. You know it, gun manufacturers know it, gun enthusiasts know it, everybody knows it?
I would disagree. And I would repeat part of my previous post. I don't mean any disrespect, but in my experience it seems like most anti-gun people have no real experience with guns, and therefore don't really know what and why things are banned and what their actual uses are.
I personally don't care about pistol grips so if you're asking why I personal care, I really don't. I prefer classic old-school style guns. Old revolvers, lever action western style rifles and the such, I have no interest in military looking guns. But many people do, and many go hunting with them. But you probably asking hypothetically and I can answer as to why many do care. Many just like to collect guns, and have an interest in something vintage military, or even current military looking that has been modified to fit civilian standards. Even the military doesn't use fully automatic in most scenarios, but uses small bursts. After 2 or 3 shots you don't know where you're shooting anyone. Anyone trained with a rifle is not going to use a pistol group and shoot off rounds from the hip like you see in movies, it just doesn't happen, its not practical, its not efficient, you cant aim. and honestly if some psycho were to go unload in a crowded theater I'd prefer he did that anyway because he'd lose control and probably kill less people.
My point is if fully automatic weapons are banned, hi capacity magazines, even detachable magazines are banned, could you tell me what safety purpose there is for banning a pistol grip too?
The real answer many illegal guns have pistol grips, and that has morphed into part of the definition and characteristic of an assault rifle. But the problem is many non-assault rifles have pistol grips.
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
Example?
Barrel shrouds
A barrel shroud is a covering attached to the barrel of a firearm, that partially or completely encircles the barrel which prevents operators from injuring themselves on a hot barrel.
So basically it's purpose is to let the shooter to shoots as many rounds as possible? That sounds like a ban on function, not form.
I don't mean any disrespect, but a lot of comments on this thread I've seen over the months are the same thing gun owners complain about. They seem to be coming from someone who has no real knowledge of guns. Its like when teachers complain about how someone in the state office tells them the best way to be teachers, even though they've never been in a classroom.
What you said really isn't true, but would easily seem the case to someone who has no experience with guns, and that's how dumb laws are created. I gave the example of a floating barrel, which serves the same purpose (to cool the barrel) as a shroud, it just is not completely attached allowing air to flow around it. This is also banned. You don't have to shoot a lot of rounds for the barrel to get very hot. Some very accurate competition rifles have floating barrels and are bolt action rifles. one shot at a time. but darn that floating barrel.
Fully automatic guns, hi capacity magazines, detachable magazines are outlawed in California anyway. So this ban serves no real function if you're worried about people shooting too fast.
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
Example?
Barrel shrouds
A barrel shroud is a covering attached to the barrel of a firearm, that partially or completely encircles the barrel which prevents operators from injuring themselves on a hot barrel.
So basically it's purpose is to let the shooter to shoots as many rounds as possible? That sounds like a ban on function, not form.
I don't mean any disrespect, but a lot of comments on this thread I've seen over the months are the same thing gun owners complain about. They seem to be coming from someone who has no real knowledge of guns. Its like when teachers complain about how someone in the state office tells them the best way to be teachers, even though they've never been in a classroom.
What you said really isn't true, but would easily seem the case to someone who has no experience with guns, and that's how dumb laws are created. I gave the example of a floating barrel, which serves the same purpose (to cool the barrel) as a shroud, it just is not completely attached allowing air to flow around it. This is also banned. You don't have to shoot a lot of rounds for the barrel to get very hot. Some very accurate competition rifles have floating barrels and are bolt action rifles. one shot at a time. but darn that floating barrel.
Fully automatic guns, hi capacity magazines, detachable magazines are outlawed in California anyway. So this ban serves no real function if you're worried about people shooting too fast.
I didn't say too fast, I said too many
My bad, I assumed you meant too many in a shorter amount of time. My point is the same, this is more of a safety feature than preventing anything other regulations already wouldn't stop. Some rifles can get too hot to touch the barrel after just few couple rounds through them. Set it down for a minute to check the target and forget it's hot when you grab it by the barrel and you can burn your hand. Just doesn't make sense to me with all the other regulations to ban a floating barrel or shroud.
Ronald Gasser, the man authorities say shot and killed former NFL player Joe McKnight, was released from custody overnight without being charged, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office authorities said Friday morning (Dec. 2).
Gasser, 54, has not been formally charged, said JPSO spokesman Col. John Fortunato. Investigators are consulting with the district attorney's office on the decision whether to formally charge Gasser, Fortunato said.
As the investigation into McKnight's death continues, Fortunato asked anyone with information about the shooting to contact department homicide detectives at 504-364-5393.
McKnight, 28, was shot about 3 p.m. Thursday (Dec. 1) at the intersection of Behrman Highway and Holmes Boulevard in Terrytown. A witness, who declined to give her name, said she saw a man at the intersection yelling at McKnight, who was trying to apologize. The man shot McKnight more than once, the witness said. She said he shot McKnight, stood over him and said, "I told you don't you f--- with me." Then the man fired again, she said.
Authorities named the shooter as Ronald Gasser, 54, and said he stayed at the scene and turned his gun in to officers. Gasser was in custody and was being questioned, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said. The sheriff said McKnight did not have a gun, and deputies did not find a gun outside McKnight's vehicle.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Sounds like you need to dust off the tin foil hat too.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
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
Example?
Here's a list of banned features in California. Taken from different descriptions of what could make a gun banned in California.
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock.
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(B) A second handgrip (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
As cool as it looks in Hollywood, no one who actually knows anything about a gun would use a pistol grip and shoot from the hip.
Threaded barrels that can accept a grenade launcher sound bad, but many vintage military rifles have these and people just want to collece them. Besidse, where do you even get the grenade launcher and grenades?
There seems to be a big hatred for pistol grips, even though they have no real practical function. I think it was Fienstien who even said some guns "look mean."
The one that gets me is the shroud to prevent the barrel from burning you. Banning a safety feature? Good one California.
So why do they exist if they have no real practical function? An even better question is why do you care if it is banned if it has no real practical function?
The answer is simple. They DO have a practical function, and it makes them more dangerous in a mass murder scenario. You know it, gun manufacturers know it, gun enthusiasts know it, everybody knows it?
I would disagree. And I would repeat part of my previous post. I don't mean any disrespect, but in my experience it seems like most anti-gun people have no real experience with guns, and therefore don't really know what and why things are banned and what their actual uses are.
I personally don't care about pistol grips so if you're asking why I personal care, I really don't. I prefer classic old-school style guns. Old revolvers, lever action western style rifles and the such, I have no interest in military looking guns. But many people do, and many go hunting with them. But you probably asking hypothetically and I can answer as to why many do care. Many just like to collect guns, and have an interest in something vintage military, or even current military looking that has been modified to fit civilian standards. Even the military doesn't use fully automatic in most scenarios, but uses small bursts. After 2 or 3 shots you don't know where you're shooting anyone. Anyone trained with a rifle is not going to use a pistol group and shoot off rounds from the hip like you see in movies, it just doesn't happen, its not practical, its not efficient, you cant aim. and honestly if some psycho were to go unload in a crowded theater I'd prefer he did that anyway because he'd lose control and probably kill less people.
My point is if fully automatic weapons are banned, hi capacity magazines, even detachable magazines are banned, could you tell me what safety purpose there is for banning a pistol grip too?
The real answer many illegal guns have pistol grips, and that has morphed into part of the definition and characteristic of an assault rifle. But the problem is many non-assault rifles have pistol grips.
Why would the military ever have used it if it has no real function?
There are entire blogs and magazine serials dedicated to the advantanges and disadvantages of pistol and forward grips on automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
This tired notion that "Anyone trained with a rifle is not going to use a pistol group and shoot off rounds from the hip like you see in movies, it just doesn't happen, its not practical, its not efficient, you cant aim. and honestly if some psycho were to go unload in a crowded theater I'd prefer he did that anyway because he'd lose control and probably kill less people." is disputed and disproved by the very enthusiast literature and culture which works so hard to oppose ANY firearm regulations.
It is a dishonest, bullshit line of rhetoric that is tossed off in such an arrogant way that it is truly disgusting.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Sounds like you need to dust off the tin foil hat too.
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Please, how about a post with some substance for once? Why would you make a tin foil hat accusation about someone who is simply saying that shit seems to be going sideways in the US, both socially and politically, and you never know what may happen, because crazy shit happens no matter how comfortable people might be? The only certain thing is change... but to me it seems like Americans seem to think that major change is impossible in their lifetime. What I am basing these thoughts on is history. Not conspiracy theories. Not wild assumptions. Just plain old history, which dictates that ALL civilizations face major upheavals sooner or later. It's not impossible that America's next major upheaval is coming down the road (the last one was, of course, the Civil War). Given the extreme divisiveness it's now experiencing among its citizens and among its leaders, with the recent talk and threats about revolution that is documented on video and social media, along with the possible threat of another major terrorist attack (could happen any time), a growing mistrust in government, and with such a crazy fucker who now taking over the White House and manipulating millions and millions with a bunch of messed up propaganda, and who seems to be on a very specific campaign to demonize the media (I'll assume you know how dangerous it is for a national leader to do that), it is not farfetched to view these times as potentially pivotal in American stability. This is not a crazy thought process given all the facts. If you think what I'm saying is tin foil hat worthy, you're in denial about what's going on in America right now.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Sounds like you need to dust off the tin foil hat too.
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Please, how about a post with some substance for once? Why would you make a tin foil hat accusation about someone who is simply saying that shit seems to be going sideways in the US, both socially and politically, and you never know what may happen, because crazy shit happens no matter how comfortable people might be? The only certain thing is change... but to me it seems like Americans seem to think that major change is impossible in their lifetime. What I am basing these thoughts on is history. Not conspiracy theories. Not wild assumptions. Just plain old history, which dictates that ALL civilizations face major upheavals sooner or later. It's not impossible that America's next major upheaval is coming down the road (the last one was, of course, the Civil War). Given the extreme divisiveness it's now experiencing among its citizens and among its leaders, with the recent talk and threats about revolution that is documented on video and social media, along with the possible threat of another major terrorist attack (could happen any time), a growing mistrust in government, and with such a crazy fucker who now taking over the White House and manipulating millions and millions with a bunch of messed up propaganda, and who seems to be on a very specific campaign to demonize the media (I'll assume you know how dangerous it is for a national leader to do that), it is not farfetched to view these times as potentially pivotal in American stability. This is not a crazy thought process given all the facts. If you think what I'm saying is tin foil hat worthy, you're in denial about what's going on in America right now.
Ironic that tin foil hat remarks are exactly what the left would say if someone from the right said they feared a civil war...just saying.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
A Civil War today would look like a bunch of Angry Old 3% Militia Tea Party Sovereign Citizens being quickly quashed by a much younger and more heavily armed military force. It would last until the batteries ran out on their Rascals
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Sounds like you need to dust off the tin foil hat too.
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Please, how about a post with some substance for once? Why would you make a tin foil hat accusation about someone who is simply saying that shit seems to be going sideways in the US, both socially and politically, and you never know what may happen, because crazy shit happens no matter how comfortable people might be? The only certain thing is change... but to me it seems like Americans seem to think that major change is impossible in their lifetime. What I am basing these thoughts on is history. Not conspiracy theories. Not wild assumptions. Just plain old history, which dictates that ALL civilizations face major upheavals sooner or later. It's not impossible that America's next major upheaval is coming down the road (the last one was, of course, the Civil War). Given the extreme divisiveness it's now experiencing among its citizens and among its leaders, with the recent talk and threats about revolution that is documented on video and social media, along with the possible threat of another major terrorist attack (could happen any time), a growing mistrust in government, and with such a crazy fucker who now taking over the White House and manipulating millions and millions with a bunch of messed up propaganda, and who seems to be on a very specific campaign to demonize the media (I'll assume you know how dangerous it is for a national leader to do that), it is not farfetched to view these times as potentially pivotal in American stability. This is not a crazy thought process given all the facts. If you think what I'm saying is tin foil hat worthy, you're in denial about what's going on in America right now.
Ironic that tin foil hat remarks are exactly what the left would say if someone from the right said they feared a civil war...just saying.
The big difference is that, typically, when the right talks about civil war they are talking about creating one!
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Sounds like you need to dust off the tin foil hat too.
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Please, how about a post with some substance for once? Why would you make a tin foil hat accusation about someone who is simply saying that shit seems to be going sideways in the US, both socially and politically, and you never know what may happen, because crazy shit happens no matter how comfortable people might be? The only certain thing is change... but to me it seems like Americans seem to think that major change is impossible in their lifetime. What I am basing these thoughts on is history. Not conspiracy theories. Not wild assumptions. Just plain old history, which dictates that ALL civilizations face major upheavals sooner or later. It's not impossible that America's next major upheaval is coming down the road (the last one was, of course, the Civil War). Given the extreme divisiveness it's now experiencing among its citizens and among its leaders, with the recent talk and threats about revolution that is documented on video and social media, along with the possible threat of another major terrorist attack (could happen any time), a growing mistrust in government, and with such a crazy fucker who now taking over the White House and manipulating millions and millions with a bunch of messed up propaganda, and who seems to be on a very specific campaign to demonize the media (I'll assume you know how dangerous it is for a national leader to do that), it is not farfetched to view these times as potentially pivotal in American stability. This is not a crazy thought process given all the facts. If you think what I'm saying is tin foil hat worthy, you're in denial about what's going on in America right now.
Ironic that tin foil hat remarks are exactly what the left would say if someone from the right said they feared a civil war...just saying.
Why would talking about a future civil war ever be met with that sentiment by anyone, when there is obvious unrest and divisiveness? It's not like it hasn't happened before. Civil wars and revolutions aren't the stuff of tin foil hats. They are a reality in this world. I would think Americans of all people would know that. Your attitude really does suggest a kind of denial that I'm finding interesting. But yeah, rgambs said, it's the right who WAS threatening one if Trump lost....
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
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
Example?
Here's a list of banned features in California. Taken from different descriptions of what could make a gun banned in California.
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock.
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(B) A second handgrip (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
As cool as it looks in Hollywood, no one who actually knows anything about a gun would use a pistol grip and shoot from the hip.
Threaded barrels that can accept a grenade launcher sound bad, but many vintage military rifles have these and people just want to collece them. Besidse, where do you even get the grenade launcher and grenades?
There seems to be a big hatred for pistol grips, even though they have no real practical function. I think it was Fienstien who even said some guns "look mean."
The one that gets me is the shroud to prevent the barrel from burning you. Banning a safety feature? Good one California.
So why do they exist if they have no real practical function? An even better question is why do you care if it is banned if it has no real practical function?
The answer is simple. They DO have a practical function, and it makes them more dangerous in a mass murder scenario. You know it, gun manufacturers know it, gun enthusiasts know it, everybody knows it?
I would disagree. And I would repeat part of my previous post. I don't mean any disrespect, but in my experience it seems like most anti-gun people have no real experience with guns, and therefore don't really know what and why things are banned and what their actual uses are.
I personally don't care about pistol grips so if you're asking why I personal care, I really don't. I prefer classic old-school style guns. Old revolvers, lever action western style rifles and the such, I have no interest in military looking guns. But many people do, and many go hunting with them. But you probably asking hypothetically and I can answer as to why many do care. Many just like to collect guns, and have an interest in something vintage military, or even current military looking that has been modified to fit civilian standards. Even the military doesn't use fully automatic in most scenarios, but uses small bursts. After 2 or 3 shots you don't know where you're shooting anyone. Anyone trained with a rifle is not going to use a pistol group and shoot off rounds from the hip like you see in movies, it just doesn't happen, its not practical, its not efficient, you cant aim. and honestly if some psycho were to go unload in a crowded theater I'd prefer he did that anyway because he'd lose control and probably kill less people.
My point is if fully automatic weapons are banned, hi capacity magazines, even detachable magazines are banned, could you tell me what safety purpose there is for banning a pistol grip too?
The real answer many illegal guns have pistol grips, and that has morphed into part of the definition and characteristic of an assault rifle. But the problem is many non-assault rifles have pistol grips.
Why would the military ever have used it if it has no real function?
There are entire blogs and magazine serials dedicated to the advantanges and disadvantages of pistol and forward grips on automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
This tired notion that "Anyone trained with a rifle is not going to use a pistol group and shoot off rounds from the hip like you see in movies, it just doesn't happen, its not practical, its not efficient, you cant aim. and honestly if some psycho were to go unload in a crowded theater I'd prefer he did that anyway because he'd lose control and probably kill less people." is disputed and disproved by the very enthusiast literature and culture which works so hard to oppose ANY firearm regulations.
It is a dishonest, bullshit line of rhetoric that is tossed off in such an arrogant way that it is truly disgusting.
Funny how with all your spew of name calling you didn't answer my question. Tell me, what about a pistol grip makes it more deadly than a gun without one?
Pistol grips have been used because some think they make it easier to carry or hold a gun. That doesn't mean easier to kill people with it But it is fact it is much less accurate to shoot with a pistol grip, harder to control. That's not even a debate. There is nothing innately deadly about a pistol grip or the use of one on a rifle. I'm not sure why that is "disgusting."
I'm for gun control, just ones that make sense. I think a new law in California that was just passed was a gun one. It eliminated a loophole that allowed some, with minor alterations, to have a removable magazine. Previously a magazine was not considered removable if it required a tool to remove, it was considered attached at that point. So people started making the button to detach the magazine so small it could only be pushed with a small pointed object, like the tip of a bullet. So all they had to do was use the bullet to push the button and it was completely legal. I think fixing that loophole is completely the right thing to do.
I still believe pistol grips don't make a gun any more deadly, and therefore are pointless to ban. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of a pistol grip that would not have been killed/injured otherwise.
Please provide me with some of your research you quoted that indicates how deadly a pistol grip is. I would really like to hear some expert opinion about hos it has killed people.
for a civil war to occur, I think the division would have to be largely defined by geography (north v south), which it no longer is.
so in essence you could have a war with no front lines...i.e. vietnam
I suppose. I guess I just see the chances of it happening are so remote.
yeah me too.
Going back to the other discussions: I'd invite anyone on these boards to the range and ask you to: 1. fire a weapon while shouldering it 2. fire a weapon from the hip
I'm in new jersey so we can use a 15 round magazine. we can fire weapons with a pistol grip and without...your choice. after experiencing 1 and 2 you will find out #2 is all hollywood and your accuracy will be total shit.
oh I forgot that one of my favorite hollywood gun moves is when they tilt their handguns to the side and fire.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
I don't think it's realistically possible for civil war to occur in this country.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
for a civil war to occur, I think the division would have to be largely defined by geography (north v south), which it no longer is.
so in essence you could have a war with no front lines...i.e. vietnam
I suppose. I guess I just see the chances of it happening are so remote.
yeah me too.
Going back to the other discussions: I'd invite anyone on these boards to the range and ask you to: 1. fire a weapon while shouldering it 2. fire a weapon from the hip
I'm in new jersey so we can use a 15 round magazine. we can fire weapons with a pistol grip and without...your choice. after experiencing 1 and 2 you will find out #2 is all hollywood and your accuracy will be total shit.
oh I forgot that one of my favorite hollywood gun moves is when they tilt their handguns to the side and fire.
Careful, you're about to be called "disgusting" for basing your opinion on actual experience and conversations with real people. Handguns with a magazine should be outlawed because they never run out of ammo in the movies!
for a civil war to occur, I think the division would have to be largely defined by geography (north v south), which it no longer is.
so in essence you could have a war with no front lines...i.e. vietnam
I suppose. I guess I just see the chances of it happening are so remote.
yeah me too.
Going back to the other discussions: I'd invite anyone on these boards to the range and ask you to: 1. fire a weapon while shouldering it 2. fire a weapon from the hip
I'm in new jersey so we can use a 15 round magazine. we can fire weapons with a pistol grip and without...your choice. after experiencing 1 and 2 you will find out #2 is all hollywood and your accuracy will be total shit.
oh I forgot that one of my favorite hollywood gun moves is when they tilt their handguns to the side and fire.
Careful, you're about to be called "disgusting" for basing your opinion on actual experience and conversations with real people. Handguns with a magazine should be outlawed because they never run out of ammo in the movies!
I've only been shooting for 29 years....I'm probably not experienced enough to have any sort of opinion on this. Disgusting I am. It is amazing how a handgun with a 15 to 20 round mag in the movies lasts forever! lol
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
yeah, most of the stuff i've seen is from angry ESP supporters on the Dan Rather page of Facebook. theres lots of people alluding to 'consequences' should the recounts or any other efforts to remove ESP succeed. scary shit
for a civil war to occur, I think the division would have to be largely defined by geography (north v south), which it no longer is.
so in essence you could have a war with no front lines...i.e. vietnam
I suppose. I guess I just see the chances of it happening are so remote.
I don't see why. There are a lot of civil wars that haven't been like that. I think you might just be having trouble envisioning a civil war in America unless it's like the first one?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
I don't think it's realistically possible for civil war to occur in this country.
I bet that's what a lot of people have thought before civil wars happened in their country.... I'm sure most of the crazy shit that happens all over the world seems impossible to a lot of people before it happens. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen... I'm just saying that crazier things have happened, and I think modern American society has kind of lulled everyone into the mindset of "that's impossible". Well, actually, no it's not.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
The answer is simple.
They DO have a practical function, and it makes them more dangerous in a mass murder scenario.
You know it, gun manufacturers know it, gun enthusiasts know it, everybody knows it?
So basically it's purpose is to let the shooter to shoots as many rounds as possible? That sounds like a ban on function, not form.
What you said really isn't true, but would easily seem the case to someone who has no experience with guns, and that's how dumb laws are created. I gave the example of a floating barrel, which serves the same purpose (to cool the barrel) as a shroud, it just is not completely attached allowing air to flow around it. This is also banned. You don't have to shoot a lot of rounds for the barrel to get very hot. Some very accurate competition rifles have floating barrels and are bolt action rifles. one shot at a time. but darn that floating barrel.
Fully automatic guns, hi capacity magazines, detachable magazines are outlawed in California anyway. So this ban serves no real function if you're worried about people shooting too fast.
I personally don't care about pistol grips so if you're asking why I personal care, I really don't. I prefer classic old-school style guns. Old revolvers, lever action western style rifles and the such, I have no interest in military looking guns. But many people do, and many go hunting with them. But you probably asking hypothetically and I can answer as to why many do care. Many just like to collect guns, and have an interest in something vintage military, or even current military looking that has been modified to fit civilian standards. Even the military doesn't use fully automatic in most scenarios, but uses small bursts. After 2 or 3 shots you don't know where you're shooting anyone.
Anyone trained with a rifle is not going to use a pistol group and shoot off rounds from the hip like you see in movies, it just doesn't happen, its not practical, its not efficient, you cant aim. and honestly if some psycho were to go unload in a crowded theater I'd prefer he did that anyway because he'd lose control and probably kill less people.
My point is if fully automatic weapons are banned, hi capacity magazines, even detachable magazines are banned, could you tell me what safety purpose there is for banning a pistol grip too?
The real answer many illegal guns have pistol grips, and that has morphed into part of the definition and characteristic of an assault rifle. But the problem is many non-assault rifles have pistol grips.
Some rifles can get too hot to touch the barrel after just few couple rounds through them. Set it down for a minute to check the target and forget it's hot when you grab it by the barrel and you can burn your hand. Just doesn't make sense to me with all the other regulations to ban a floating barrel or shroud.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/12/ronald_gasser_suspect_in_joe_m.html#incart_river_home_pop
Ronald Gasser, the man authorities say shot and killed former NFL player Joe McKnight, was released from custody overnight without being charged, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office authorities said Friday morning (Dec. 2).
Gasser, 54, has not been formally charged, said JPSO spokesman Col. John Fortunato. Investigators are consulting with the district attorney's office on the decision whether to formally charge Gasser, Fortunato said.
As the investigation into McKnight's death continues, Fortunato asked anyone with information about the shooting to contact department homicide detectives at 504-364-5393.
McKnight, 28, was shot about 3 p.m. Thursday (Dec. 1) at the intersection of Behrman Highway and Holmes Boulevard in Terrytown. A witness, who declined to give her name, said she saw a man at the intersection yelling at McKnight, who was trying to apologize. The man shot McKnight more than once, the witness said. She said he shot McKnight, stood over him and said, "I told you don't you f--- with me." Then the man fired again, she said.
Authorities named the shooter as Ronald Gasser, 54, and said he stayed at the scene and turned his gun in to officers. Gasser was in custody and was being questioned, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said. The sheriff said McKnight did not have a gun, and deputies did not find a gun outside McKnight's vehicle.
There are entire blogs and magazine serials dedicated to the advantanges and disadvantages of pistol and forward grips on automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
This tired notion that "Anyone trained with a rifle is not going to use a pistol group and shoot off rounds from the hip like you see in movies, it just doesn't happen, its not practical, its not efficient, you cant aim. and honestly if some psycho were to go unload in a crowded theater I'd prefer he did that anyway because he'd lose control and probably kill less people." is disputed and disproved by the very enthusiast literature and culture which works so hard to oppose ANY firearm regulations.
It is a dishonest, bullshit line of rhetoric that is tossed off in such an arrogant way that it is truly disgusting.
creatingone!But yeah, rgambs said, it's the right who WAS threatening one if Trump lost....
Tell me, what about a pistol grip makes it more deadly than a gun without one?
Pistol grips have been used because some think they make it easier to carry or hold a gun. That doesn't mean easier to kill people with it But it is fact it is much less accurate to shoot with a pistol grip, harder to control. That's not even a debate. There is nothing innately deadly about a pistol grip or the use of one on a rifle. I'm not sure why that is "disgusting."
I'm for gun control, just ones that make sense. I think a new law in California that was just passed was a gun one. It eliminated a loophole that allowed some, with minor alterations, to have a removable magazine. Previously a magazine was not considered removable if it required a tool to remove, it was considered attached at that point. So people started making the button to detach the magazine so small it could only be pushed with a small pointed object, like the tip of a bullet. So all they had to do was use the bullet to push the button and it was completely legal. I think fixing that loophole is completely the right thing to do.
I still believe pistol grips don't make a gun any more deadly, and therefore are pointless to ban. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of a pistol grip that would not have been killed/injured otherwise.
Please provide me with some of your research you quoted that indicates how deadly a pistol grip is. I would really like to hear some expert opinion about hos it has killed people.
Going back to the other discussions: I'd invite anyone on these boards to the range and ask you to:
1. fire a weapon while shouldering it
2. fire a weapon from the hip
I'm in new jersey so we can use a 15 round magazine. we can fire weapons with a pistol grip and without...your choice.
after experiencing 1 and 2 you will find out #2 is all hollywood and your accuracy will be total shit.
oh I forgot that one of my favorite hollywood gun moves is when they tilt their handguns to the side and fire.
we will find a way, we will find our place
Handguns with a magazine should be outlawed because they never run out of ammo in the movies!
It is amazing how a handgun with a 15 to 20 round mag in the movies lasts forever! lol
that's actually the scary part. those of us who are unarmed really have no safe haven.