10 ms·

> Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. Maybe sometimes, but there's also gun laws like in Cal

by kodah 4y ago

> Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. Maybe sometimes, but there's also gun laws like in California that affect large populations of gun owners. I don't think they're making their dissatisfaction and confusion with the gun laws up. Owning a gun in the US isn't very simple; different states have wildly different laws you have to observe, and those are in effect at airports as well. I don't think it's wise to say, "they just don't understand" to the people who actually have to live with the laws. As a gun owner, I do think there's reasonable forms of gun control. I don't mind having my background checked or paying a tax stamp. I don't mind psychological evaluations or closing gun show loopholes. Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> and those are in effect at airports as well I don’t think this is that difficult. Don’t bring a gun to an airport. If you must for transport, arrange for a professional to do it for you. If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm.
- jcims 4y ago
  It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunit... >If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm. Citation needed.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    > It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA Including the very elucidating first bullet point! > Citation needed. I was being generous. No one needs to travel by air with a firearm.
    - ducktales 4y ago
      What if they're traveling across the country for top-shelf training? I thought we wanted well trained gun owners?
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        This isn’t a serious question. But if it were, there’s an obvious logistical solution.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    >Citation needed. Anyone carrying a gun in an airplane, or any public transportation method is either a security officer, or a criminal. There are no good reasons as a regular-ass Joe to carry your Glock in an airplace. Not a single one.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcims 4y ago
      The TSA doesn't provide a route for you to carry a firearm on your person, loaded or unloaded. So by definition your statement is true. You travel with the firearm by declaring it and checking it in a locked case.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    I somewhat disagree with it being straightforward. 99% of the time it can be, but there's some notable edge cases that are missing from that website. There's been a handful of cases where people have flights with connections through NY/NJ, miss their flight (or have to divert to NY/NJ for mechanical problems and transfer to a new aircraft), collect their luggage that has a firearm in a locked container, and then get arrested for possessing a firearm without the mandatory NY/NJ state permit (which IIRC are only available to residents)
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  >If you must for transport, arrange for a professional to do it for you This would quite likely be considered an illegal transfer in the states they're referring to
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
watwut 4y ago
1.) No sometimes, looking at those debate basically always. 2.) Gun owners defined as "people who own guns" have actually quite high support for regulations. There is strong lobby and minority that does not support them, but they dont represent all or even most people who own guns.
multjoy 4y ago
>Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo Why? And the argument of "it's too hard because of the volume already sold" doesn't wash.
- californical 4y ago
  Because a criminal will just get illegal attachments or larger magazines anyways. I haven’t looked, but I’d imagine it’s pretty easy to find some online from overseas. Or criminals can steal them from legitimate places.
  - crate_barre 4y ago
  - phs318u 4y ago
    But it’s not what one would typically class as “the criminal element” committing mass shootings in churches, schools, or other community spaces. It’s the whackjobs right?
  - multjoy 4y ago
    Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? And does the requirement to steal/import/manufacture/buy on the black market make it easier to buy on impulse, or harder?
    - jstarfish 4y ago
      > Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? Both are used in gang warfare and assassinations.
      - multjoy 4y ago
        Something that is irrelevant when we're discussing the 27th school shooting in 2022.
lucozade 4y ago
> Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo. Of course restricting magazines and accessories is not effective. They're only brought into the argument by people who don't want effective gun control. But restricting guns and ammo is absolutely effective. The UK has a sixtieth of the rate of gun deaths compared to the US. And the UK is no paragon. Its rate is much higher than it should be, in my view, because a lot of gun crime is gang related so does not get the attention it deserves. A more reasonable rate would be closer to Japan's which is about a quarter of the UK's. Much lower and you likely start requiring genuinely authoritarian regimes such as Singapore or HK. The US could absolutely get to saner gun crime and homicide levels if there was any real will to do so but there isn't. Of course it wouldn't happen overnight but it doesn't have to. The real problem, in my opinion, is that the US is so de-sensitised to extreme violence that they can never have the equivalent of the collective traumatisation that the UK had after Dunblane. That was the spur we needed to put rational gun laws in place. The balance in the US is so far out of kilter that the seesaw is buried in concrete. Even biblical massacres of innocents can't shift it. So very very sad.
- kodah 4y ago
  > Of course restricting magazines and accessories is not effective. They're only brought into the argument by people who don't want effective gun control. Citation needed. https://news.yahoo.com/news/senator-introduces-legislation-gun-control-015107138.html?guccounter=1 https://news.yahoo.com/news/senator-introduces-legislation-g... That's a Democrat. If you're not very well educated on guns or the laws around them and you're contributing to a topic on guns, then you are not here in good faith. I would say that you and several other commenters on this thread are exactly the embodiment of that. For the shining example of knife-crime that is the UK, there are also examples like Germany and Switzerland that have very low gun violence. I'd rather focus on what underpins gun crime in the US and get at the source rather than allowing it to be certain peoples pet topic that they vapidly spew misinformation on.
  - lucozade 4y ago
    Knife crime in the UK unacceptably high. So high in fact that it's something 60% of the benchmark for unacceptable crime rates. The US's. Being anywhere near as bad as the US in any violence categories is a genuine cause for shame and is the reason why knife crime is a big topic in the UK. Obviously, it's not a big topic in the US because it pales into insignificance compared to gun crime. Not because the US has low knife crime; it doesn't it's terrible. And I genuinely don't know why you'd bring up Germany and Switzerland. Their gun crime stats are bad. Switzerland particularly. Obviously they're not as bad as the US because no country outside central America, the Balkans or South Africa comes even vaguely close to the US. That doesn't make them good though. And I lived in Switzerland long enough to understand pretty well why the gun crime is low compared to the volume of arms in circulation. I lived in Kandersteg for a bit so I saw the training first hand. But you can't reasonably argue that the US mess isn't because of gun ownership because Switzerland isn't as bad. And as to your point re the senator from Arizona. I could have worded that better. They're not trying to pass a law for effective gun control. They're trying to make baby steps on the road to effective gun control that are sufficiently small to have a vague chance of succeeding. The intention is laudable. And it is likely that they do want effective gun control eventually. So I accept the rebuke.
charles_kaw 4y ago
>but there's also gun laws like in California that affect large populations of gun owners. Is your rebuttal that there are laws? >"they just don't understand" to the people who actually have to live with the laws No, I just don't care. Guns should be a utility. >As a gun owner So, I guess my question to you is: aside from home defense (which surely requires a limited amount of rounds) and practice (which can be done by a range selling and enforcing no carry out of rounds, like in many other countries), what is your daily use case for firearms?

by kodah 4y ago

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> and those are in effect at airports as well I don’t think this is that difficult. Don’t bring a gun to an airport. If you must for transport, arrange for a professional to do it for you. If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm.

jcims 4y ago
It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunit... >If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm. Citation needed.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA Including the very elucidating first bullet point! > Citation needed. I was being generous. No one needs to travel by air with a firearm.
  - ducktales 4y ago
    What if they're traveling across the country for top-shelf training? I thought we wanted well trained gun owners?
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      This isn’t a serious question. But if it were, there’s an obvious logistical solution.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  >Citation needed. Anyone carrying a gun in an airplane, or any public transportation method is either a security officer, or a criminal. There are no good reasons as a regular-ass Joe to carry your Glock in an airplace. Not a single one.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcims 4y ago
    The TSA doesn't provide a route for you to carry a firearm on your person, loaded or unloaded. So by definition your statement is true. You travel with the firearm by declaring it and checking it in a locked case.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  I somewhat disagree with it being straightforward. 99% of the time it can be, but there's some notable edge cases that are missing from that website. There's been a handful of cases where people have flights with connections through NY/NJ, miss their flight (or have to divert to NY/NJ for mechanical problems and transfer to a new aircraft), collect their luggage that has a firearm in a locked container, and then get arrested for possessing a firearm without the mandatory NY/NJ state permit (which IIRC are only available to residents)
Rebelgecko 4y ago
>If you must for transport, arrange for a professional to do it for you This would quite likely be considered an illegal transfer in the states they're referring to
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

watwut 4y ago

1.) No sometimes, looking at those debate basically always. 2.) Gun owners defined as "people who own guns" have actually quite high support for regulations. There is strong lobby and minority that does not support them, but they dont represent all or even most people who own guns.

multjoy 4y ago

>Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo Why? And the argument of "it's too hard because of the volume already sold" doesn't wash.

californical 4y ago
Because a criminal will just get illegal attachments or larger magazines anyways. I haven’t looked, but I’d imagine it’s pretty easy to find some online from overseas. Or criminals can steal them from legitimate places.
- crate_barre 4y ago
- phs318u 4y ago
  But it’s not what one would typically class as “the criminal element” committing mass shootings in churches, schools, or other community spaces. It’s the whackjobs right?
- multjoy 4y ago
  Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? And does the requirement to steal/import/manufacture/buy on the black market make it easier to buy on impulse, or harder?
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    > Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? Both are used in gang warfare and assassinations.
    - multjoy 4y ago
      Something that is irrelevant when we're discussing the 27th school shooting in 2022.

lucozade 4y ago

> Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo. Of course restricting magazines and accessories is not effective. They're only brought into the argument by people who don't want effective gun control. But restricting guns and ammo is absolutely effective. The UK has a sixtieth of the rate of gun deaths compared to the US. And the UK is no paragon. Its rate is much higher than it should be, in my view, because a lot of gun crime is gang related so does not get the attention it deserves. A more reasonable rate would be closer to Japan's which is about a quarter of the UK's. Much lower and you likely start requiring genuinely authoritarian regimes such as Singapore or HK. The US could absolutely get to saner gun crime and homicide levels if there was any real will to do so but there isn't. Of course it wouldn't happen overnight but it doesn't have to. The real problem, in my opinion, is that the US is so de-sensitised to extreme violence that they can never have the equivalent of the collective traumatisation that the UK had after Dunblane. That was the spur we needed to put rational gun laws in place. The balance in the US is so far out of kilter that the seesaw is buried in concrete. Even biblical massacres of innocents can't shift it. So very very sad.

kodah 4y ago
> Of course restricting magazines and accessories is not effective. They're only brought into the argument by people who don't want effective gun control. Citation needed. https://news.yahoo.com/news/senator-introduces-legislation-gun-control-015107138.html?guccounter=1 https://news.yahoo.com/news/senator-introduces-legislation-g... That's a Democrat. If you're not very well educated on guns or the laws around them and you're contributing to a topic on guns, then you are not here in good faith. I would say that you and several other commenters on this thread are exactly the embodiment of that. For the shining example of knife-crime that is the UK, there are also examples like Germany and Switzerland that have very low gun violence. I'd rather focus on what underpins gun crime in the US and get at the source rather than allowing it to be certain peoples pet topic that they vapidly spew misinformation on.
- lucozade 4y ago
  Knife crime in the UK unacceptably high. So high in fact that it's something 60% of the benchmark for unacceptable crime rates. The US's. Being anywhere near as bad as the US in any violence categories is a genuine cause for shame and is the reason why knife crime is a big topic in the UK. Obviously, it's not a big topic in the US because it pales into insignificance compared to gun crime. Not because the US has low knife crime; it doesn't it's terrible. And I genuinely don't know why you'd bring up Germany and Switzerland. Their gun crime stats are bad. Switzerland particularly. Obviously they're not as bad as the US because no country outside central America, the Balkans or South Africa comes even vaguely close to the US. That doesn't make them good though. And I lived in Switzerland long enough to understand pretty well why the gun crime is low compared to the volume of arms in circulation. I lived in Kandersteg for a bit so I saw the training first hand. But you can't reasonably argue that the US mess isn't because of gun ownership because Switzerland isn't as bad. And as to your point re the senator from Arizona. I could have worded that better. They're not trying to pass a law for effective gun control. They're trying to make baby steps on the road to effective gun control that are sufficiently small to have a vague chance of succeeding. The intention is laudable. And it is likely that they do want effective gun control eventually. So I accept the rebuke.

charles_kaw 4y ago

>but there's also gun laws like in California that affect large populations of gun owners. Is your rebuttal that there are laws? >"they just don't understand" to the people who actually have to live with the laws No, I just don't care. Guns should be a utility. >As a gun owner So, I guess my question to you is: aside from home defense (which surely requires a limited amount of rounds) and practice (which can be done by a range selling and enforcing no carry out of rounds, like in many other countries), what is your daily use case for firearms?