gun control part 1: fuck yeah

Bullshit. They almost always come in a jig that already has the holes and slots lined up and which bit to use (which are provided). Takes not much more than 20 minutes.

Bullshit. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone getting a full kit. I HIGHLY doubt Glock would go along with that. You just get the frame, jig, bits, endmills, locking block and siderails. Then you gotta go to Glock or someone else to buy the slide, barrel, trigger kit, etc. etc. But those are all non serialized parts.

I don't know about .50-caliber rifles, but the Army National Guard helicopters did take fire from the Branch Davidians and landed immediately. This has been known for years.

When I was leaving the media staging area near the compound the day after it burned I had to wait for a lowboy 18-wheeler to pass before turning on to the one road in and out of the area. The cargo on the trailer was a Huey with sheeting wrapped all around it.

As it turned out, we later caught up to the rig on the highway heading back to the town where I was working back then. The sheets covering the aircraft had started coming loose around the bottom of the fuselage and you could see that the left landing skid was badly bent, like the Huey landed really hard. "Pranged" as the Brits would say.

I've always wondered if that bird was one that took fire on the day of the raid and was only trailered out after the siege had ended or if it was a different aircraft that was flown throughout the course of the standoff and had a hard landing.

yes, taking fire and getting the hell out of Dodge or landing quickly to avoid being shot down is preferable to actually getting shot down and plummeting to your death. Even a "hard landing" is preferable to a crash, but we have had pilots killed in hard landings too on occasion. But two helicopters did not get "shot down" as in crashed & burned with hilarity ensuing.

We have a bunch of solutions being proposed in this thread pro-gun types that I sure would be curious to see the international (or even locally inside the US) evidence of actually working.

You fire a warning shot.

Do you:

1. Fire horizontally, possibly hitting the kid looking out the window nextdoor?
2. Fire up, possibly raining shot on the heads of people having drinks outside? Note the terminal velocity of shot on the downward arc.
3. Aim for their chest?

of the gun control proposals that are floating around, (and some that might not be) here are my thoughts which of course do not represent all gun owners:

1) magazine capacity: no size limits. 8 rounds, 10 rounds, 30 rounds it shouldn't matter. Magazine capacity is just one factor in putting bullets downrange/the overall lethality of the weapon.
2) caliber limits: again no limits. One proposal in this current batch is limiting caliber to under .50" diameter. Okay, does that mean a .58 caliber muzzle-loader isn't allowed?
If you commit a mass shooting with a muzzle-loader you have some mad skillz or the victims are really, really slow to respond.

3) red flag laws: I like the idea in theory, but I feel they can be abused much like the civil asset forfeiture laws. If you have to end up getting a lawyer to get your guns back they are FUBAR.

4) ghost guns: every modern weapon should have a serial number and be a legally manufactured weapon. I get that people want to modify their weapons for various reasons, and have no problem
with that. In this way some weapons are very much like cars - you can change them within the legal limits, but if they are driven on public roads they have to have a VIN and be registered.

5) age limits: 18 years old. If you are old enough to vote/join the military you are old enough to purchase & carry any legal gun - handgun, long gun, whatever.

6) mandatory safety training: yes I agree with this. And no "online" shit - you need to physically attend X amount of training by certified experts, full stop. If you already have prior training that meets or exceeds the mandatory level of training (such as military service) and can prove it, you don't have to attend.

I don't do warning shots.

The only safe way to do a warning shot is to fire into something that will safely absorb the bullet, like a nearby giant oak tree. They seem to be uncommon in most urban settings, tho. The basic rule on warning shots, as far as I know, is "Don't, you idiot, you might hit somebody!"

We're talking shot, not bullets.

The shooter in Colorado may have been prevented by a local law that banned AR-15 type rifles, but a state judge overturned that law.

Who knows what shit OF stuffs down his barrel?

So, my statement was correct. Local laws might be sensible, but state laws supercede them. So, if you want laws that work, go Fed.

As I said, without Federal laws, there'd still be black folk in chains picking cotton in a lot of the US.

No there fucking wouldn't.

Oh you sweet country mouse.

The whole reason the Right is up in arms about immigrants is because the US still needs/wants the slaves but Federal law at least said you have to pay them SOMETHING.

Industrialization eliminates much of the need for slave labor and I doubt by now people would have the stomach for it, especially if the rest of the Western world had banned it. Republicans are up in arms over immigrants because they know that Democrats will pander to them, grant the citizenship and likely will vote for them.

Robots ain't picking your oranges for your breakfast OJ, champ.

They're not making your cheap-ass sneakers either.

Why do you suppose that is?

do you have any experience with firearms?

No you bloody well don't.

People's attitudes have changed, we've grown as a society, people's morals have shifted, most people believe you should be paid for their labor, modern technology that is constantly improving,(I already said that.) etc, etc.
@matthunter is right though, slavery still exists and people are being ripped off from their labor. Indeed, we all know where our smart phones and computers and cheap clothing comes from and we all know that it comes at a huge price that we as a society hardly ever acknowledge. What are we going to do about it though? Are we going to do a full on invasion of China, I think not.

"We" don't seem interested in boycotting those products, either. "We" need those smartphones to log on and bitch about capitalism.

The only solutions we should consider are the ones that will solve every single problem at once.

If we can't find those solutions, we should just do nothing at all.

If Biden wants to do something of course "something" is better than nothing. His piss will indeed douse .001 percent of the forest fire.
Another thing to consider: throwing the Biden dog a bone just might keep him satisfied enough that he won't go after that juicy steak high up on the kitchen counter. Get my drift?

Mass shootings are 0.0001% of the forest fire.

I was just taking a SWAG at it. I knew it was a tiny percentage though. That said if mass shootings are 0.0001 percent of the problem why do they get 99.9 percent of the media coverage?
Shooter works for the news, and Mike was a news guy I believe - so tell us fellas what's up with that? Y'all have "boots on the ground" experience with journalism/news .

Sells papers. A drive by shooting in the hood doesn't.

The solutions are different for each type. But banning guns works for both. What would you suggest?

Well for starters not banning guns would be on the list of "solutions" with unintended consequences of biblical proportions. Just sayin'

Actually it's less than 1% of the total, but not 0.001 or 0.0001. source

I agree but I'm not sure you mean that.