h a l f b a k e r yIt might be better to just get another gerbil.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
MagPul P-Mags come with a little snap-on dust cover
for AR mags. .. Keeps dust out, anyway. |
|
| |
Don't these already exist? |
|
| |
Purely as devils advocate, I will bring up the counter
argument (which I disagree with completely for
assault rifles, largely for any long arms, and somewhat
for handguns) is that one of the purposes of these
weapons is home defense, and anything that slows
down access is infringing on this use. |
|
| |
But for that to work the locker key is going to need a locker of its own, and that key a locker and so on. |
|
| |
That law would never stand. Malevolent people would steal guns of their opponents and have them pay for their bidding. |
|
| |
Er, you do know you can load a single shot into most
semi-automatic firearms without a magazine at all,
right? |
|
| |
This is worse than useless. If you have your gun
adequately locked up, there's no point to this
because it can't be fired anyway. And if you're
counting solely on this to keep your gun safe from
misuse, then you're severely negligent. This
provides no actual protection, only a false sense of
security. [-] |
|
| |
//you do know you can load a single shot into most
semi-automatic firearms without a magazine at all,
right// |
|
| |
you're missing the point. The idea is to allow
ammunition to be locked up separately, but be able
to have a magazine stored with the weapon. |
|
| |
Protection against children, protection from children. |
|
| |
//The idea is to allow ammunition to be locked up
separately, but be able to have a magazine stored
with the weapon.// |
|
| |
The only reason to store a loaded magazine with
the gun is because you think you may need to fire it
on short notice. And I can do that already by simply
locking the gun in a safe. I can even keep the gun
loaded and cocked, and still completely inaccessible
without the ability to open the safe. With this
idea, you'd have to unlock the safe, then unlock the
magazine, load it, and cock the gun before you're
ready to fire. |
|
| |
And if your thinking is that you can store the gun
unlocked but just have the loaded /magazine/
locked up, I present you with the following
scenario: |
|
| |
“Hey, you should check out my dad's gun. He just
keeps it in his sock drawer, but he locks up all the
ammo. I think it's a 9mm.” |
|
| |
“Oh, cool! My dad locks his gun up, but he leaves
the ammo on a shelf in the garage. I'll bring some
over after school.” |
|
| |
Again, playing devils advocate, it's very hard to build
a smart weapon (palm print, ring, whatever) that will
operate reliably but not be relatively easy for
someone to bypass. It may prevent a grab and shoot
problem (a la Skyfall), but won't do much about theft. |
|
| |
And, 3D printers will make any weapon control
ultimately useless. |
|
| |
Perhaps legalizing pot will help. Or putting
something in the water. |
|
| |
The problem with that approach is that guns are
essentially pretty simple technology, and any sort of
programmable locking feature could be easily
removed. |
|
| |
What's also needed is a gun locker that calls your cell
phone when it's being tampered with. |
|
| |
//Did you hear about the recent stabbing rampage in China? Something like 27 people hospitalized by a guy with a knife.// |
|
| |
That's very sad. Were any of them killed? |
|
| |
//Picture of a helmeted marksman on a rooftop with a scoped rifle, saying 'These premises protected by armed ex-marines with anti-social tendencies. Go ahead, give them a reason// |
|
| |
In all these cases, it is pretty obvious that the masacre was an attention getting form of suicide. So snipers would not be a deterent, although they may prevent additional killings assuming that they spot the guns on the way in. |
|
| |
Yet I doubt I will ever forget the names of CS #1 or CS #2 or CS #8(?). |
|
| |
It seems to be some sort of problem with American mass socialization. Mass socialization is by no means a natural process, and I think it can be traumatic and harmful to some people, so they eventually turn against it. |
|
| |
The USA is an extremply non-homogenus country, in every aspect. Religion, race, culture, language, wealth, whatever. |
|
| |
//Yet I doubt I will ever forget the names of [these three
assholes].// |
|
| |
Try. That's the best thing you can do to honor the
victims, as well as to prevent such events in the
future. |
|
| |
I agree. Don't write their names down. Refer to them as the killers or something. |
|
| |
[Kansan101] and [ytk] I would appriatiate it (though would not be offended if you disagree) if you edited the annotations above and put ****** through those names. |
|
| |
// Why not just ban all automatic and semiautomatic rifles while we're at it? |
|
| |
// Oh, cool! My dad locks his gun up, but he leaves the ammo on a shelf in the garage // |
|
| |
I was just thinking: Why do we focus on locking up the guns or limiting sales of guns. The ammo is the dangerous part. Even without a gun, ammo can be dangerous. Without ammo, a sledgehammer is a better weapon. |
|
| |
If we tighten regulations on the sale of guns, there are already loads of them out there, and if cared for properly they can last for generations. Ammo on the other hand tends to get used up.
If we focus on ammo (and explosive components needed for reloading), it seems like it would be much easier to prevent that from getting into the wrong hands. |
|
| |
What if for home defense you had several 9mm handguns in easily accesible drawers around the house stored with the slide pulled back, but depending your perceived need for protection, you slept with a magazine under you pillow and carried it with you all the time (with a dust cover). The large supply of ammo would be in a locked safe. Loading the gun would be very fast. Based on the quote above, this would obviously only be safe if everyone locked up their ammo, but assuming this isn't bad for other reasons, the only people who would object to this standard would be those who don't lock up either. |
|
| |
Also, it seems like having the guns more acccessible to children (with no ammo in them) is actually a good thing. The guns should be off limits, except when they may occassionally be allowed to look at them under close supervision while being tough gun safety. (My mechanical minded son would just love all the moving bits in a handgun.) If they break the rules and play with the empty gun, no one gets hurt (unless they point it at a cop) and there is the opportunity to teach the child not to do it again. Having relatively unhindered access to the guns will remove much of the "forbidden fruit" appeal that can cause a kid to want to look at or play with a gun the first time the safe isn't closed completely. |
|
| |
I guess one problem is that it seems easier to track a gun back to someone who purchased it legally and sold it illegally, whereas it might be harder to successfully track ammo. Would it be possible to put a serial number on the inside of a shell casing? That way anyone who buys the ammo can't remove the serial number before the ammo is fired, and they won't sell the ammo to anyone who they don't trust not to leave the shell casings laying around at a crime scene. That wouldn't deter people reselling components for reloading ammo, but for that to happen, someone needs to go through a criminal intermediary and load their ammo. I guess someone could set up an illegal ammo reloading/manufacturing operation, but it would need ot be small to avoid detection, and would the criminals really want to trudt the ammo comming from the guy reloading htem in his gsarage to support his drug habit? It seems like it's way easier than that to get around the current gun control laws. |
|
| |
New slogan: "Guns don't kill people, bullets do." |
|
| |
Do you think that maybe this same conversation may have been held about sticks or stones? I know it was held about the longbow, which any peasant with access to a tree can make. |
|
| |
It's difficult to put the genie back into the bottle, or, as Larry Niven/Steven Barnes say, "put the mushroom cloud back into the steel container". |
|
| |
[ytk] et al. I've seriously considered that we should
revive the Roman custom of damnatio memoriae for
the cases/ |
|
| |
The gun you own is the one likely to kill you. The gun you own is the one most likely to kill your loved ones. Purchasing a gun, on average, places your family at greater risk of mortality. You are far more likely to take your own life than you are to shoot a criminal. Even if you are a police officer. |
|
| |
I am no criminologist. If I were, i would not be working as an janitor in a state prison. |
|
| |
Guns are for killing, but lawnmowers, knives, cars, bath tubs, etc. have important uses beyond killing. They have a utility that makes them essential. |
|
| |
Aside from killing people, guns are good for recreation: hunting. |
|
| |
It sucks that this self-defense device too frequently is used to kill in other ways. |
|
| |
I don't think most hunters think about all that, personally. |
|
| |
I have known a lot of them, have talked to them a lot, but I never challenged any of them about it, because hunting does not bother me. Animals are not people, and I really don't much give a crap about them unless they have something to do with improving the lot of humans. |
|
| |
No hunter ever gave me the impression he cared a whit about the quality of life for cows or deers. |
|
| |
//... guns are good for recreation: hunting.//
Also: sport. |
|
| |
Odd. When we discuss hunting the consensus is that
it's easier on the animal to go free. When we discuss
my pain of living in the wild index the consensus is
it's easier on the animal to be farmed. |
|
| |
Ha ha. But I don't think it is ever really a consensus, just seems that way. |
|
| |
//The attitude that hunting is a form of recreation is a pernicious one that needs to change// |
|
| |
Yeah, but that's not exclusively true and I'm tired of people speaking on my behalf. I exclusively hunt feral animals - pigs mostly, that in this climate provide zero opportunity to harvest for eating. They are infested up here with worms, tuberculosis, brucilosis, encephalitis, and other nasties. Problem is they tear up the landscape, destroying habitat, and eating the eggs of native animals like turtles, crocodiles and goannas, etc. |
|
| |
So I'm not hunting for food, and even though I have good justification in destroying as many of the beasties as I can - I do it for fun. Hell, I'd use a machine gun and grenade launcher if I could - it would be more effective than the low capacity bolt action I'm legally limited to. I regularly come across herds of >100, in the open. And I might pick out 4 or 5 if I'm on the ball on a good day. |
|
| |
So no, saying that "all a hunter ever needs is a single shot bolt action", as I've seen here and other forums doesn't really cover all of the permutations of the "sport" - which is I think the wrong word in any case. |
|
| |
By the way, I live in Australia, where the only legal reasons for owning a firearm are - sports shooting (target shooting), hunting, professional feral animal control, primary producer necessity, and certain forms of collecting. In Australia, personal or home defence are not considered a legal reason for firearm ownership, and if, as a firearm owner, I were to utilise a firearm in home defence, I would be breaking the law (not necessarily charged or convicted - that's up to the cops/magistrate - but pretty much you're fucked). We don't have any real solid fom of castle law (stand your ground) - and are expected to flee a home invasion instead of defending ourselves, with whatever means. People have been convicted for defending themselves or their homes, even bare handed - generally you need to be "in genuine and immediate fear of your life" to use violence to defend yourself, and never your property. |
|
| |
I think US laws are too far one way, ours too far the other. |
|
| |
I don't think a magazine lock would stop a determined indidual for longer than it would take them to fetch a file and make some changes. [] |
|
| |
//I regularly come across herds of >100, in the open.
And I might pick out 4 or 5 if I'm on the ball on a good
day.// |
|
| |
You're a Halfbaker, no? Shirley you can come up with
/some/ brilliant and incredibly dangerous solution to
this problem… |
|
| |
"Those are cheap statistics, and I'm pretty sure you know it.
You're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver if you own a car.
The car you own is the one you are most likely to be killed in.
Purchasing a car, on average, places your family at greater risk
of mortality. Even if you are a police officer. You see how easy
that argument was to shoot down" |
|
| |
No I actually regard them as very meaningful. You do not
purchase a car to protect you from other people. If you did, then
the same math would apply. Did you think this through, 21Q? |
|
| |
//You do not purchase a car to protect you from other people// |
|
| |
True; you purchase a car to provide increased mobility. |
|
| |
But, if you're careless with your driving or maintenance habits, or allow access to your vehicle from similar people, then you and yours are most likely to be involved in an accident involving your own vehicle, thus actually decreasing mobility. |
|
| |
For home defense I'd suggest a loaded Alsatian as first line. |
|
| |
//Hunting is a way of putting food on the table that has
beneficial effects on the ecology of a region:// Stop eating
meat and that would have much greater benefit on the
ecology, and everyone's health. I've not eaten meat in 30
years and I'm as fit as a fiddle. |
|
| |
If everyone in the world went vegetarian the global
economy would collapse. Fortunately that will never
happen, because some of us are born meat lovers, just as
others are born vegetarians. |
|
| |
If you bought a car to protect yourself from other people with cars, or people with bikes, or just people who might come near your garage then that would be ridiculous. What I am arguing is that for purposes of literal self defense, family protection, and personal security, the gun has shown itself to be statistically ineffective. This seems ludicrous, but it also seems to be true. Owning a gun puts the lives of the people you live with in danger. |
|
| |
There are a lot of things that generalized statistics can't
show, such as the number of "home defense" firearm
owners who regularly maintain and practice with their
weapon, or those who have at least a rudimentary
understanding of how to use that weapon in a home
invasion scenario. |
|
| |
Another thing statistics can't illustrate is remote rural
communities, such as mine and thousands of others across
the nation, where the law enforcement responce time may
be 30 minutes or longer (ours is 45). In my town, we leave
our doors unlocked and our keys in the ignition of our cars,
our crime rate is virtually nil, and _every_ household has a
loaded shotgun stashed somewhere handy. My parents, a
physician and a veterinarian, people who are dedicated to
healing the ill and saving lives, have a 12ga Rem 870 in
their hall closet. It's the twin of mine, and I taught them
how (and when, and when not) to use it. |
|
| |
I'm not making any claims or assumptions. This is just
something to think about while examining statistics. |
|
| |
I target shoot and I enjoy it quite a bit. Its a form of
sport/recreation that gets me outdoors for a few
hours a month (more often, budget permitting). Its a
sport of details and form, consistency and mental
preparation. Its a privilege that is easily perverted.
Sadly.
Sorry, but I think this idea would fix little. [-] |
|
| |
//Even in places where police response times are 8-10 minutes (which is considered fast)// |
|
| |
I must be living in paradise. Always had 4 minutes or less from first responders here-ambulances and firetrucks, over the last 5 years, probably 7 or 8 calls. Ill mother. And she was not considered close to a station. Maybe 2 miles. Of course, we NEVER have traffic jams here in Kansas. |
|
| |
I would rather be robbed than shoot someone and potentially kill them. I don't own much worth stealing, even my guns. |
|
| |
Yes, I have to agree with [Alterother] & [21 Quest]. |
|
| |
As I have stated before, it's not as though bad guys are an endangered species that we need to protect so that we don't run out of them. |
|
| |
Kinda baked - see link. And for a paltry $13-ish USD,
excuses are few. |
|
| |
// They want to put me on the defensive, they deserve what they get. |
|
| |
See, if you want to try to take [21 Quest]'s Xbox from him, you deserve to die. |
|
| |
It should not be legal to shoot someone who is taking your stuff. Life is always more valuable than stuff. You ought to be able to defend yourself, of course, but shooting a person who is taking your stuff is not defending yourself, that's defending your stuff. |
|
| |
If you believe that an Xbox is more valuable than someone's life, maybe you ought not be allowed to have a gun. |
|
| |
I am not sure [Voice]'s idea would work, but I applaud this sort of thinking. This is what people need to be talking about, big-change ideas, things cannot and will not remain the same if we are "serious about solving this problem". |
|
| |
I like the idea of making it law that guns can only hold one bullet. No clips. Fire that one off, and you can put one more bullet in, etc. That covers all sporting and reasonable self defense needs, and makes it much harder to mow down a room full of six year olds. Yes you can bring two or three or four guns and get more shots off, but at the most you've killed three or four before having to reload, allowing someone to tackle you. |
|
| |
// The thief just gets away with it because you were unable to stop him at the time and the police can't find him later, and that's ok with you? |
|
| |
It's unfortunate, of course, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But I'm not going to kill a man over an Xbox. |
|
| |
I'm not a gun hater. Let's get that out of the way. Strange that you say that. I do not own a gun currently but I have nothing against guns and fully support the second amendment. |
|
| |
I used Xbox as an example. You may replace that object with any other object of your choice. My point remains. If you would shoot and kill someone for trying to take your fine silver, perhaps for you there is a certain level of value of stuff that surpasses a person's life, but that is not the case for me. |
|
| |
The rest - particularly the bit where you suggested I would stand by and do nothing while an intruder raped my daughter - is the bit I deemed not worthy of a response. And removed my annotation in an attempt to prevent needless escalation of what is clearly a pointless discussion. |
|
| |
But something has to change, and we have to find a way to stop people from killing roomfuls of other people. Your mindset is not helpful. You are not offering useful suggestions. You ought to take note of the response Wayne Lapierre has gotten to his suggestion of putting armed guards in schools. |
|
| |
//I used Xbox as an example. You may replace that object
with any other object of your choice. My point remains.// |
|
| |
I think the point is that if someone has broken into your
home while you are there in order to steal stuff, he is by
definition not concerned with either the law or your
presence there as a deterrent. |
|
| |
If I knew for certain that an intruder was just there for my
property and intended to leave me and my family
completely alone, I would /give/ him everything I had in
the house just to leave peacefully. Nothing I own is worth a
gunfight that puts me or my loved ones in danger. But I
can't know that. If someone is in my house who has broken
the law to get in, I have to assume he is ready, willing, and
able to break the law to get /out/. |
|
| |
//You ought to take note of the response Wayne Lapierre
has gotten to his suggestion of putting armed guards in
schools.// |
|
| |
That just means it's unpopular at the moment, not that it's
wrong. |
|
| |
I'm a moderate liberal, but pro-gun ownership.
That being said, I do not think there is a need for
civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons. (In
truth, there is very little need for military
ownership of fully automatic individual weapons,
that is why most modern ones for general issue
lack a full auto option.) |
|
| |
Likewise, I believe that there is a need for
responsible gun ownership. This means I support
required registration and gun safety classes.
Required ballistic fingerprinting of all firearms. And
harsh penalties for the gun owner for crimes
carried out with legally purchased weapons, even
if they did not commit the crime. If they can
prove that the weapon was stolen despite
adequate protection (a broken gun safe, reported
before the ancillary crime, e.g.), then that is an
adequate defense. "I loaned it to my nephew" and
he lost it is not an adequate defense, nor is "I
never thought a thief would look in the desk
drawer". Obviously proof of sale to another
authorized (safety trained and permitted) owner
or dealer, or proof of destruction
would end the responsibility. |
|
| |
Again, these do not restrict gun ownership, but
they do make the owner responsible for their
ownership of a dangerous weapon, in the same
way that a chemical plant is responsible for the
handling of dangerous chemicals, not only to
handle it properly, but to be responsible for how
others handle it, and for proper end of life
disposal. |
|
| |
[ytk] don't misunderstand me, I have no issue with guns and of course you should have the right to defend yourself and your family in home invasion scenarios. If someone presents a threat to me or my family, then I would use a gun for protection. If I spot them heading out an open window with my tea set and diamonds, I'm not going to shoot. |
|
| |
// That just means it's unpopular at the moment, not that it's wrong. |
|
| |
Correct, that is not the reason it's wrong (it's wrong because it doesn't work, e.g. Columbine). |
|
| |
My point was it's unhelpful and not useful to make suggestions that do nothing to solve a problem that must be solved. This is going to require changing things, a considerable change to the way we think about guns. |
|
| |
[MechE] every one of your suggestions should already be law. I'd go one further and suggest I don't see a need for civilian ownership of even semi-automatic weapons. |
|
| |
It's not like we're trigger-happy wannabe vigilantes. I'm not
going to attack somebody just because they've broken into
my home, even if they're ransacking the place. If he's got
my xBox in his hands, and I've got my .45 in my hand, I'll
offer him a ten-second head start before I dial 9-1-1. But
if he has a weapon in his hands, any weapon at all, or even
if he tries to bludgeon me with the game console, my
preparedness will severely limit his options. |
|
| |
Of course I wouldn't let him take my stuff with him, but I
figure having to explain to the next person he meets why
there's a trail of excrement leaking out of his trouser leg is
punishment enough. Also, I live in the middle of the woods
and by the time he hits the door Jenny will already have
disabled his vehicle with her AR (yes, we've planned and
rehearsed this scenario). If he wants to leave, he'll be on
foot. |
|
| |
And yeah, anybody who harms my dogs harms my family,
which means they are terminally fucked. I draw the line at
acts of malice. |
|
| |