At least the guns are okay

[LogGrad98]

Disagreed on the 'bad guys get guns' bit above. These folks don't have non-legal methods to acquire these weapons (for the most part), they're not hardened gangsters, they're people that have snapped.

Question for the pro-2A folks - What's a scenario in the modern US where one could realistically need a semi automatic weapon?

I can see some fringe scenarios for folks in rural Alaska and similar where they still have real mega fauna and it feels like a bit of a stretch, but I guess. What else?

You can disagree with it, but we continually see them with guns, many obtained legally, some not. There are a ton of ways to get a firearm that the law really doesn't touch on, like private sale, borrowing, stealing, getting it as a gift, buying one from random dude on the street, gun show, etc. etc. But in the end, if someone with the inclination wants to get a gun, even a specific one, there are precious few barriers to do anything to even slow it down, let alone stop it. So yes, bad people can get bad guns. It is just a fact.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have read studies that bear mace is more effective than a gun against bears and cougars
Also lighter and less dangerous to the human

When I used to backpack extensively in heavy bear territory, like in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. I carried bear mace, or the earlier equivalent, and a .44 revolver on my hip. No taking chances when you are 50 miles by foot to the nearest hint of civilization and no one else is anywhere around. We actually found that air horns were highly effective to just scare them away. They hated the noise. Came back to camp one day after fishing and found 2 brown bears nosing around the campfire, where we isolated all the cooking and food so it was away from our tent area, and 2 blasts from the air horn sent them flying. One ran right between us and never even looked at us. But if I ran into an angry bear I wanted my mace in one hand and my Redhawk in the other.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

Why? Guns have been regulated before without a constitutional amendment.

The Bruen case turns a lot of it on its head.

Semi auto rifles account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths. The large majority occur from semi auto pistols. I don't want to get shot, but would take a 5.56 round from an AR over getting hit with a 10mm hollow point from a pistol.

If we really want to save lives, then it has to be a robust effort on mental health, storage laws, combating drugs (fentanyl deaths alone are staggering), increase punishment for drunk driving, etc.

We can save lives on multi fronts where the constitution and case laws won't hamper the effort.

Mag bans do nothing. I can shoot using 10 round mags at almost the same rate as a 30 round (shoot 9 rounds keeping one in the chamber and drop and insert and repeat. State bans won't stop a shooter from driving over a border to buy mags in a non-restricted state.

i don't think a confiscation ban would hold up. I do think robust background checks (and not just a one time check, it could be a system that constantly checks), storage laws, training, etc. And have harsh punishment for providing easy access to guns used in shootings with protection if you lock your guns up.

The Nashville shooter would not have been able to own guns if there were robust (repeat robust) red flag laws (needs to be nationally implemented).

When you realize that the staggering supermajority of mass shootings are done by people with mental issues, why is that not the focus? Keep guns out the hands of deranged people.

With the number of guns in this country, a semi auto rifle ban will do nothing to save lives.

I don't see the problem ever getting solved, but there is a lot we can do to make it very difficult for people with mental issues from getting guns.

 

[Gameface]

And more fun at parties!

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I have read studies that bear mace is more effective than a gun against bears and cougars
Also lighter and less dangerous to the human

Simply not true. It won't deter a determined bear, and then pray it isn't really windy.

In actual incidents, handguns (all calibers from 9mm up) were 97% effective while bear spray is 92% effective. I've done a large number of backcountry excursions in grizzly country in WY, MT and AK, and the majority of guides prefer shotguns with a high power pistol as backup. A high capacity shotgun with buck would be the worst thing to face in a school shooting. They scare me more than most guns.

An AR15 would be a poor choice against a grizzly but an AR10 in 308 would work.

I carry bear spray and a 10mm pistol in grizz country. Perhaps a bit underpowered, but after I season myself with pepper spray for the bear I have 16 rounds to shoot myself before the bear eats me.

 

[Gameface]

The Bruen case turns a lot of it on its head.

Semi auto rifles account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths. The large majority occur from semi auto pistols. I don't want to get shot, but would take a 5.56 round from an AR over getting hit with a 10mm hollow point from a pistol.

If we really want to save lives, then it has to be a robust effort on mental health, storage laws, combating drugs (fentanyl deaths alone are staggering), increase punishment for drunk driving, etc.

We can save lives on multi fronts where the constitution and case laws won't hamper the effort.

Mag bans do nothing. I can shoot using 10 round mags at almost the same rate as a 30 round (shoot 9 rounds keeping one in the chamber and drop and insert and repeat. State bans won't stop a shooter from driving over a border to buy mags in a non-restricted state.

i don't think a confiscation ban would hold up. I do think robust background checks (and not just a one time check, it could be a system that constantly checks), storage laws, training, etc. And have harsh punishment for providing easy access to guns used in shootings with protection if you lock your guns up.

The Nashville shooter would not have been able to own guns if there were robust (repeat robust) red flag laws (needs to be nationally implemented).

When you realize that the staggering supermajority of mass shootings are done by people with mental issues, why is that not the focus? Keep guns out the hands of deranged people.

With the number of guns in this country, a semi auto rifle ban will do nothing to save lives.

I don't see the problem ever getting solved, but there is a lot we can do to make it very difficult for people with mental issues from getting guns.

The mental health issue is complex and not a solution, really.

First, voluntary mental health care will likely not be reported. Second, if your (voluntary) mental health care provider is required to report you for various things that would restrict firearm ownership people would either avoid dealing with those specific issues or would avoid treatment altogether, making overall mental health care worse.

I don't want to live in a world where I will be forced to get evaluated for mental health issues for various things based on unproven allegations or the vague suspicion of a police officer.

If mental health is going to be used to solve firearm violence then it needs to be tired directly to firearm ownership and/or firearm presence in the household. That would mean that a specific evaluation would need to be done on every member (let's say over 13 years old) of a household where there are firearms, and these evaluations would need to happen regularly, let's say once a year, or as a result of any incident determined to be related to increased risk. So, if you get in a fight that requires a police response, you become unemployed, domestic violence (more on that later), road rage, any mishandling or misuse of firearms, bankruptcy, and basically anything involving violence or abuse, negligence, recklessness.

It could get really messy, honestly. It seems like you'd almost need a Chinese level social credit score, but focused on violence and unpredictability.

I could see a lot of abuse of the system. If a person knows you're a gun owner they could blow small things out of proportion and get police involved specifically to have your gun privileges taken away.

 

[Eminence]

You can disagree with it, but we continually see them with guns, many obtained legally, some not. There are a ton of ways to get a firearm that the law really doesn't touch on, like private sale, borrowing, stealing, getting it as a gift, buying one from random dude on the street, gun show, etc. etc. But in the end, if someone with the inclination wants to get a gun, even a specific one, there are precious few barriers to do anything to even slow it down, let alone stop it. So yes, bad people can get bad guns. It is just a fact.

Have we heard of anyone pulling any of those private sale etc methods with an actual illegal weapon? (eg an unmodified full auto?) I'm sure someone could do it (higher end gangs, rich individuals, folks with notable military ties), I seriously doubt your average high school shooter could.

Of course it's easy to acquire something that is legal and for sale within a couple hours drive (the current situation).

 

[Gameface]

The Bruen case turns a lot of it on its head.

Semi auto rifles account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths. The large majority occur from semi auto pistols. I don't want to get shot, but would take a 5.56 round from an AR over getting hit with a 10mm hollow point from a pistol.

If we really want to save lives, then it has to be a robust effort on mental health, storage laws, combating drugs (fentanyl deaths alone are staggering), increase punishment for drunk driving, etc.

We can save lives on multi fronts where the constitution and case laws won't hamper the effort.

Mag bans do nothing. I can shoot using 10 round mags at almost the same rate as a 30 round (shoot 9 rounds keeping one in the chamber and drop and insert and repeat. State bans won't stop a shooter from driving over a border to buy mags in a non-restricted state.

i don't think a confiscation ban would hold up. I do think robust background checks (and not just a one time check, it could be a system that constantly checks), storage laws, training, etc. And have harsh punishment for providing easy access to guns used in shootings with protection if you lock your guns up.

The Nashville shooter would not have been able to own guns if there were robust (repeat robust) red flag laws (needs to be nationally implemented).

When you realize that the staggering supermajority of mass shootings are done by people with mental issues, why is that not the focus? Keep guns out the hands of deranged people.

With the number of guns in this country, a semi auto rifle ban will do nothing to save lives.

I don't see the problem ever getting solved, but there is a lot we can do to make it very difficult for people with mental issues from getting guns.

I want to ask you about what you think should change about DUI enforcement in particular? Enforcement is not lax at the moment and we're winning the DUI war, as drunk driving rates are dropping, drunk driving accidents are dropping, drunk driving deaths are dropping.

What should the punishment be for driving with a 0.05 BAC first offense, no other driving infraction?

What should the punishment be for a person holding their phone in one hand while having a voice conversation (shown to have impairment equivalent to a 0.14 BAC)?

What should the punishment be for a person who is speeding up and slowing down, not driving with the flow of traffic, not maintaining their lane, failing to notice the traffic light has changed to green, erratic jerking driving motions... found to have been texting while driving?

 

[Eminence]

I don't want to downplay individuals fears, but fighting off wild animals does not strike me as a particularly serious concern for the vast majority of the country (rough wikipedia scan, so unsure on accuracy, but it is what it is - 4 fatal cougar attacks, 19 bear, 1 hog, 28 gator in the lower 48 in the last 25 years). Majority being solo hikers/campers for the bears/cougars. Then a bunch of retirees falling in ponds in Florida.

Special deep wilderness semi-auto permit would be something I'd be open to compromise on. But that's like .01% of semi autos owned.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I want to ask you about what you think should change about DUI enforcement in particular? Enforcement is not lax at the moment and we're winning the DUI war, as drunk driving rates are dropping, drunk driving accidents are dropping, drunk driving deaths are dropping.

What should the punishment be for driving with a 0.05 BAC first offense, no other driving infraction?

What should the punishment be for a person holding their phone in one hand while having a voice conversation (shown to have impairment equivalent to a 0.14 BAC)?

What should the punishment be for a person who is speeding up and slowing down, not driving with the flow of traffic, not maintaining their lane, failing to notice the traffic light has changed to green, erratic jerking driving motions... found to have been texting while driving?

I have a family member that has had 4 DUIs and is still driving. The estimated number of drunk drivers on the road on a daily basis is a sobering statistic (pun intended). Utah has done a decent job, most states have not.

I low level first offense should require 3 days in jail, attending meetings with families that have lost loved ones, community service, etc. With a clear understanding that a 2nd DUI will be months in jail and loss of driving for at least a year, or longer depending on BAC.

I don't think the .14 bac for voice concentration is accurate. I've seen to many statistics from negligible risk to .05, 0.7 etc. Similarly tests show that a passenger is just as dangerous, while other say a passenger is less dangerous. So many uncontrolled variables in all these tests. All of the statistics with phone accidents don't differentiate where the phone was the proximate cause of the accident. And actually holding the phone has shown to be less dangerous than hands free in many tests.

For texting and driving on the phone (maybe not if you receive and respond via the phone and not looking at your phone), I honestly think the punishment should be the same as for drunk driving.

The point with all of this, is there are MANY things we can be doing to save lives that we don't seem to care about as a society. Instead it is the political hot points like guns that always come to the forefront. And I am not saying we should not try to prevent gun deaths, but we should simultaneously be taking a hard stance at stopping other preventable deaths. With drugs, we seem to go the opposite direction, where most states have stopped enforcing drug use. Where I live, people can't even be arrested, where previously they were arrested and immediately put into rehab type programs and not jail.

No matter what, we can do a lot more to prevent deaths in many facets of life. I'd love to seem more money spent on cancer research, fighting heart disease, etc.

There are many things that should have bipartisan focus and support, but we seem to ignore those and fight over everything else.

 

[LogGrad98]

Have we heard of anyone pulling any of those private sale etc methods with an actual illegal weapon? (eg an unmodified full auto?) I'm sure someone could do it (higher end gangs, rich individuals, folks with notable military ties), I seriously doubt your average high school shooter could.

Of course it's easy to acquire something that is legal and for sale within a couple hours drive (the current situation).

The columbine shooters had a girlfriend who was 18 buy the tec-9 for them, which was essentially illegal at the time, and it was bought at a gun show. Unless it fit under the grandfather clause that GF mentioned, although being at a gun show my bet is the dealer just sold it to her regardless.

 

[LogGrad98]

What should the punishment be for a person holding their phone in one hand while having a voice conversation (shown to have impairment equivalent to a 0.14 BAC)?

Death. Immediate and painful and public. Death. No question. In fact I should be able to use my AR-15 to shoot them on sight. Stupid mother****ers.

 

[LogGrad98]

For texting and driving on the phone (maybe not if you receive and respond via the phone and not looking at your phone), I honestly think the punishment should be the same as for drunk driving.

Despite my facetious quote from before, I think this is a pervasive and highly dangerous problem in our driving public right now and needs to be dealt with harshly. The problem is, not every yahoo has a bottle of vodka sitting on the seat next to them, just waiting to give the guy a little wiggle to say "hey drink me, I am right here", but EVERY ****ING MORON, and of course everyone else, has a phone doing exactly that. I would bet if everyone you asked were actually honest about it that literally every single driver who has ever owned a cell phone has had at least one brush with an accident, or one scary moment, due to the ****ing phone. And I would imagine it happens a lot more frequently than anyone would ever admit. And that isn't even taking the selfish bastards that say "**** it I do what I want with my phone" into account. That is just the ones who often legitimately try to leave it alone in the car, getting that one buzzer or ring that they glance at the thing and narrowly miss someone in front of them, or have a fender bender, or just swerve at the exact right time. Then sit back and go "damn that was close". That would have to amount to MILLIONS upon millions of opportunities for bad outcomes, like really bad, and you add up enough chances and things are bound to happen. So for my money the cell phone problem is way way worse than the drunk driving problem, maybe most pervasively because I guarantee you a lot of the time people just lie about it. "Of course I wasn't on my phone officer, it is right there on the floor. Yeah it is in a call right at this moment somehow, but I have no idea how that happened." It needs severe penalties, impfho.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

Despite my facetious quote from before, I think this is a pervasive and highly dangerous problem in our driving public right now and needs to be dealt with harshly. The problem is, not every yahoo has a bottle of vodka sitting on the seat next to them, just waiting to give the guy a little wiggle to say "hey drink me, I am right here", but EVERY ****ING MORON, and of course everyone else, has a phone doing exactly that. I would bet if everyone you asked were actually honest about it that literally every single driver who has ever owned a cell phone has had at least one brush with an accident, or one scary moment, due to the ****ing phone. And I would imagine it happens a lot more frequently than anyone would ever admit. And that isn't even taking the selfish bastards that say "**** it I do what I want with my phone" into account. That is just the ones who often legitimately try to leave it alone in the car, getting that one buzzer or ring that they glance at the thing and narrowly miss someone in front of them, or have a fender bender, or just swerve at the exact right time. Then sit back and go "damn that was close". That would have to amount to MILLIONS upon millions of opportunities for bad outcomes, like really bad, and you add up enough chances and things are bound to happen. So for my money the cell phone problem is way way worse than the drunk driving problem, maybe most pervasively because I guarantee you a lot of the time people just lie about it. "Of course I wasn't on my phone officer, it is right there on the floor. Yeah it is in a call right at this moment somehow, but I have no idea how that happened." It needs severe penalties, impfho.

I used to ride the bus to work in PDX. I would see roughly 40% of drivers playing on their phone. It was insane.

 

[Eminence]

The columbine shooters had a girlfriend who was 18 buy the tec-9 for them, which was essentially illegal at the time, and it was bought at a gun show. Unless it fit under the grandfather clause that GF mentioned, although being at a gun show my bet is the dealer just sold it to her regardless.

Literally everything was grandfathered in if it was owned legally prior to the AWB (too hard to fight the constitution - article 1, sections 9 and 10).

It's possible, but I doubt that was a case where it was smuggled into the country after the fact, merely one of the 10s of thousands already here.

 

[LogGrad98]

Literally everything was grandfathered in if it was owned legally prior to the AWB (too hard to fight the constitution - article 1, sections 9 and 10).

It's possible, but I doubt that was a case where it was smuggled into the country after the fact, merely one of the 10s of thousands already here.

Yeah my point was if the gun dealer at the show had it, no matter where he got it, he would sell it anyway. No one at that level would care about that crap, nothing was really being enforced.

 

[gandalfe]

I don't want to downplay individuals fears, but fighting off wild animals does not strike me as a particularly serious concern for the vast majority of the country (rough wikipedia scan, so unsure on accuracy, but it is what it is - 4 fatal cougar attacks, 19 bear, 1 hog, 28 gator in the lower 48 in the last 25 years). Majority being solo hikers/campers for the bears/cougars. Then a bunch of retirees falling in ponds in Florida.

Special deep wilderness semi-auto permit would be something I'd be open to compromise on. But that's like .01% of semi autos owned.

You're going to see a great increase in hog attacks. There is a new breed of super-pigs, I kid you not, coming down from Canada. Hybrids of domestic and wild pigs, these things are huge, mean, voracious, and intelligent.

 

[fishonjazz]

Simply not true. It won't deter a determined bear, and then pray it isn't really windy.

In actual incidents, handguns (all calibers from 9mm up) were 97% effective while bear spray is 92% effective. I've done a large number of backcountry excursions in grizzly country in WY, MT and AK, and the majority of guides prefer shotguns with a high power pistol as backup. A high capacity shotgun with buck would be the worst thing to face in a school shooting. They scare me more than most guns.

An AR15 would be a poor choice against a grizzly but an AR10 in 308 would work.

I carry bear spray and a 10mm pistol in grizz country. Perhaps a bit underpowered, but after I season myself with pepper spray for the bear I have 16 rounds to shoot myself before the bear eats me.

The NRA probably conducted the study showing handguns are 97% effective lol.
Most people would miss a charging bear if they fired a handgun at it. The next most likely outcome for most people is to hit the bear but not in a location that does anything more than just piss it off.

 

[The Thriller]

I have a family member that has had 4 DUIs and is still driving. The estimated number of drunk drivers on the road on a daily basis is a sobering statistic (pun intended). Utah has done a decent job, most states have not.

I low level first offense should require 3 days in jail, attending meetings with families that have lost loved ones, community service, etc. With a clear understanding that a 2nd DUI will be months in jail and loss of driving for at least a year, or longer depending on BAC.

I don't think the .14 bac for voice concentration is accurate. I've seen to many statistics from negligible risk to .05, 0.7 etc. Similarly tests show that a passenger is just as dangerous, while other say a passenger is less dangerous. So many uncontrolled variables in all these tests. All of the statistics with phone accidents don't differentiate where the phone was the proximate cause of the accident. And actually holding the phone has shown to be less dangerous than hands free in many tests.

For texting and driving on the phone (maybe not if you receive and respond via the phone and not looking at your phone), I honestly think the punishment should be the same as for drunk driving.

The point with all of this, is there are MANY things we can be doing to save lives that we don't seem to care about as a society. Instead it is the political hot points like guns that always come to the forefront. And I am not saying we should not try to prevent gun deaths, but we should simultaneously be taking a hard stance at stopping other preventable deaths. With drugs, we seem to go the opposite direction, where most states have stopped enforcing drug use. Where I live, people can't even be arrested, where previously they were arrested and immediately put into rehab type programs and not jail.

No matter what, we can do a lot more to prevent deaths in many facets of life. I'd love to seem more money spent on cancer research, fighting heart disease, etc.

There are many things that should have bipartisan focus and support, but we seem to ignore those and fight over everything else.

We already incarcerate an insane amount of people over drugs and you think we should incarcerate… more?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-13/10-countries-with-the-highest-incarceration-rates

 

[TheGoldStandard]

The NRA probably conducted the study showing handguns are 97% effective lol.
Most people would miss a charging bear if they fired a handgun at it. The next most likely outcome for most people is to hit the bear but not in a location that does anything more than just piss it off.

The gun data was collected data from known and reported bear encounters (not all are reported). It was done by ammoland searching the web for known encounters as there is a debate as to what calibers are effective. Farmed data found 9mm and up to be very effective. The 95% effectiveness for bear spray was provided by bear spray companies.

To each their own, but I'll take my pistol over bear spray if I had to choose one over the other. I have had a number of bear run ins, but never a situation where I felt I was in imminent danger. We hike with bells and are smart. I think surprising bears leads to the most surprise encounters. My scariest was a grizzly behind me on shore when I was fly fishing in MT. He tore the few fish off my chain and left. And I was not carrying a gun or spray with me in the river. Learned my lesson.

I would not want to haul a shotgun in the backcountry, but would likely take it in Canada where pistols were highly restricted and are a no go now since last year.