Here Is the Place, if any on this forum, for Gun Discussion

[steve B]

Well, lets give this a try for packs.

I'm not a gun owner.
I have ADD and even before being diagnosed I knew I had a tendency towards being a bit disorganized. That to my mind is something that doesn't combine well with any sort of firearms.

But I do occasionally shoot, since friends have some.

It's challenging and yes, it's fun. I've tried pistol, maybe 4-5 different? small and medium rifles and skeet shooting. All different , all fun and challenging. I'm an ok shot, not what I'd call "good" but I can get all the shots on the target, and hit about half the birds. I figure that's pretty good for someone who might get to a range once every couple years or maybe a bit less often.
(Feel free to laugh gun guys )


I think the entire definition of "assault rifle" is a silly fiction made up by politicians as a typical knee jerk reaction to something they couldn't legislate.
It's basically banning things based on how they look. As someone else pointed out there are a number of non-"Assault rifles" that are essentially identical in function, and some that are far more powerful. One of the most popular larger rifles for hunting and target shooting was actually a military weapon when it was new. It's not banned. With the right ammunition there's not a lot of stuff that would make good cover.

If I ever do own a firearm, one of the things that would be part of my choice would be that many of them are fantastic bits of very well made machinery. Taking one apart and seeing how stuff was done mechanically is really amazing. (Yes, I've done that. I'm guessing the group of no gun owners who have taken one apart is pretty small. )

Now, you might wonder why the bad stuff always seems to be done with the same piece of hardware. The answer is to me a simple one. It has nothing to do with whether it was the best choice. It's about image. To use the car analogy - there are stereotypes about different cars and their drivers. Like some cars are more often bought by people who are more prone to speeding or acting superior for some reason. Show a movie scene where the guy in a sleeveless shirt says "Hey, don't lean on the Camaro!" And everyone just smiles and laughs because we've all seen that guy. Not all Camaro owners are, but enough that it's a common image. Same as the BMW driver who thinks he's better than everyone because his car is nice or the Prius driver who looks down on the people wrecking the planet with normal cars. In the same way, something like an AR-15 is more attractive to the nuts than many other bits of hardware. Only a small number of owners are nuts, many are very serious responsible people. But the nuts get the attention.

Some stuff does need to change, firstly a return to reasonableness on both sides. (Some controls do work, full auto has been tightly regulated since I think 1938 and last time I checked there had been exactly 0 crimes committed with a legally owned machine gun) Those rules are probably too strict to be practical for anything else.

Personally I feel that if a person can show they're responsible, safe and respect other people enough in general to not shoot them without a very good reason (Like "he was raving and running at me with a big knife") There shouldn't be any restriction.

If someone demonstrates a lack of those traits then they should get nothing.

If they are going through something that might make them temporarily irresponsible or untrustworthy maybe there should be a system that lets them store the stuff away until they get their stuff back together. currently the only options are " nearly everything is ok" or " you cant have that stuff anymore so we're taking it"

Yes, the middle ground is full of gray area and pitfalls and trying to get that right is much harder than a simple yes/no set of rules. But it would be worth doing.
The current societal "me first and sometimes only" attitude extends to so much and is so hard to change I don't think we'll make much progress if any.

Steve B