Pump action, revolver or bolt action only?

Assuming I was allowed to sell back my three semis, rifle and pistol, for fair market value - I get a hardon (KIDDING) for accuracy more than anything these days, I'd use the money for new barrels, action tuning, and Accuracy International stocks for my two Remingtons. Get a nice .357 Mag Python with the leftovers.

But, at least with pump, there is this...magazine-fed so reloads would be quick, and a good pump is as fast as a semi.

Saying "Ban all gun sales and collect all the guns" is as silly as saying "There should be no limit on gun at all".

I'd put the limit on mags at 10, as that's a commonly available size in several countries and states. I usually only load about 5 rounds when target shooting.

And I can barely print .75"...sounds tight until you know she can put out a quarter-inch in competent hands (mine insomuch as I paid for the training) with good handloads.

That, and the heat is REALLY bad for the barrel...and good tubes do NOT come cheap. I didn't buy Lothar Walther to go blasting off a hundred rounds at a pop.

5 rounds lets me keep track of where I'm going on the paper and I can then put up another target and try for the 10 ring with all 5 again. I will load higher for knocking down bowling pins or steel plates.

I only own bolt action rifles, so I've never had a problem with too many rounds.

I have a Wolff 30-lb and one piece guide in mine, I actually shoot .45 Super..but that's for defense so 6" at 25 yards is fine. One day I can afford that Mk23Mod0

I've tested this, and at 200 yards my Rem 700 Sendero 300 Mag is actually faster than my AR-10...I just dump a pile of rounds on the bench and shovel them in through muscle memory, the reloading is slower than the re-targeting. I have a literally infinite mag with the bolt-action vs. 20 with the semi.

And, wouldn't mind checking them out of the armory when you want to use them?

I spend time cleaning or modifying them at home. And I live out in the woods and wouldn't want to drive miles away when the range is less than a mile away.

And the whole handing them over part is a bitter pill - just look at what's happening in Cyprus with money in banks.

I do not favor registration.

I'm fine with traceability, a paper trail of every gun made through every legal owner. All transfers done with background checkd and a record made. And secure storage for that matter; all of my firearms are currently in safes, in a storage unit behind a locked door and a keycoded gate in a razor-wire topped fence. Granted, the storage unit is because I currently live in NYC where every bolt-action long gun will cost me ~$400 to register, good luck with the handguns, and the semis are just forbidden (though I have thought about paying for the .338 Ultra Mag that will kill a deer at two miles, just to tweak their noses).

I think persons not prohibited should have direct control over their guns, in a secure way. Unless you're willing to reopen the NFA registry and let me buy fully-automatic weapons at going retail rates, for that carrot I'd give almost anything besides my dick.

What's the reasoning behind the resistance to registration?

then if you hear a disturbance at my house leave your guns behind. Call the Police, instead.

If, indeed, we are friends, I don't want you making the situation worse by jumping to conclusions and shooting at shadows.

I say this as a Friend.

I'm not going to come to your house with a gun. Ever. I will call the cops, and wait watchfully, ready to report what I see...and ready with my gun. Yes, I do have a specific firearm that I leave readily accessible for home defense.

The first and most important feature I put on it was a powerful...LIGHT.

Should I feel the need to pick it up, I will first and foremost use that light to identify what is "making the disturbance". Then, iff (no typo) I do not realize who it is, I wil tell them to put their hands on their head and lay down.

If they run away, with my TV, my laptop, if I owned it a billion dollars in my gold, I would not shoot them. Honorable warrior. 武士道.

Iff (look it up!) their hands did anything dangerous, then I would shoot.

And then I would need counseling...I have no interest in killing, and even if I had to to save myself or my lover, it would still be the last thing I ever wanted to do on this earth.

Yes, I am capable of using my gun to kill. I am also capable of using my katana, or my hands, to kill. But I have been trained to not wish to do that and to only do it in the blackest of times.

I'm not a "black belt" but I've had probably more than that in education - honestly and simply I could kill a man with one good punch that he would never even think to defend against.

With that power comes responsibility, the responsibility of knowing when to use it, and the philosophy of "strong enough to be gentle"...something that all gun owners need to know. A lot, most, are dumb over-manly yahoos, and that's just wrong...but I don't know how to fix that.

Guns are sold as the "great equalizer" - "I know a hundred ways to break a man's neck with my bare hands!" "I only know one way to pull this trigger!"

The great thing about Martial Arts is that they teach you when NOT to use them.

So, yes, in a way I agree. If more people were trained in Martial Arts, then they wouldn't feel the NEED for a gun. And they would learn to resolve conflict in a much more humane manner.

True understanding in Martial Arts has nothing to do with "killing a man with one punch". As you said, "strong enough to be gentle".

Can you understand the lesson that you were being taught?

What kind of punch could you do that would kill a man that he would never think to defend against?

Strongest punch you can muster at a 45 degree down angle at the top of the sternum. You shove the sternum backwards and cave the breastbones down and in, spearing the heart and causing more-or-less instantaneous death. I mean, I've never actually TRIED it since I don't wanna kill anybody, but it's physiologically reasonable.

If the person is, as you say, defenseless, there is no reason to punch him.

Also punching downward at a 45 degree angle toward the sternum would be physically difficult unless there was a considerable height difference!

To repeat, if a person was unprepared, it is hard to imagine many scenarios in which such a thing would be justified. To disarm, to disable to prevent damage to yourself or others...these are reasonable actions. To kill? Not at all.

Furthermore, if the person was unprotected, a strike to the neck would probably make more sense.

It sounds like something you read somewhere and I would be highly suspicious of any sensei that told you such a thing.

And it was a technique I did learn from a Dim Mak book, that also included a hit on the spinal nerve in the leg that COULD promote paralysis...that my idiot friend let me try, that did paralyze him.

Hell, the book said it was only to be used if the guy was below you - but then again, the book was honest and said this was entirely shady techniques that were treasonous to use.

It IS a biomechanically fatal blow, though.

And there are simple ways of reducing the already low odds, rather than arming up, public toting, practicing to shoot people, promoting guns, etc.

After that, they would likely run away.

I'm sorry, but everything else in your fantastical scenario is likely just that - a fantasy.

I appreciate that you would want to protect your neighbor, but I would want someone who is a little more grounded in reality than someone who is eager to prove them-self with a gun or a blade.

In other words, I appreciate the sentiment, but you would just make the situation worse in your zealously to prove yourself in making it better.

Please, turn on the light and call the Police. After that, restrain yourself. for your sake AND mine. Don't make a bad situation worse. OK?

Per Wiki - "Kata (型 or 形 literally: "form"?) is a Japanese word describing detailed choreographed patterns of movements practised either solo or in pairs."

My scenario is a kata. You are absolutely right they would run away, and I clearly said I WOULD NOT SHOOT.

I would, at that point, call 911 and identify the intruder as best I could, and that would be all.

The law is not my morality. I will only ever use any deadly force if I honestly feel the same force is imminent against me - if the theoretical home intruder I have lit up in my sights turns to me, reaching for his pocket...I will pull the trigger.

If he runs, I WON'T SHOOT! Do you disagree with either of those two scenarios?

Please understand I'm not arguing, I just want to know.

You might as well say that, if someone's heart stops beating, call 911 but don't give CPR even if you're trained in using it...because, heaven forbid, you might break a rib, or the person might die.

Even if you live right next door to a police station, there's no way they can get to you in the time it takes an intruder to fire a shot or stab you. No way. Period.

In my case, our Sheriff's department is a full 10 miles away in the county seat. And they patrol the entire county, which means the nearest car could be 10-40 miles away. Even driving at 120 miles per hour (which they wouldn't, but I'm using this number to give some context), this means no Sheriff or Deputy could make here for 5-20 minutes.

If you honestly think people can hold off one armed intruder, let alone multiple armed intruders, for that length of time without a gun...you seriously need to wake up and face reality.

Although I don't have a gun, you can bet that I would try to leave the house with my cell phone and tell my neighbor who DOES have guns what's going on. If I can't escape, I do have a police-style pepper spray unit...but that's more of a deterrent than anything. It would be no match for a gun or knife.

I know we'd all like to live in an ideal world where the police can drop everything and protect us before a bullet could travel between a barrel and our skulls...but the laws of physics pretty much prevent that.

A gun would be a far better deterrent than my pepper spray, esp. in the hands of someone who is well-trained like the OP of this thread.

Who I never intended to have a dialog with, and who will never have a voice in this movement. Your reply is meaningless and counterproductive...but thanks for playing!

I'll be delighted when this crap is back in the gungeon.

very few do not see your last sentence because they only read the first three words

Your position is a bit more than I would like, but I am realizing no one is interested in 'discussion'. Both want to 'compromise' i.e. do it my way

Perhaps I should have spun it around, "I am your friend, and I own guns."

Honestly, my positions are more than I would like myself...but I'm smart enough to know that not everybody is as responsible as me, and therefore I need to make a compromise in everybody's best interests.

Italicized because it's the word we ALL need to learn!

(btw, I know you lean towards the "other" side, but help me out here!)

and am more than willing to compromise. I had a rather civil discussion with a couple of strong pro-control posters about a bill in MN for UBC last week. It left committee as checks on all transactions at gun shows- which better than nothing is far short of UBC. To me it is a no-brainer to have UBC, even if the system is flawed. The more checks happening the more pressure to fix gaps in the system.

Not a big fan of universal registration, but I can back several forms of qualification tests. IMO if Miller can speak to weapons with militia use, there can be a minimum level of skill related to militia use...

In return I would like to see carry permits recognized nationwide. I would be willing to have that delayed for a period, say 5 years, to allow states to get up to speed on new restrictions.
Further compromises are open to discussion.

Also I do like your reply about a response to a crime against a neighbor. I may have the training to intervene but it is not my job to do so. Be a good witness is the first priority; the situation may be very different from first glance.

If you do, drop your membership and tell them the same things you have told us. Quit giving political support to the gun lobby because it does not believe these things. It believes in profit taking.

I do not now nor have I EVER belonged to the NRA. I'm rational

Just waiting for me to say something you could call a "psychotic delusion" of a "gun cultist" who is a "latent danger" to society?

Well buddy, I HAVE been analyzed ad nauseaum by people far more qualified than you and I'm quite the pussycat, if nothing more than average...but you will have to take my word for it since I don't like to be identifiable on here. Still...adorable!

You want to reduce "assault rifle" killings.

I want to reduce handgun killings.


Make your case again?

... which it is quite clear you do, no sir, you are NOT my friend.

When you have gotten successful treatment for your mental illness, get back to me and we'll discuss the whole friendship thing again.

You have a completely irrational attitude and paranoia about guns. The person who started this thread obviously has a sensible attitude, is NOT a member or supporter of the NRA, is wise enough to use light to ensure that he isn't responsible for any accidental shootings of an innocent person, and clearly has no desire to shoot anyone, anytime ever.

That's not a fetish. That's responsible ownership.

If anything requires successful treatment for mental illness, it's your phobia and paranoia about guns. Between fanatics like you and the fanatics in the NRA, it's terribly difficult for sensible gun laws to get passed.

... your fetish does. Lot's of them. And innocent adults also. Thousands of them every year. Over a million, since one of your gun loving friends used that which you hold so *Precious* killed the Voice of Peace for a generation.

My "phobia" is of your mental illness killing someone I love. People who endanger those I love are not my friends. You advocate that which endangers each and every member of our society, therefore you are NOT my friend, in fact, quite the opposite.

You and I have a lot in common, it seems(though I do like registration as well as traceability).

But honestly, just your simple friendliness is a godsend! One one me -

If you own guns you are a public menace, a potential murderer and someone to be eyed with suspicion at all times.

Guns have one purpose. To kill. If you own a gun whether you know it consciously or not you intend to kill.

Target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, collecting...and acting as a great deterrent, without even pulling the trigger. Most criminals will back off when they see their potential victim is armed.

A meth lab is a menace to a neighborhood. A violent drunk is a menace to a neighborhood. A mugger, robber, or rapist is a menace to a neighborhood.

A guy with guns that are never pointed at another human being is no menace to anyone. You may let go of your pearls now.

without even knowing them?

Too many wannabee Dirty Harrys out there who end up hurting either themselves or those they love.

that the forms you were taught were not, in fact, intended to make you more "physically able". This was only a secondary effect. The true purpose was to distract your primitive ape brain into repetitive movements, so that your true self could express itself in the form of meditation.

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. Frankly, I do it every time I drive the car.

Try it. The next time you go through your physical forms, keep something in the back of your brain that has been bothering you. Any little stupid thing.

You will concentrate on your forms to begin with, but as you progress into the forms that are "automatic" you will find that your brain "wanders" - and sudden clarity will come! What you once thought was so complicated, will now seem so simple!

Martial Arts training is not an end in itself - it is a means to an end.

I hope this helps you, my friend!

...at least you put some thought into what you might do. That puts you a step ahead of the vast majority of gun owners, IMO, and I would not have a problem with you being my neighbor.

Honestly, it's the "I wouldn't want a (gun,handgun,assault rifle, etc) owner as my neighbor" that offends me the most...honestly, I own all of the above, and if I were your neighbor you'd never know.


Btw...cheers for not killing me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for banning assault weapons and large magazines. I'm all for background checks for any gun or ammo transaction, and I am for draconian penalties for violating gun laws. Unfortunately, those laws are tough to enact or enforce, and, like prohibition, they distort the country's politics.

That is why I am for intense social pressure on some types of gun and ammo ownership. By that I mean, if someone is found to own, let's say, a Bushmaster, then I am for getting the word out on them by any means necessary. Then let the other citizens in society render a judgment. For example, if I have an open position and need to hire someone, and two candidates are equal except that one owns a Bushmaster, well, that decision is easy.

The Internet is getting very good at exposing people, and people who feel they need to have the "funny" guns can just tough it. They may not be arrested of course, because their particular brand of self-expression will probably stay legal. But they can be "everything elsed." Divorce, firing, shunning of them and their families...you name it. All fair game.

I actually don't have a problem with people owning legal, registered, and safely stored handguns and hunting equipment. But I know a gun pervert when I see one, and I don't have any interest in treating them like anything but what they are. I imagine a lot of people are starting to feel that way. Certain types of gun owners are starting to be viewed in a class with heroin abusers and kiddie porn fans.

That's all.

I support a lot of restrictions on a lot of guns. Why am I not your friend?

Jesus Christ! I'm fucking tired of this being a fucking argument over semantics!

Feel free to try.

But please answer me, why do you want to throw yourself on your sword over ~5% of the gun killings in America as opposed to working with me to reduce the 95%?

It's both. If you can't work with me to reduce all gun violence, starting with the kind that's easiest to reduce, then get the fuck out of the way.

assault rifles when used in the commission of a crime. So it's worth discussing whether or not we are addressing the wrong types of firearms.

Just because it's easier to ban assault weapons does not mean it will be effective in reducing crime.

But I'm a realist, and I know immediately how that will work out. (Hint: Absolutely nothing will come from it.)

We gotta start somewhere, and handguns, sadly and tragically, are not it.

The AWB seems to me to be the best place to start.

We will deal with handguns, because mass murderers will turn to them when they can't get their hands on an assault weapon.

This isn't happening in a vacuum. If it were, dealing with all of it would be a lot easier.

Handguns are SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED MURDERS A YEAR

Rifles, of ALL kinds, are THREE HUNDRED SIXTY A YEAR

One word answer...what do you want to reduce.

Tobacco kills over half a million people a year.
(Are you calling for restrictions on tobacco purchasing?)

Medical errors kill nearly 200,000 people a year.
(Are you calling for restrictions on incompetent doctors and hospitals?)

100,000 people die from alcohol each year.
(Yeah, I'll just bet you want to bring back Prohibition.)

Car accidents cause over 34,000 deaths per year.
(Are you calling for tougher driver's education to prevent this? Or tougher laws against texting/calling while driving?)

Non-firearm homicides: roughly 16,800 per year.
(Make people register knives and hammers and bats!)

Total firearm homicides (accidental and intentional), about 11,500 per year.

All these stats are from the CDC, FBI, and the Federal Govt.

Yes, firearm deaths are a problem. But a much smaller problem than deaths caused by tobacco, which is every bit as unnecessary as people believe guns are.

We're talking 529,000 tobacco deaths vs. 11,500 firearm deaths. Tobacco kills nearly 50 times more people than guns, but our government gives subsidies to tobacco farmers.

If you're really interested in saving lives, you would care about this. If you don't care, then you just have a phobia of guns that prevents you from thinking rationally.

Then ban all guns AND all tobacco. False dilemma solved.

Next NRA bullshit strawman argument, please.

if you'd like.

There's a reason the M16 and its variants are standard issue rifles and not the M1 or even the M14.

If anything we should be mandating that all new rifles look like an M16.

And provides a good platform for semi-automatic sniper rifles.

But it's not an assault rifle. And it is chambered in .308 Winchester which is generally considered obsolete to the 5.56 NATO in applications requiring rapid, mobile fire. The 5.56 allows for more rounds for a given weight, has lower recoil and can be equally deadly in terms of ballistics at shorter distances. Not to mention the inherent advantage of having a pistol grip on a rifle.

All of those characteristics also make civilian versions of the M16 more deadly in spree killings.

Chambered in .308, and designed very specifically for precision ranged fire (24" heavy barrel, needs to be fired off a rest, no iron sights, can't fire >5 rounds without severe loss of accuracy) be acceptable, assuming the M14 is? It does have a pistol grip, but beyond that it's functionally identical to an M14, not an M16.

If you have a match grade barrel, there is a greater likelihood of functional issues if poor quality ammunition is used or if it's rapid fired. But if you think shooting 20 rounds out of your AR is going to start making the bullets fly around like a cartoon, you're wrong. And I'm sure you know that.

At close range, sometimes just a couple feet apart, the rifle will be just as effective (assuming it doesn't jam). Especially if you're not worried about ruining the barrel since you're going to use it to blow your own brains out in just a few minutes.

The first 6 of 20 went under an inch, the next 6 were inside of four inches, then I counted seven more on an 8.5x11 paper at 100y. One totally off the paper, barrel sizzled when I spit on it. Stupid and pointless, never again. You're right about no concern for the future, but an accurized M14 has the same issues.

More importantly though, literally can't fire it offhand. As in can't hit paper reliably at 25 yards with a scope, let alone aftermarket iron sights...it's a very long, front heavy rifle designed with no thought for any position other than a bipod. Way too heavy for quick mag changes to boot. Not all guns with a pistol grip are CQB..

If I portrayed my position as otherwise, I apologize.

I know that heavy, long barreled match grade rifles would be very unwieldy when compared to some sort of carbine.

And this is where the weight of the firearm may play an important role in drafting restrictions.

Real, significant restrictions on the guns that are most used to commit crimes in America will make the biggest difference...did you read past my first paragraph, pray tell?

Unless you are well-regulated and easily identifiable in public with a big badge that says "Gun Owner" so I can avoid you at all costs.

And I will win...even though I will do nothing to support them.

I need to sit on my hands and stay quiet for them to win, you need my help to win. The choice is yours.

You're not my friend, don't pretend otherwise.

Good luck going forward, friend-o.

Carpooling.

Trying to insult me or just being humorous..

But did save the Universe.

The nasty in the pasty.

Thanks to everybody who's willing to work things out...and to the rest of you, I would never work AGAINST your goals, but if I sit on my hands and don't speak up for you, the sad reality is you aren't gonna get very far. Trust me here, you don't have what you think you have

Some people here come off as sour jerks with very close minds. I'm not a gun person at all, but your post seemed reasonable. I don't understand how owning a gun means you're mentally ill or a danger to society in some peoples' eyes.

The friends I have are people I've met rather than someone on a message board attempting to make a sacred cow seem more palatable to me.

My friends and I don't really love inanimate objects... regardless of whether they are designed to transport people or merely to cause serious damage to them. We may be entertained by them, or even find them silly... but to love them? That I think,, would say vastly more about how susceptible I am to consumerism and Madison Avenue branding than I'd be comfortable with.

And to be honest, I make a point to avoid anyone other than cops and military who are carrying, as the only gun shot wounds I've received, have been from people I know who weren't attempting to steal from me.


"and I am more your friend than you may think..." You have neither my love nor my hate, merely a benign bemusement I often get when observing others attempt to add tasty-goodness to just another sacred cow.

I've been playing this internet game long enough to never consider anyone a FRIEND; this isn't real life and it will never be so of course I'm not your friend in the literal sense. Probably wouldn't want to be, anyway.

Speaking of literalism, I don't literally love guns, bikes, my camera, my knives, or many other things I would say I "love". What an exciting conversationalist you must be. I'm not even going to try to explain anything further to you - I knew there would be a significant fraction who would dismiss me out of hand (I'm not getting your "sacred cow" bit, seeing as how I support 90% of what the party does), so...enjoy your day random internet person!

I admit to not being as left as most here but maybe a little rational discussion can be had. Something along these lines could pass both houses.

Nothing I've seen on the table so far will do anything to protect a child or anyone else for that matter. I DO think a Universal Background Check law could pass given certain provisions as a lot of responsible gun owners already do more than necessary for private transactions.

1. A line for NICS is set up for private transactions so a FFL dealer doesn't have to be used and they tack on an additional cost.

2. No serial numbers recorded for the transaction to avoid a national gun registry.

3. Concealed weapons licence holders would be exempt as they have already gone under further scrutiny. This is true for even new sales from a licensed dealer right now. (At least in GA)

4. Exempt inherited firearms from this.

5. Gift purchases in some form. This is a weird one even under current law.