5 ms·

when "police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation" - they could have their own protection interest in mind more than yours. When they choose to

when "police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation" - they could have their own protection interest in mind more than yours. When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer... If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.

hellisothers 7y ago
Twice now “grandma” has been employed as a reason assault rifles should be legal. Come on, this has nothing to do with a fictional grandmother with a scopes rifle. It’s like some talking point gone awry.
- mlyle 7y ago
  A scoped rifle? vs. assault rifle? I mean, sometimes these concepts are combined, but generally a modern military-style rifle has iron sights or at most a reflex sight. I think your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding.
- stevenicr 7y ago
  I mentioned large capacity magazines, forward grips, and a red dot sight. Not 'scopes' - which could mean many things, but I believe are more often referring to 4x,10, 16, etc magnified scopes that are more often used for long range hunting.. My point was that some of the 'assault rifle bans' are trying to stop simple things like a grip addon, a collapsible stock, an over 10rd magazine - any one of those things could make the whole thing illegal.. and I would want grandma to have access to those things, all of them. It would make her, and her neighbors safer. This is not fictional in any way shape or form. Not too long ago a grandma near me went to take the shooting class with a 38 revolver.. it hurt her wrists after a few shots and everyone quickly realized she would not be able to perform the amount of firing to do the practice and the test with one. If she had been given a police issue SBR MP5 with muzzle break, forward grip, collapsible stock, laser and red dot - she would be able to plink accurately all day long. These things they want to ban are actually safety features - but people can't see that. I may have to make a few grandma videos to show this maybe.
  - ikt 7y ago
    I personally would want my Grandma to live in a safe neighbourhood, one that doesn't require her to have a weapon to defend herself. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-... Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.
    - grimjack00 7y ago
      > the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least. Well, duh. I bet more people die from falling down stairs in multi-level houses than in single level.
    - stevenicr 7y ago
      I think we all personally want safety for grandmas in that way. Unfortunately we can't all control that. When my neighbors moved here they chose safe neighborhoods that had little violence / crime. Over the years the demographics have changed immensely, and crime has soared. Many people here are stuck, they want to get out but housing from here to an hour outside of town has gotten so expensive it doesn't make sense. No journal of anything that compares the USA to Japan and crime or shootings debunks anything. No other country in the world has the same challenges that America does. I'd love to live in a place that has real social safety nets and does not have the Latin American countries a hop skip and train away ( https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-most-violent-region-crime-2019-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-... ) but sometimes it's best for you and grandma to have a condom and not need it than to need one and not have it. Even if you want grandma to never have to worry about stds.. they actually happen a lot, want it or not.
      - ikt 7y ago
anon9001 7y ago
> SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) It's not that bad. The easy way is to find an SBR you want to buy, file Form 4 for $200, wait for a few months, then take receipt of your NFA item. Or if you want to do a conversion from an existing rifle, file Form 1 (also $200) and get short barrel. The disadvantage is that you've then created an NFA weapon, so you'd have to be more careful how you handle transfer and sale. If you don't want an NFA SBR, well, AR-15s can be pistols. Pistols can be short. Pistols can't have buttstocks, but there are legal products that are not "intended" to be used as stocks. They happen to look just like a stock, but they're totally intended to be used as an arm brace. If you do use one as a buttstock, that's not how it was intended to be used, but it is legal to do so. This approach is so popular that ATF has issued letters saying it's not illegal. Here's most of what you need to know: http://preparedgunowners.com/2017/04/27/atf-reverses-opinion-on-ar-15-short-barrels-with-braces-again/ http://preparedgunowners.com/2017/04/27/atf-reverses-opinion... It's not mentioned in the article, but pistols cannot have a forward grip, as that would make them "Any Other Weapon", which is NFA. If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison. Keep in mind you can start down the AR-15 pistol route, then later get your Form 1 tax stamp to convert it into a rifle by attaching a stock. This is all quite ridiculous, but that's the law.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this applies even if the grip isn't attached, or is attached to another gun. All depends on how friendly the ATF is feeling...
  - anon9001 7y ago
    Yeah, sometimes. There's an ATF concept called "constructive possession" which means if you have all the parts, you're in a legal grey area. If the ATF thinks you have the intent to assemble an unlawful weapon, and you have constructive possession, then you might be a criminal. I think it's unlikely (but possible) a case would be brought against you for just having the grip, and I'm not sure if that's ever actually happened. As opposed to if you had all the parts to make a machine gun, where there could only be one use for those parts. Also interesting, drilling the extra hole in your AR-15 lower so that it could some day accept an auto-sear is a serious felony, even if you don't own the auto-sear. I'm fascinated by how insane these rules are after I learned that I can't legally own or operate a firearm because I'm a medical marijuana user. If cannabis ever gets unscheduled, I'd like to build a little arsenal.

hellisothers 7y ago

Twice now “grandma” has been employed as a reason assault rifles should be legal. Come on, this has nothing to do with a fictional grandmother with a scopes rifle. It’s like some talking point gone awry.

mlyle 7y ago
A scoped rifle? vs. assault rifle? I mean, sometimes these concepts are combined, but generally a modern military-style rifle has iron sights or at most a reflex sight. I think your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding.
stevenicr 7y ago
I mentioned large capacity magazines, forward grips, and a red dot sight. Not 'scopes' - which could mean many things, but I believe are more often referring to 4x,10, 16, etc magnified scopes that are more often used for long range hunting.. My point was that some of the 'assault rifle bans' are trying to stop simple things like a grip addon, a collapsible stock, an over 10rd magazine - any one of those things could make the whole thing illegal.. and I would want grandma to have access to those things, all of them. It would make her, and her neighbors safer. This is not fictional in any way shape or form. Not too long ago a grandma near me went to take the shooting class with a 38 revolver.. it hurt her wrists after a few shots and everyone quickly realized she would not be able to perform the amount of firing to do the practice and the test with one. If she had been given a police issue SBR MP5 with muzzle break, forward grip, collapsible stock, laser and red dot - she would be able to plink accurately all day long. These things they want to ban are actually safety features - but people can't see that. I may have to make a few grandma videos to show this maybe.
- ikt 7y ago
  I personally would want my Grandma to live in a safe neighbourhood, one that doesn't require her to have a weapon to defend herself. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-... Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.
  - grimjack00 7y ago
    > the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least. Well, duh. I bet more people die from falling down stairs in multi-level houses than in single level.
  - stevenicr 7y ago
    I think we all personally want safety for grandmas in that way. Unfortunately we can't all control that. When my neighbors moved here they chose safe neighborhoods that had little violence / crime. Over the years the demographics have changed immensely, and crime has soared. Many people here are stuck, they want to get out but housing from here to an hour outside of town has gotten so expensive it doesn't make sense. No journal of anything that compares the USA to Japan and crime or shootings debunks anything. No other country in the world has the same challenges that America does. I'd love to live in a place that has real social safety nets and does not have the Latin American countries a hop skip and train away ( https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-most-violent-region-crime-2019-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-... ) but sometimes it's best for you and grandma to have a condom and not need it than to need one and not have it. Even if you want grandma to never have to worry about stds.. they actually happen a lot, want it or not.
    - ikt 7y ago

anon9001 7y ago

> SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) It's not that bad. The easy way is to find an SBR you want to buy, file Form 4 for $200, wait for a few months, then take receipt of your NFA item. Or if you want to do a conversion from an existing rifle, file Form 1 (also $200) and get short barrel. The disadvantage is that you've then created an NFA weapon, so you'd have to be more careful how you handle transfer and sale. If you don't want an NFA SBR, well, AR-15s can be pistols. Pistols can be short. Pistols can't have buttstocks, but there are legal products that are not "intended" to be used as stocks. They happen to look just like a stock, but they're totally intended to be used as an arm brace. If you do use one as a buttstock, that's not how it was intended to be used, but it is legal to do so. This approach is so popular that ATF has issued letters saying it's not illegal. Here's most of what you need to know: http://preparedgunowners.com/2017/04/27/atf-reverses-opinion-on-ar-15-short-barrels-with-braces-again/ http://preparedgunowners.com/2017/04/27/atf-reverses-opinion... It's not mentioned in the article, but pistols cannot have a forward grip, as that would make them "Any Other Weapon", which is NFA. If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison. Keep in mind you can start down the AR-15 pistol route, then later get your Form 1 tax stamp to convert it into a rifle by attaching a stock. This is all quite ridiculous, but that's the law.

DuskStar 7y ago
> If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this applies even if the grip isn't attached, or is attached to another gun. All depends on how friendly the ATF is feeling...
- anon9001 7y ago
  Yeah, sometimes. There's an ATF concept called "constructive possession" which means if you have all the parts, you're in a legal grey area. If the ATF thinks you have the intent to assemble an unlawful weapon, and you have constructive possession, then you might be a criminal. I think it's unlikely (but possible) a case would be brought against you for just having the grip, and I'm not sure if that's ever actually happened. As opposed to if you had all the parts to make a machine gun, where there could only be one use for those parts. Also interesting, drilling the extra hole in your AR-15 lower so that it could some day accept an auto-sear is a serious felony, even if you don't own the auto-sear. I'm fascinated by how insane these rules are after I learned that I can't legally own or operate a firearm because I'm a medical marijuana user. If cannabis ever gets unscheduled, I'd like to build a little arsenal.