Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? (Read 450417 times)

A federal judge has shot down a California law requiring citizens to pass background checks before they are allowed to purchase ammunition.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Benitez in San Diego called the state's law "onerous and convoluted" before he granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a lawsuit filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and six-time Olympic medalist shooting champion Kim Rhode, NBC News reported.

Californians voted for Proposition 63 in 2016, thereby banning "high-capacity magazines" and mandating background checks for ammunition sales.

The checks have been in effect since July of 2019.

Benitez issued his 120-page opinion on the ruling on Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence "assault weapon" bans lead to a lower "incidence of fatal mass shootings."

The push for an "assault weapons" ban is central to the Democrats' gun control agenda nationally and is front and center for Democrats at the state level in places like Arizona and Virginia.

According to the Johns Hopkins study, researchers"did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings."

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

...
The first thing is that people need to know their tool and the only way to do that is to use it. I hate hearing people say "just get a shotgun." (I'm not speaking about anyone in this thread. This is a general comment.)  I hate hearing it because too many people get a shotgun or say a Desert Eagle 1911 chambered in .45 ACP and then never practice with it because it "hurts their hands" or their shoulder.

It doesn't make sense to get a tool; never use it; and then when your life - and the life of your children - are on the line have to use it.  I've never been in the military and never pulled out a firearm in self-defense. I'm damn sure that if that day arrives I will not shoot as well nor be as level-headed as when I'm at the range.
...

Not saying your wrong, but two comments:

One argument that people use for a shotgun vs. a high velocity military round has to do with collateral damage.  e.g., hitting your kid in the next room or your neighbor in the next apartment over.

A shotgun has close to zero spread at 3-5 yards, the width of most rooms.  (A yard is about equal to a meter for those not familiar with imperial measurements.)  The spread is probably not more than a quarter at this close range. (That's an inch or 2.5 centimeters.) 

I would not recommend a shotgun for a small woman. It packs a kick. Far better to have a .223. There is far less kick and the user wouldn't procrastinate practicing because they dreaded the kick back.

I suppose if it was cut down in half (from 28" to 14") there would be greater spread - but I don't know how much. I've never shot one, or seen the pattern.

But isn't the buckshot scatter-pattern wider with a shorter barrel? If so, wouldn't it mean less damage to an attacker? Or do you want to kill him, so that you don't have to face him in court?

I'm not against owning a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But we also need minimal gun control.

With both sides issuing their own "End-all/Endgame" warnings, the NYPD planning for a massive Antifa anti-police rally today, January 31, 2020.

Days earlier, an Antifa-backed social media account shared a video of three masked individuals accompanied by a tweet that read: "The streets are ours. The trains our ours. The walls are ours. This moment is ours."

The minute-long video showing individuals vandalizing public property and jumping subway turnstiles, calls for supporters of the group to "meet up" and rally against law enforcement and transit fares.

"We encourage you to link up with your friends, your family, and think of the ways you can move in affinity to build and f— s— up on J31 all day long," an unidentified individual said, referencing Friday's date. (source)

In response to a warning issued by Antifa, the NYCPBA (New York City Police Benevolent Association issued one of their own.

"New Yorkers should pay close attention: this is true endgame of the anti-police movement, and end of all policing and destruction of public order. Our members have spent their careers — and in some cases giving their lives — to bring public safety back to NYC. We can't go backwards." (source)

Coupled with their official statement was the video of members of Antifa, clouded by half-face masks, hoodies, and distorted voices, encouraging people to link up with their friends, their family, and figure out ways to "f*** s*** up today… all day long", calling today "J31". (emphasis mine)

I tend to side with the people who argue the 'shoot-to-kill or not at all' point of view.  At least as a policy for people who are not professional law enforcement and train all the time.

That said, I did keep a rubber slug as the first round for a variety of reasons I won't go into.  The only time I ever shot an intruder it was a bear and all I wanted to do was to chase it off.  Worked.  Following the rubber slug was alternating 00-buck and slugs so yes, I was more not planning to play around with rock-salt and that sort of thing.

To answer your question, yes, of course a shorter barrel will scatter more.  There are a ton of vids on-line about it I'm sure.  In Alaska people used to saw the things off a lot for transportation reasons (planes and boats often not having an abundance of room.)  I never saw much reason to do so in a house.  There is an argument for mobility, but again, if I was working in my house I'd grab my .357.  Also again, very very few people in that part of the world are stupid enough to break into an occupied house and it's relatively easy to inform a person that they've made a mistake about occupancy before you have to confront them most of the time.

But isn't the buckshot scatter-pattern wider with a shorter barrel? If so, wouldn't it mean less damage to an attacker? Or do you want to kill him, so that you don't have to face him in court?

Never tried.  Probably depends on what you mean by 'work'.  Factories make items people want, and people want things because they are a reasonable compromise mostly.  For home defense most short-barreled shotguns seem about right to me as they are.  I'd rather use a .45 or .357 mag for close-in encounters anyway.

Most people in my (former) neighborhood had a variety of bang-bang options to suite the task at hand.  And just for the fun of it.  I personally don't even find guns all that much fun, and it is a hassle to properly train with them and clean them.  I ended up with quite a few because I had money, a large and complex bunch of property, and a lot of uses for them (hunting elk, killing downed horses, 'social work', practice, etc.)

Legal or not... how much can you saw off a shotgun barrel, and it will still work?

And in my part of rural Oregon where most homes have at least one shotgun in the closet, the latter figure approaches 0%.

...

Intersting thing to note is that in the UK, 59% of burglaries are made while the residents are inside their home
In the US, that number is 13%.

I think I'm going to look into gun stocks right away.    

It could also be that these socialists purchase gun company stocks before these policies.
Every time a policy like that is proposed, gun sales skyrocket and so do gun stocks.

Ordinary people can address some of societies most vexing problems autonomously by taking just a little bit of responsibility as the chart shows.  Distributed law enforcement so-to-speak.

I think that the above chart shows the major reason that corp/gov is so desperate to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  It's got nothing to do with 'anti-government militia groups' and all that crap (that both sides fool themselves into believing.)  It's about giving socialized constructs a reason and excuse to exist and get funds.

The rejection of centralized authority is one of the central reasons why the gun control issue resonates so strongly with think-they-wanna-be socialists.  Most people in this category are funded and animated by corp/gov through mechanisms that they semi-deliberately don't understand so they tow that party line with extraordinary vigor.

The more power and size law enforcement entities have, the more corrupt they get as a general tenancy.  It works generally the same way in all societies and has throughout history.  In my observation law enforcement works best for society when upstanding citizens and uniformed law enforcement are of appropriate size that they _need_ to rely on one another.  In my area in rural Oregon that dynamic between citizens and the Sheriff's department exists and it works quite well.  Meth-heads are basically identified and they self-limit to a large degree as a survival mechanism.

In another area with which I have some familiarity things go one step farther and there are so-called 'salvage operations.'  That works pretty well too IMHO.  Drives the so-called 'Western Liberals' into fits though.  Probably because if fucks up the strategy of cultivating criminals as a problem/reaction/solution scheme.