Guns/gun violence - thoughts? (1 Viewer)

BradKajukenbo

Rambler
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
145
Age
43
Current Location
Redding, California
I'm from North Idaho, about half an hour from Ruby Ridge, so I definitely do not hold any delusions of fighting off the government.

But I do think police, military, and corporate abuse could possibly be a little more rampant if the threat of person to person resistance or the occasional person snapping wasn't a thing. I'm also worrying about a snowball effect. Like barely anyone needs a gun, so why not just let the government take those in the name of safety? If they were to ban assault rifles, 2 deaths would start feeling like 22 deaths in a generation or two, and people would logically be re-evaluation whether guns are worth it (like we are now).

The relationships between the local police and citizens in countries where neither carry guns around seems fairly good. Historically though, nations where the police and military are the only ones armed are abusive awful situations. I find it to be an understandable concern that gun control could be lead us in that direction. Something to think about.
Not saying I do or don't support it though.
My dad lives in Spirit Lake. I spent the end of summer there when they killed Sammy and Vicky Weaver.
 
Click here to buy one of our amazing custom bandanas!

Older Than Dirt

Wanderer
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
223
Age
60
Current Location
Upstate
Case in point: Senator Lindsey Graham (Fascist- South Carolina), who no more owns an AR-15 than i do, says he needs one to fend off "looters" in the event of a hurricane: "I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street."

Wonder what color these fantasy looters are?


Lindsey Graham's house in DC where he lives is a row-house with no porch. DC is probably the most heavily-policed place on the face of the earth. Perhaps the house he does not live in back in SC has a porch.
 

Brodiesel710

Burrito fund contributor
StP Supporter
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
282
Current Location
Winnemucca, NV
I see men with guns on their hips around here daily, not sure sure how I really feel or what I think about it, though it seems rather cumbersome to have to put that on everyday. Seems like it would knock things off the shelf when your shopping at Wal-Mart, the way it protrudes 3" from the hip like that.
 
OP
Juan Derlust

Juan Derlust

Resident itinerant paradoxymoron
StP Supporter
Top Poster of the Month
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
892
Current Location
@large
Kind of like bigotry - not really something you can resolve through legislation. Any roadblock we use to impede wrongdoers and they'll figure a way around. The determined ones anyway
 

Dameon

Wanderer
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
819
Current Location
Northern California
Kind of like bigotry - not really something you can resolve through legislation. Any roadblock we use to impede wrongdoers and they'll figure a way around. The determined ones anyway
Never mind all the countries that have resolved this problem through legislation.

It's simple math. Illegal guns start out as legal guns. Decrease the amount of legal guns, and you decrease the amount of illegal guns. This isn't speculation, this is fact. The idea that if they're determined enough they can find a gun is irrelevant; we're not talking about criminal masterminds who will go to any lengths necessary and have infinite resources, we're talking about normal human beings who mostly wouldn't even know where to start if you told them to go buy an illegal gun tomorrow.

It's ridiculous at this point to pretend that severely limiting access to firearms won't have an effect on the amount of killers with access to firearms. We have a variety of countries that started out as gun-happy as us, implemented strong firearm restrictions, and then saw a significant decrease in firearm violence. The evidence is in. It's not theoretical. It works.

The only question at this point is "how many people's lives is your right to have a gun worth?" It's legitimate to think that it's okay for X amount of people to die a day so that you have the right to own your own personal murder weapon, in case you need to fight off the US army with a glock or whatever. It's not legitimate to ignore all the first world countries who have taken steps to limit access and have subsequently seen lower firearm violence rates.

And it's not just violent crime that would be affected; accidental gun injuries/deaths would drop to near zero. Successful suicide rates plummet after strong gun legislation. Even if you pretend that gun violence rates wouldn't drop at all after strong gun legislation, the other two categories make a large portion of gun deaths. Your right to have a gun has a very real cost in lives, no matter how you cut it. You have to decide exactly how much blood you're okay with having on your hands.
 
Last edited:
OP
Juan Derlust

Juan Derlust

Resident itinerant paradoxymoron
StP Supporter
Top Poster of the Month
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
892
Current Location
@large
I tend to agree; my comment wasn't very well thought out. However, as far as meaningful legislation happening here in the U.S., I wouldn't bet on it anytime soon - even with these recent events, regardless of media saturation That's not to say I wouldn't support it (I would) - time will tell. I'd love to eat my words (again).

& @Dameon, you have good insight - you should post more often!
 

Older Than Dirt

Wanderer
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
223
Age
60
Current Location
Upstate
Another point about how other rich countries don't have a problem with mass shootings because high-powered military weapons are not available: Contrary to the predictions of the right-wing cosplay-racewar-enthusiasts, life in every country that has banned or severely limited ownership of guns has gone on just like it was before.

No heavy-handed cops running roughshod over people's lives and killing them at will, no internment camps, none of that stuff we take for granted every single day in the USA, despite our "gun freedoms".

Of course, all those countries were already socialist hellholes with nationalized healthcare, good roads and bridges, and other Communist things that we in God's Country are Too Free to put up with.
 

Coywolf

Mastering the Art of Houselessness
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
1,610
Age
31
Current Location
Utah
Website
www.youtube.com
1) Hunting and rural home-defense: No one uses an assault rifle for hunting anything
Can I ask how many "assault rifles" you own, or have owned, and how you know this information of a "fact"?

Because I have some information for you that can definitely counter that.

Same goes for the home defense arguement.

Same goes for the "no one goes target shooting with any more than a .22"

(A AR-15 uses a 5.56 Nato round which is the equivalent of a .223 and is very inexpensive)
 

Coywolf

Mastering the Art of Houselessness
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
1,610
Age
31
Current Location
Utah
Website
www.youtube.com
I'm no gun nut, but I do own an AR, and I'm pretty sick of the BS "knowledge" that people seem to have have about those weapons all of a sudden.

That being said, I believe that semi auto rifles should have a lot more hoops to jump through to own. Because a big bad scary AR isint the only semi auto rifles that can be deadly. Any semi auto rifle can do the same amount of damage, including 22s
 

Coywolf

Mastering the Art of Houselessness
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
1,610
Age
31
Current Location
Utah
Website
www.youtube.com
I'm no gun nut, but I do own an AR, and I'm pretty sick of the BS "knowledge" that people seem to have have about those weapons all of a sudden.

That being said, I believe that semi auto rifles should have a lot more hoops to jump through to own. Because a big bad scary AR using the only semi auto rifles that can be deadly. Any semi auto rifle can do the same amount of damage, including 22s
 

Older Than Dirt

Wanderer
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
223
Age
60
Current Location
Upstate
Assault rifles use ammo that is not suitable for hunting, where you are going to have one shot and need to kill with that shot. Assault rifles are designed for laying down a field of fire, not precisely aimed individual shots.

A .223 bullet is about half the weight of a hunting round like the .30-06. The bullets tumble, and are designed to wound humans, not to kill animals. Wounded soldiers burden an enemy more than killed. The reason so many are killed in mass shootings is that they usually take place at pretty short range.

The cheapest .223 or 5.56 ammo in the most recent catalog in my bathroom is $5.99 for 20 rounds of Frontier. Six dollars a minute for shooting is expensive to me.

I did not say "no one goes target shooting with an assault rifle"- in fact i said that is their main real use. What i said is no one serious about target shooting uses one. Competition shooting is .22s.

And of course any semi-auto rifle can do a lot of damage, but assault rifles, because of the light recoil, and other design features, are designed for laying down a field of fire- that means a lot of bullets in roughly the same area, in a short time. Most other semi-autos are not going to be as easy to do that with. Assault rifles are also mostly pretty easy to convert to full-auto, which is not true of many other semi-auto rifles. Banning all semi-auto firearms would be a good idea.

They are fun to shoot. But that fun comes with a tremendous social price.
 
Last edited:

Coywolf

Mastering the Art of Houselessness
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
1,610
Age
31
Current Location
Utah
Website
www.youtube.com
The .223 bullets do not "tumble", and they are accurate to hundreds of yards, so I'm not sure where you are getting that information. As far as hunting is concerned, yes, hunting big game is not a thing to do with a .223, but medium and small "game" or rodent eradication is definitely doable, and I have done it with mine.

Of course the military uses these weapons do kill other humans, but that is the main purpose of almost any firearm.

I will never agree with the banning of semi auto weapons, because, as I said before, that is a dangerous argument that has proved disastrous in the past. Mainly having the police armed to the teeth.....claiming you could have any chance against the military is ridiculous.
 

Older Than Dirt

Wanderer
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
223
Age
60
Current Location
Upstate
Assault rifle rounds, due to a small, oblong bullet with a whole lot of velocity, do tumble on contact with flesh (not in the air, which is what you are talking about):


See also ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION: - http://quarryhs.co.uk/Assault.htm for an exhaustive history of assault rifles, and the ammo they use.

The purpose of assault rifles is to allow young men with minimal training and poor marksmanship to lay down a field of fire (sometimes known as "spray and pray") by putting lots of lead down-range in a very short period of time, wounding as many enemy troops as possible. Does this sound like every mass shooting?

The ammo is designed to facilitate this, and also to be light enough to carry a couple hundred rounds (along with everything you or i normally carry, and the rifle, helmet and plate armor; as you know, military gear is not noted for being ultra-light).

When exactly has a ban on semi-auto firearms
proved disastrous in the past
?

As far as i know, life has gone on much as before in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Norway, etc. None of those countries have cops routinely killing civilians, like we do in the USA. None of them have internment camps for brown people, like we do in the USA. All of them have elections too. It is just not true that every other rich country in the world is some sort of tyrannical dictatorship, yet none of them let civilians own assault rifles.

It is true that the Soviet Union banned firearms ownership for non-Party members. On the other hand, in Nazi Germany, long guns were de-regulated (permits had been required for all guns previously), except for a ban on Jews owning them. I used to have a poster with marching Nazis that said "In 1938, Hitler banned firearms, and they all lived happily ever after". Unfortunately, it was a complete lie- Hitler rolled back what had been very strict gun laws.

You are not arguing with some idiot liberal that has no experience with guns and who mixes up bullets and cartridges, and thinks a magazine and a clip are the same thing. As i said, i am an ex-NRA member for most of my life, and was a certifiable "pry it from my cold dead hands" gun-nut and Second Amendment absolutist before the Sandy Hook massacre of schoolkids took place 45 miles from where my kid was in elementary school. i changed my mind, and now think banning semi-auto firearms from civilian ownership (including police) is a good idea.
 
Last edited:

Dameon

Wanderer
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
819
Current Location
Northern California
Personally, I agree that banning guns by type wouldn't have enough of an effect, if any. I don't know of any country that's gotten a significant benefit from that kind of legislation, and in many cases it's arbitrary.

What we need is more along the lines of what the UK has: To own a gun, you have to have a valid reason ("self-defense" and "sport" being invalid reasons). While you own that gun, it and the premises it's kept on receive an annual inspection to make sure that the gun hasn't been stolen or illegally modified, and is being stored safely.
 

Older Than Dirt

Wanderer
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
223
Age
60
Current Location
Upstate
A possibly amusing (amusing to me anyway) credential of mine as to firearms expertise: A couple years back, my now-dead best friend since the early '80s, who was in a very famous band (and quit right before the $ rolled in) had assembled a bunch of early'80s NYHC folks who hadn't seen each other in a looong time for a 50th birthday dinner.

This dude and i were trying to figure out who each other were when he suddenly burst out "You were that skinhead drug dealer with a weapons fetish!"

It is a fact that pretty much everyone else selling stinky green weed in Manhattan on a large scale in the early to mid 1980s except me, and 2 other dudes (armed hiphop Jews, not skinheads; my close business associates) got robbed at gunpoint by a crew of off-duty cops, who later got theirs on an on-duty raid just before the US Attorney was about to unseal indictments on them.

I have owned a lot of guns in my life.
 
Last edited:

Older Than Dirt

Wanderer
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
223
Age
60
Current Location
Upstate
Why i changed my mind about civilian ownership of semi-auto firearms after Sandy Hook, put more eloquently than i ever could by not-quite-a-hippie poet Wendell Berry's "Questionnaire" :

5. State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security,
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.


"Not having to work the action between shots" seems like a poor reason for any dead kids. Or anyone dead.

 

r3yn

Lurker
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
18
Current Location
Calgary / Sudbury / Ottawa
Up in Canada there's government "testing" (a licencing program) to own long guns, and a further training program for handguns. I don't know how well that stops people from acquiring guns, but it certainly acts a bit of bureaucratic hinderance against the walmart-types who want it cheap and now.

Further government control of guns seems stupid. In Canada, we had the gun registry, which got hacked by criminal organizations, and then they knew every house in canada with what guns were kept there (to steal whenever they needed). So some of that bureaucracy is nonsense.

I think Americans just have to learn to accept the possibility of gun violence. It just seems a likely part of American culture.
 

Dameon

Wanderer
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
819
Current Location
Northern California
I think Americans just have to learn to accept the possibility of gun violence. It just seems a likely part of American culture.
It's part of our culture because extremely loose regulation has led to gun fetishism. Just throwing up our hands and going "welp, it's just some unidentifiable cultural trait that we can't possibly change" is like if they'd just called segregation a "cultural" problem and never done anything about it. The "culture" changed when the laws changed. The US has gun death statistics that rival countries that are actually at war. That's not just some cultural thing.

How many human lives is it worth to not have to deal with extra bureaucracy around guns? Like, maximum, how many lives is not filling out extra forms worth?
 
OP
Juan Derlust

Juan Derlust

Resident itinerant paradoxymoron
StP Supporter
Top Poster of the Month
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
892
Current Location
@large
I read you loud and clear, however, I only have one vote and I'm too busy to organize, hound my representatives & whatnot. I'd love to see some meaningful legislation/regulation - you got my vote - but I don't think I'll be attending any gun-control rallies in the foreseeable future.

I keep reading how 90% of Americans favor background checks, etc. I'm eager to see how/who it ends up being on the ballot.

As for your analogy regarding segregation, I'm not sure the culture changed all that much.
 
Last edited:

blank

Pilgrim
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
61
Current Location
Southern GA
I think this is the real issue, basically everyone has their own little nuanced difference of opinion but they all have overlap in some area, usually background checks. Then it all gets ignored for the dumbed down "they hate guns, I love guns and I love freedom and America and baby Jesus" conversation that has proven to be wildly effective.

Even an internal NRA poll a few years back put support for universal background checks upwards of 70%. Which is fun, because that means that by the NRA's rationale most NRA members are "anti-gun".
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

About us

  • Squat the Planet is the world's largest social network for misfit travelers. Join our community of do-it-yourself nomads and learn how to explore the world by any means necessary.

    More Info

Support StP!

Donations go towards paying our monthly server fees, adding new features to the website, and occasionally putting a burrito in Matt's mouth.

Total amount
$45.00
Goal
$100.00

Monthly Goals

  1. Paying the Bills
    $45.00 of $50.00
    The first $50 in donations go towards paying our monthly server fees and adding new features to the website. Once this goal is reached, we'll see about feeding Matt that burrito.
  2. Buy Matt a Beer
    $45.00 of $75.00
    Now that we have the bills paid for this month, let's give Matt a hearty thank you by buying him a drink for all the hard work he's done for StP. Hopefully his will help keep him from going insane after a long day of squishing website bugs.
  3. Feed Matt a Burrito
    $45.00 of $100.00
    Now that the bills are paid and Matt has a beer in his hand, how about showing him your love by rewarding all his hard work with a big fat burrito to put in his mouth. This will keep him alive while programming new features for the website.
  4. Finance the Shopping Cart
    $45.00 of $200.00
    Now that the bills are paid and Matt is fed, perhaps it's time to start planning for those twilight years under the bridge... if only he had that golden shopping cart all the oogles are bragging about these days.

Latest Status Updates

Preacher wrote on Wolfs Paw's profile.
::drinkingbuddy::
Im securing a squat tonight that should be a good long term squat. Also im playing a show tonight.
Just go to Barcelona and got lost on my way to my hostel. I walked into a corner store and asked for directions, and a guy who didn’t speak any English or know anything about me pointed to where i need to go and gave me a sticker that said “Everyone hates the police!”. I’m definitely in the right place😄!
Macon for a super hot minute. Who what when where?
Finished an initial draft of a floorplan for my new van:
A lot has happened since returning to California. Just two days after returning from the road, I grew the courage to leave my abusive SO and stop hiding her abuse. I returned to my hometown in the Bay Area; I’m now going to stay housed up here until next summer as I recover from trauma and save up for my next adventure. I’ve just gotten a job offer, and will be renting a room of my own here!
I learned a lot about myself and the world on the road, but I know vagabonding is the life for me!
I never did complete an update here, did I?
Well, I rubbertramped all across the country, back from Boston with a fellow moderator from R&V. We drove from there to Las Vegas over the course of a month! I saw 4 national parks, 30 states, and crossed over 6000+ miles. I came back to Los Angeles on June 15th, having achieved my goal of hitchhiking the entire country, and was on the road for over two months.
3 weeks of CDL training starting Monday. Im so excited. Living in semi is an upgrade from living in the van, especially since your getting paid for it! Hells yea!!!
A list of all the magic stores in the U.S. would be a sick feature on stp. Imagine you get off the train desperately in need of smokes and a slam, but you got ran off every corner... Dont worry stp knows exactly where you can get pall malls and some steelies with those foodies you picked up in the last town.
Engineer J Lupo wrote on Matt Derrick's profile.
Happy Birthday, dad!