Ten dead in Boulder, Colorado

we agree on quite a few points that are just bare-bones common sense, so that's a positive thing IMHO.

Part of my interpretation of "common sense gun control" is mandatory safety certification for all gun owners/users! We have it for hunting, why not for all gun use? I don't see how it infringes whatsoever on your right to bear arms. Also waiting periods I don't see a problem with. A background check takes what it takes - it takes ten minutes, awesome. If it takes two weeks, it takes two weeks.
The concept of if the gun store doesn't finish the check in three business days you still get to buy the gun makes ZERO sense. I honestly don't get it. That gun store wants to sell you a gun as much as you want to buy one. They won't drag their feet too often or they will lose business. And EVERY GUN SALE OR GIVEAWAY should need a background check, full stop. Again, no infringement, just common sense. This protects the seller and the recipient legally.

Banning large capacity magazines? I'm against it. Reality being what it is, quite often you just need to fire a lot of rounds fast. Multiple aggressors, rapidly moving aggressors, high on drugs aggressors, etc, etc. Granted changing magazines becomes faster with practice, or even carrying more than one gun (especially with pistols versus long guns) is another work-around. Still, magazine capacity shouldn't be limited.

When it comes to "common sense" gun control, the NRA and its toadies have convinced an awful lot of people that any controls whatsoever are the first steps on the slippery slope to confiscation. Along with proper training, I think something prospective gun owners overlook is maintenance. Any benefits of having one could vanish quickly if the damn thing won't fire or blows up in your hand. One of my students made it a point to make his kids clean his guns with him. They got to where they hated it. He was fine with that. He figured if they got the itch to have one, they'd at least appreciate what goes into keeping it in good operating order.

You are aware I'm sure that the NRA - in partnership with the State Of New York - started the first Hunter Safety Course which teaches gun safety and the importance of proper gun maintenance, right?
And to be honest very few gun owners fail to clean and maintain their weapons once they realize that the guns will indeed not function worth a shit if they aren't maintained.
Guns "jamming" or misfiring happens a lot to stupid ass violent criminals, but fuck them anyway IMHO.

I am well aware that there was a time when responsible gun ownership and safety, including proper maintenance" was the NRA's reason for being. Sort of the way abolishing slavery was the Republican party's reason for being. As a random thought, do gun shops offer any kind of deals on maintenance to their customers? Say including a free annual cleaning (whether it needs it or not) or courses on proper maintenance.

Yeah, the NRA also used to be in favour of all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership, because the black folk might get ahold of 'em.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

In short, fuck the NRA.

I have no idea - I do my own cleaning. Since you mentioned it I get that there's an ammo shortage but why a CLP shortage too? I guess since you can't shoot as much you shouldn't have to clean as much either? What's up with that?

I saw some black guy walking around in a shirt that said GUN CONTROL IS RACIST and he's not wrong! Regardless of the power of the NRA if they were to go out of existence tomorrow IMHO it wouldn't affect any new gun legislation that much. Most people who don't want excessive gun control don't need the NRA to tell them it's not in the law abiding gun owners' best interests.

One thing the Army drilled into my head was cleaning weapons. No matter the bore size, it had to be spotless at turn-in/inspection. It's one of the reasons I fired as few blanks as possible on training exercises. Blanks make a weapon even dirtier than real bullets.

These days I'm sometimes reluctant to go shooting at all because I don't feel like cleaning them afterward.

A few years ago a friend bought an AR15 for the first time and after he'd had it for a year or so I asked him if he'd gotten good at taking it apart for cleaning.

He replied that he hadn't cleaned it yet.

Yes. I was taught to clean my firearms after shooting them. And yes...sometimes I've asked myself if I wanted to go to the range, and I said "yes". Then I asked myself if I wanted to clean them afterwards, and I said "No". So I didn't go to the range.

I bought a box of nitrile gloves, which helps. Keeps my hands clean so they don't smell like Hoppe's for a few days.

Why wouldn't you want your hands to smell like Hoppe's for a few days?

Because I interact with the public and (pre-COVID) shake a lot of hands.

Yeah, but Hoppes smells sooooo goooood.

I don't think your buddy quite understands that the more moving parts a weapon has, the greater the need for all these parts to function or the weapon is a paperweight.
Yes, blanks are the no doubt about it.

Enough. Take it to the camp.

Powder free, I hope.

Smells like dank weed to me.

Stopped shooting my black powder pistols altogether. Got real sick of cleaning those suckers in short order.

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham once again fails to recognize why no-one wants to be in the same room as him who isn't being paid for it.

Your AR-15 isn't the 5.56mm they're worried about penetrating them, Lindsey.

ISWYDT

Gun research can save lives.

Source

complete article attached.

"His program is receiving $744,000 from the C.D.C. this year to finance three studies. The new funding from the agency, he said, is drawing young scientists to the work."

Well to be honest running three studies lasting a year for $744,000 is pretty damn cheap when you think about it. Staffing, equipment, facilities, etc. adds up quick. That said it sounds like the focus of the study is very scientifically focus & organized. Hopefully they can get all the data they need from various law enforcement agencies, medical professionals, etc. throughout the studies.

Any author using the term "assault weapon" discredits himself immediately.

Anyone who dismisses an argument and/or research because someone uses the term "assault weapon" discredits himself immediately.

Has the Federal government (or any of the state governments) actually agreed upon the exact, specific definition of "assault weapon" yet? I honestly don't know.
That said nothing against the AR platform, but damn those tactical shotguns are for home defense. And there's a legal work-around on short barrel length if you have a pistol grip version.

The alternate term wheezed out while hyperventilating is "weapons of war." How many wars as the AR15 (not M16/M4) been used in? Is it even one? Any standing armies equip their troops with them? Closest example might be law enforcement, but that doesn't qualify it as a "weapon of war." Could just simplify it with "guns we think look scary," but that will never sound authoritative, not even in a British accent.

From the article Steve posted, there are five different gun violence problems in the country
1. mass shooting
2. suicide
3. urban gun violence (crime and gang violence)
4. family shootings (domestic violence)
5. police shootings.
One solution will not solve all problems.

Restricting people from purchasing AR-15s will only mitigate one problem. Each problem needs its own solution. We can’t not implement one because it won’t solve all.

I'm not aware of any country taking a semi-auto like an AR-15 into an actual combat zone. That said even with an M-16 only firing in three round "burst" it's still full auto, even if it's just three shots.
I can't envision any country only using semi-auto though these days unless they are some third world ragtag army and it's all they can afford. But AK-47 knockoffs are all over Africa and everywhere else so again, I think full-auto is the preferable weapon.