5 ms·

FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter

FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter's education course that covered ethical hunting, firearm safety, first aid, basic wilderness survival, etc. I would support making that sort of requirement for owning firearms universal, but I would anticipate that a lot of people would view this as a registry which is not a very attractive prospect for a lot of people.

germinalphrase 4y ago
This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.
- Tool_of_Society 4y ago
  yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
      - germinalphrase 4y ago
        I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        If you look up the definitions in any source, that is what you will find. If there wasn't a big difference, then it wouldn't be the case that every single military in the world uses assault rifles with select-fire capability. Also, if you watch videos of actual military operations, you will find the 3-round burst used very frequently because it is a lot more lethal than semiautomatic mode. Only special ops troops tend to use semiautomatic mode for fighting (since they are better marksmen and are concerned about noise). Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons.
        idiotsecant 4y ago
        >Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons. It's pedantic but while regular officers don't deploy full-auto weapons, police departments certainly have them.
  - lmm 4y ago
    Your last point rather undermines your first. Turns out killing a deer-sized animal is a similar problem to killing a human-sized animal, who knew. (Hasn't the US military actually moved away from fully-automatic weapons for regular troops in favour of three-round-burst? So it ends up as a very close convergence)
    - int_19h 4y ago
      You're not wrong, but the rhetoric OP references goes much further than that - it specifically claims that .223, the caliber in which semi-autos like AR-15 are chambered is somehow more deadly than "normal" hunting calibers, and that is supposedly a big part of what makes it a "weapon of war" etc. The actual story here is that regular hunting calibers tend to be significantly more powerful to maximize the probability of a humane (one-shot; ideally, instant) kill. In fact, many states don't allow hunting deer with .223 on the basis that it's not lethal enough. For similar reasons, most jurisdictions require hunters to use some kind of expanding bullet, whereas ARs are far more typically used with cheap military-style FMJ ammo.
      - EdwardDiego 4y ago
        Spot on. I hunt red deer and while you _can_ use .223 / 5.56mm, a humane kill requires very precise shot placement. It's okay for smaller deer (fallow, whitetail, sika) and chamois, but not really for the reds, sambar, rusa or tahr. I use .308 Win, probably the most common calibre for red deer hunting here, but you meet people using fancy powerful rounds like 7mm Rem Mag or .338 Lapua.
- rjbwork 4y ago
  >but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s The damage to this country's social fabric done by the feds due to the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres really cannot be understated. A LOT of people looked at that and said "ain't gonna be me, we'll kill em if they try that shit" and went and armed themselves, their families, and their neighbors to the teeth. As they say, it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Materials we got from the NRA changed to.
    - rjbwork 4y ago
      Indeed. And it infiltrated gun culture completely.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    Ruby Ridge especially. I did a lot of writing on the subject freshman year English. I think it scared the crap out of a lot of people already suspicious of authority.
- chasd00 4y ago
  You can see the change at gun shows too. Gun shows use to be 90% hunting or collectable/rare rifles. Now they’re ar15s and accessories as far as the eye can see. I’m not sure what changed, maybe the ar15 patent expired, they’ve always been around just not that popular. Then, all of a sudden, they were everywhere.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    AR-15s are dirt cheap to manufacture, super modular and customizable, and are really just all around great guns. There's a reason they're so popular.
  - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
    The AR-15 is basically a gun version of legos. You can buy one AR-15 lower receiver (which counts as the gun) and then just swap out uppers depending on what you're hunting.
  - everforward 4y ago
    It's a combination of access to cheap military surplus ammo, light recoil making them approachable to beginners, a standardized platform, and rails for accessories. Plus a little bit of a "badass" effect from it being based on a military weapon. Military weapons also generically have the advantage of having been tested for ruggedness, and not having to worry about being able to find parts or ammo in a decade.
bluGill 4y ago
There are a number of people who will use such a system as a registry they can abuse and once in a while they get political power.
- esrauch 4y ago
  This seems like borderline deranged paranoia to me; what do you expect these powerful people to do given the registry of automatic gun owners? Are you expecting a WW2 French Revolution style situation where the moral resistance will be stronger because of the unregistered firearms? Most of these guns are bought on credit or debit cards, so the information about big ticket gun buyers probably unregulated available through Palantir or whoever.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    It doesn’t take any paranoia. There’s been several instances of journalists using FOIA requests to get the names and addresses of firearm owners and then publishing them. It just happened again in California post the recent USSC decision: An LA journalist requested the names and addresses of current permit holders.
    - esrauch 4y ago
      And then what bad thing happened? And if FOIA is really the problem (not the government knowing) then the registry could be made legally exempt from FOIA. The government keeps databases including all of your income (IRS) and your religion (the Census) but random journalists can't get the information.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - elmomle 4y ago
      I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public primarily on the basis of their owning a gun (or holding a permit)--are you?
chasd00 4y ago
Hunter’s Ed was included in my HS Agriculture class, we all received the little card that came with completion of the course too. In rural areas it’s pretty standard stuff.

germinalphrase 4y ago

This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.

Tool_of_Society 4y ago
yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        If you look up the definitions in any source, that is what you will find. If there wasn't a big difference, then it wouldn't be the case that every single military in the world uses assault rifles with select-fire capability. Also, if you watch videos of actual military operations, you will find the 3-round burst used very frequently because it is a lot more lethal than semiautomatic mode. Only special ops troops tend to use semiautomatic mode for fighting (since they are better marksmen and are concerned about noise). Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons.
        idiotsecant 4y ago
        >Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons. It's pedantic but while regular officers don't deploy full-auto weapons, police departments certainly have them.
- lmm 4y ago
  Your last point rather undermines your first. Turns out killing a deer-sized animal is a similar problem to killing a human-sized animal, who knew. (Hasn't the US military actually moved away from fully-automatic weapons for regular troops in favour of three-round-burst? So it ends up as a very close convergence)
  - int_19h 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but the rhetoric OP references goes much further than that - it specifically claims that .223, the caliber in which semi-autos like AR-15 are chambered is somehow more deadly than "normal" hunting calibers, and that is supposedly a big part of what makes it a "weapon of war" etc. The actual story here is that regular hunting calibers tend to be significantly more powerful to maximize the probability of a humane (one-shot; ideally, instant) kill. In fact, many states don't allow hunting deer with .223 on the basis that it's not lethal enough. For similar reasons, most jurisdictions require hunters to use some kind of expanding bullet, whereas ARs are far more typically used with cheap military-style FMJ ammo.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      Spot on. I hunt red deer and while you _can_ use .223 / 5.56mm, a humane kill requires very precise shot placement. It's okay for smaller deer (fallow, whitetail, sika) and chamois, but not really for the reds, sambar, rusa or tahr. I use .308 Win, probably the most common calibre for red deer hunting here, but you meet people using fancy powerful rounds like 7mm Rem Mag or .338 Lapua.
rjbwork 4y ago
>but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s The damage to this country's social fabric done by the feds due to the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres really cannot be understated. A LOT of people looked at that and said "ain't gonna be me, we'll kill em if they try that shit" and went and armed themselves, their families, and their neighbors to the teeth. As they say, it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Materials we got from the NRA changed to.
  - rjbwork 4y ago
    Indeed. And it infiltrated gun culture completely.
- chasd00 4y ago
  Ruby Ridge especially. I did a lot of writing on the subject freshman year English. I think it scared the crap out of a lot of people already suspicious of authority.
chasd00 4y ago
You can see the change at gun shows too. Gun shows use to be 90% hunting or collectable/rare rifles. Now they’re ar15s and accessories as far as the eye can see. I’m not sure what changed, maybe the ar15 patent expired, they’ve always been around just not that popular. Then, all of a sudden, they were everywhere.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  AR-15s are dirt cheap to manufacture, super modular and customizable, and are really just all around great guns. There's a reason they're so popular.
- Tool_of_Society 4y ago
  The AR-15 is basically a gun version of legos. You can buy one AR-15 lower receiver (which counts as the gun) and then just swap out uppers depending on what you're hunting.
- everforward 4y ago
  It's a combination of access to cheap military surplus ammo, light recoil making them approachable to beginners, a standardized platform, and rails for accessories. Plus a little bit of a "badass" effect from it being based on a military weapon. Military weapons also generically have the advantage of having been tested for ruggedness, and not having to worry about being able to find parts or ammo in a decade.

bluGill 4y ago

There are a number of people who will use such a system as a registry they can abuse and once in a while they get political power.

esrauch 4y ago
This seems like borderline deranged paranoia to me; what do you expect these powerful people to do given the registry of automatic gun owners? Are you expecting a WW2 French Revolution style situation where the moral resistance will be stronger because of the unregistered firearms? Most of these guns are bought on credit or debit cards, so the information about big ticket gun buyers probably unregulated available through Palantir or whoever.
- coredog64 4y ago
  It doesn’t take any paranoia. There’s been several instances of journalists using FOIA requests to get the names and addresses of firearm owners and then publishing them. It just happened again in California post the recent USSC decision: An LA journalist requested the names and addresses of current permit holders.
  - esrauch 4y ago
    And then what bad thing happened? And if FOIA is really the problem (not the government knowing) then the registry could be made legally exempt from FOIA. The government keeps databases including all of your income (IRS) and your religion (the Census) but random journalists can't get the information.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - elmomle 4y ago
    I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public primarily on the basis of their owning a gun (or holding a permit)--are you?

chasd00 4y ago

Hunter’s Ed was included in my HS Agriculture class, we all received the little card that came with completion of the course too. In rural areas it’s pretty standard stuff.