4 ms·

I think it's because it's easier to divide and conquer with 'big scary assault rifles meant for the battlefield' - it helps gather some people who are in the mi

I think it's because it's easier to divide and conquer with 'big scary assault rifles meant for the battlefield' - it helps gather some people who are in the middle, and agree with Heller in that people should be able to defend themselves especially at home... if you say assault rifle bad - no one needs one to hunt with - you get some people nodding... so it's easier to pass and claim a victory lap. I saw a definition recently that said assault rifle bans.. any rifle with at least one 'military type accessory' - that wording is part of the charade. I'm guessing a forward grip, maybe a red dot would be in that? Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho. so maybe 'because of the popularity of hand guns' is that in a way, in that people in the middle want them.. I think some people will read that as in 'the popularity' is causing lots of shootings and that makes gun control popular. maybe. all situations are different not an exhaustive suggestion(s) thought processes atm. ymmv.

everdev 7y ago
> Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho. Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? Maybe it is and I just haven't been exposed to it. For me, I'd feel more nervous with someone with deteriorating memory and eyesight handling a lethal weapon next door.
- anon9001 7y ago
  > Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal. If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off an attacker. If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun? Most gun controls make the weapon less safe. It's similar to how people think sharp knives are more dangerous, but they're actually much safer than dull knives. The way to think about it is that the round is doing most of the work. The gun is just a delivery system for the round, and besides fully automatic weapons, every other weapon choice is about safety, accuracy, and reliability. A "Short Barrel Rifle" or "Short Barrel Shotgun" is easier to operate, and therefore more safe than a non-NFA rifle. They were regulated to make people feel better, not to add safety. The velocity of NFA SBRs is actually lower than the velocity of a bullet leaving a non-NFA 16" barrel. A silencer is not silent, it's just hearing protection, but also requires an NFA tax stamp. They don't sound like they do in the movies, and there's no mistaking it's a gunshot. Expandable stocks and foregrips are scary looking, but the whole point of them is to gain accuracy, which makes the gun safer. These are usually legal, but there are silly regulations around these too. Larger magazines allow you to focus on your threat instead of counting your bullets. For now, these are legal, but banning magazines with large capacity is a common talking point. The reason all of these items look scary is because we see military with them. But even in the military, they're not to make the guns more lethal. The whole point is operational safety. If you don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, that's actually a more defensible position. If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun? The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe. > If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety. She was allowed to have one, but the only attachment that would have improved her safety is no gun.
MichaelSalib 7y ago
What's the plan for when grandma develops dementia? The paranoia will make her unwilling to part with her beloved firearm...do we just wait until she murders a family member or home health aid? That seems like a much more important question than bickering over precisely which firearm grandma should have as she slides into dementia. https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-aging-americans-retire-their-weapons/ https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-agi...
- stevenicr 7y ago
  I agree we need more plans for dementia, Alzheimer's and similar mental and physical defunks.. with guns and other rights as well. There will likely come a point when people need to step in and take control of elderly people's finances, weapons, other possession, choices for nutrition and healthcare, all that. There are people at many ages that are stripped of their rights for different reasons. I hope the world exposes more of these concerns. I recently helped with a site for exposing some people who used the law for taking over people's stuff - family pushed through a busy judge, took over her house and bank accounts, made her broke after a couple years then disappeared. She was left to the state to care for with no money, no house, everything - and she was quite capable of planning her future and retirement, but it was all taken. I think there are many people who have had rights taken from them in unfair ways. In same cases states are moving to restore voting and gun rights who have served their time and such. At the same time we need more tests for proving that people are mentally and physically fit enough to wield weapons, cars, and other things safely. In some of those cases it may make sense to have special teams show elderly people how to use different weapons and different cars should the need arise. In other cases it could be deemed that they should not drive or try to defend themselves. I'd like to think our society will take care of these older people so they never need to worry about transportation or fighting. We need to make a lot of changes for the future if this is to be however. Right now our society is set to leave a lot of old people to languish without good care and safety - and most just look the other way as they suffer.

everdev 7y ago

> Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho. Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? Maybe it is and I just haven't been exposed to it. For me, I'd feel more nervous with someone with deteriorating memory and eyesight handling a lethal weapon next door.

anon9001 7y ago
> Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal. If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off an attacker. If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun? Most gun controls make the weapon less safe. It's similar to how people think sharp knives are more dangerous, but they're actually much safer than dull knives. The way to think about it is that the round is doing most of the work. The gun is just a delivery system for the round, and besides fully automatic weapons, every other weapon choice is about safety, accuracy, and reliability. A "Short Barrel Rifle" or "Short Barrel Shotgun" is easier to operate, and therefore more safe than a non-NFA rifle. They were regulated to make people feel better, not to add safety. The velocity of NFA SBRs is actually lower than the velocity of a bullet leaving a non-NFA 16" barrel. A silencer is not silent, it's just hearing protection, but also requires an NFA tax stamp. They don't sound like they do in the movies, and there's no mistaking it's a gunshot. Expandable stocks and foregrips are scary looking, but the whole point of them is to gain accuracy, which makes the gun safer. These are usually legal, but there are silly regulations around these too. Larger magazines allow you to focus on your threat instead of counting your bullets. For now, these are legal, but banning magazines with large capacity is a common talking point. The reason all of these items look scary is because we see military with them. But even in the military, they're not to make the guns more lethal. The whole point is operational safety. If you don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, that's actually a more defensible position. If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun? The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe. > If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety. She was allowed to have one, but the only attachment that would have improved her safety is no gun.

MichaelSalib 7y ago

What's the plan for when grandma develops dementia? The paranoia will make her unwilling to part with her beloved firearm...do we just wait until she murders a family member or home health aid? That seems like a much more important question than bickering over precisely which firearm grandma should have as she slides into dementia. https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-aging-americans-retire-their-weapons/ https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-agi...

stevenicr 7y ago
I agree we need more plans for dementia, Alzheimer's and similar mental and physical defunks.. with guns and other rights as well. There will likely come a point when people need to step in and take control of elderly people's finances, weapons, other possession, choices for nutrition and healthcare, all that. There are people at many ages that are stripped of their rights for different reasons. I hope the world exposes more of these concerns. I recently helped with a site for exposing some people who used the law for taking over people's stuff - family pushed through a busy judge, took over her house and bank accounts, made her broke after a couple years then disappeared. She was left to the state to care for with no money, no house, everything - and she was quite capable of planning her future and retirement, but it was all taken. I think there are many people who have had rights taken from them in unfair ways. In same cases states are moving to restore voting and gun rights who have served their time and such. At the same time we need more tests for proving that people are mentally and physically fit enough to wield weapons, cars, and other things safely. In some of those cases it may make sense to have special teams show elderly people how to use different weapons and different cars should the need arise. In other cases it could be deemed that they should not drive or try to defend themselves. I'd like to think our society will take care of these older people so they never need to worry about transportation or fighting. We need to make a lot of changes for the future if this is to be however. Right now our society is set to leave a lot of old people to languish without good care and safety - and most just look the other way as they suffer.