Today's shooting in America thread

[Ballymagash Blue]

View attachment 31186

Such ugly mugs.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

99% of able bodied people can be trained to do that with varying amounts of training. The difference being that very few people can do it when it matters, because that isn't something you can easily train for. The first time most people realise this is when it matters. This is why guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting or criminal assault than to be used to injure or kill in self-defence.

Really?

THAT’s “the reason”?

Think about it for a minute and get back to me.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Everyone considers themselves a responsible gun owner... right up the point their 5 year old gets their hands on a loaded weapon and shoots their 3 year old brother in the face.

So, if I don’t have a 3 or 5 yr old, and keep my guns locked up, I qualify, right?

Btw, what’s important to me is that the guns are safely secured and I follow the law….not what people on BM have to say about that.

Do I STILL qualify?

P.S. Your example is, literally, the definition of a NON-responsible gun owner, so how can you promote otherwise?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You can't fire it effectively with one hand unless using a butt or a brace.

If your argument was that legislating for gun control in the USA is difficult because of competing interests and pushback against regulations then I think most people in this thread would accept and agree with you.

It’s still not a pistol though.

Sadly, the law disagrees with you.

When YOU write US gun laws, we can all agree with YOU.

Quandary, huh?!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

might be a silly question, but do you have to have a yearly service on these weapons as you said you haven't used one of the guns in over a year ?

There is no “MOT” for a gun. It all depends on the person who owns it.

I clean them about every quarter (3mos), although I clean whatever I shoot after shooting it.

Regular cleaning takes 5-10mins, once you know what you’re doing.

And, contrary to popular belief, oil is more of an enemy to most handguns, than friend, as it helps COLLECT debris. It’s far more important to store weapons in a dry location than soak it in oil to “protect” it. A literal DROP of oil on key parts is often too much, so you put the oil on lint-free cloth and rub it on those parts.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Sadly, the law disagrees with you.

When YOU write US gun laws, we can all agree with YOU.

Quandary, huh?!

And the ATF who enforces the law disagree with you. This really is a dishonest argument for you to make.

The USA is full of lawyers creatively abusing or getting around the remit of legislation, advising disruptor companies or creating new racketeering industries
e. g. patent trolling.

Only one of us in this discussion has a law degree and it isn't you. So please don't insult mine and other posters' intelligence with this dishonest bullshit.

It’s a rifle or a carbine. It is not a pistol just because gun companies have lobbied corrupt law makers or lawyers have creatively widened the scope of what a pistol is.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You managed to not answer either of my two questions really.

Ah, my apologies. As you can see, I’m answering about 10 posts per day on this topic! ;-)

Why have 3 weapons if it's purely for 'home defence'? Surely if 1 isn't sufficient then you're fucked anyway?

The .40cal was for home defence and was purchased because I had free access to ammo for practice.

Now Im back flying international, I rely on air marshalls for cockpit protection, so I relinquished my service weapon.

That led to me purchasing the G19 (9mm), because not only us .40cal ammo harder to find in IL, but 9mm is cheaper.

The stopping power, based on the ammo you choose, is basically the same, to the point that the Feds are going to 9mm for servicemen and law enforcement.

The G43 (also 9mm) is specifically for concealed carry, if out and about, especially in the country, where help is not always at hand and not everyone who does stop is necessarily there to help you.

The G19 isn’t SO large (it’s a compact) that I couldn’t use it, but it’s much harder to conceal on your person, especially in warmer weather where you don’t wear layers.

If only using at the range then I'd guess a lockbox is fine and wouldn't require a 'concealed carry' permit? Or is it still required in that instance?

Concealed carry is not required for transportation, but a minimum of a “multi step process” before it could be used is required.

Most people transport it either unloaded, loaded magazine out of the gun, AND in a lock box or their car boot.

I hope that helps.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

So, if I don’t have a 3 or 5 yr old, and keep my guns locked up, I qualify, right?

Btw, what’s important to me is that the guns are safely secured and I follow the law….not what people on BM have to say about that.

Do I STILL qualify?

P.S. Your example is, literally, the definition of a NON-responsible gun owner, so how can you promote otherwise?

But they always 'claim' to be responsible until they are proved otherwise by a tragic death.

Really?

THAT’s “the reason”?

Think about it for a minute and get back to me.

You tell me what you think the reason is then?

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

[ChicagoBlue]

And the ATF who enforces the law disagree with you. This really is a dishonest argument for you to make.

The USA is full of lawyers creatively abusing or getting around the remit of legislation, advising disruptor companies or creating new racketeering industries
e. g. patent trolling.

Only one of us in this discussion has a law degree and it isn't you. So please don't insult mine and other posters' intelligence with this dishonest bullshit.

It’s a rifle or a carbine. It is not a pistol just because gun companies have lobbied corrupt law makers or lawyers have creatively widened the scope of what a pistol is.

Then, why are they not illegal, Mr Law Degree?

I’m not even ATTEMPTING to parse the law, merely stating what is and isn’t being done to GET AROUND THE LAWS AS WRITTEN!

So, tell us ALL why there is a barrel length limit and why?

Then, tell us WHY it is illegal to have a firearm with a shorter barrel UNDER THE LAW!

I don’t WRITE OR INTERPRET the laws, I simply go by what being allowed in the courts, ATF desires notwithstanding.

Because there aren’t many Yanks on here, and even fewer desiring to get into gun discussions, it appears I become the focal point for Brit (and done Yank!) ire regarding the laws.

I don’t write them, I only adhere to them. Whatever YOU OR OTHERS think that makes me seems kind of personal.

As always, feel free to correct facts stated in error. However, your personal opinions, or the desires of the ATF seem irrelevant to the FACTS of the matter, don’t they?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

But they always 'claim' to be responsible until they are proved otherwise by a tragic death.

Claims and facts are often mutually exclusive.

You tell me what you think the reason is then?

I see you have chosen NOT to think about your assertion for even the briefest moment and have, instead, gone to the Internet to grab statistics that say nothing about your assertion.

Think about how many homes with guns are broken into, or homeowners who use guns against home invaders. I hope that helps…

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Then, why are they not illegal, Mr Law Degree?

I’m not even ATTEMPTING to parse the law, merely stating what is and isn’t being done to GET AROUND THE LAWS AS WRITTEN!

So, tell us ALL why there is a barrel length limit and why?

Then, tell us WHY it is illegal to have a firearm with a shorter barrel UNDER THE LAW!

I don’t WRITE OR INTERPRET the laws, I simply go by what being allowed in the courts, ATF desires notwithstanding.

Because there aren’t many Yanks on here, and even fewer desiring to get into gun discussions, it appears I become the focal point for Brit (and done Yank!) ire regarding the laws.

I don’t write them, I only adhere to them. Whatever YOU OR OTHERS think that makes me seems kind of personal.

As always, feel free to correct facts stated in error. However, your personal opinions, or the desires of the ATF seem irrelevant to the FACTS of the matter, don’t they?

Barrel length is just one criteria for whether something is a pistol, it's also the weakest criteria as proven by the AR-15 gun manufacturers taking the piss.

A rifle can have its barrel shortened and become a carbine.

These pro-gun lawyers are advising people about how to skirt the law and when a brace might fall within the classification as stock and therefore fall within the control of the ATF.

Do you think anyone can competently shoot a target with one of these weapons without a brace or a stock?

Pistol Braces for AR Pistols: A Gun Lawyer’s Take - Is This Even Legal?

Pistol braces for large pistols, including AR pistols are potentially problematic. A gun rights lawyer addresses the pistol brace head on.

lifebacklegal.com

I'm not going to give you a legal opinion on what poorly drafted or manipulated laws say is a pistol. But I will maintain the system has been gamed and it isn't a pistol, that much is clear.

None of the guns referred to in the article as pistols are pistols, all are designed to be held with both hands.

If I take a shotgun and turn it in to a sawn-off does it become a pistol?

Imagine there was a ban on mailing guns through the post, but I get around this ban by taking it apart and mailing each component to the same address in individual envelopes and then provide an idiot proof instructional video on how to assemble and on-call technical support.

Should I be let off because I never actually sent a whole firearm in the post?
The hypothetical lawmakers didn't have enough foresight that they discussed this issue but the pupose of the law was to prevent guns being available to buy via mail order, logically I should come within the scope of the offence.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Barrel length is just one criteria for whether something is a pistol, it's also the weakest criteria as proven by the AR-15 gun manufacturers taking the piss.

A rifle can have its barrel shortened and become a carbine.

These pro-gun lawyers are advising people about how to skirt the law and when a brace might fall within the classification as stock and therefore fall within the control of the ATF.

Do you think anyone can competently shoot a target with one of these weapons without a brace or a stock?

Pistol Braces for AR Pistols: A Gun Lawyer’s Take - Is This Even Legal?

Pistol braces for large pistols, including AR pistols are potentially problematic. A gun rights lawyer addresses the pistol brace head on.

lifebacklegal.com

I'm not going to give you a legal opinion on what poorly drafted or manipulated laws say is a pistol. But I will maintain the system has been gamed and it isn't a pistol, that much is clear.

None of the guns referred to in the article as pistols are pistols, all are designed to be held with both hands.

If I take a shotgun and turn it in to a sawn-off does it become a pistol?

Imagine there was a ban on mailing guns through the post, but I get around this ban by taking it apart and mailing each component to the same address in individual envelopes and then provide an idiot proof instructional video on how to assemble and on-call technical support.

Should I be let off because I never actually sent a whole firearm in the post?
The hypothetical lawmakers didn't have enough foresight that they discussed this issue but the pupose of the law was to prevent guns being available to buy via mail order, logically I should come within the scope of the offence.

You have strayed so far off the point of my original post, into a hypothetical, possibly even moral, argument about intent and logic.

I’ve never argued any of those things, so you have created your own argument and have convinced yourself of your own morality and indignation.

Indeed, you know the answer to your question, and know the answer is “Yes, you should be let off, if you didn’t mail anything illegal!”

Well done. You argued…with yourself…and lost! :-)

When is a pistol not a pistol? Your answer ignores the workarounds TO THE LAW, which means they ARE LEGALLY A PISTOL.

What you want to use it for is irrelevant!

Screaming into the abyss isn’t for everyone, but you’ve mastered it beautifully.

And, don’t read into my thoughts on this thread that your moralistic arguments fall on deaf ears with me. They do not. However, neither my morality nor yours are in question here, only the laws, how difficult they are to write, pass and adjudicate, and on which side of that line one wishes to be.

I’m going to choose “legal” every time. But, I don’t get to decide what that means, nor do you. We have 9 people in black robes who do that IF 2A looks like it is being challenged.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You have strayed so far off the point of my original post, into a hypothetical, possibly even moral, argument about intent and logic.

I’ve never argued any of those things, so you have created your own argument and have convinced yourself of your own morality and indignation.

Indeed, you know the answer to your question, and know the answer is “Yes, you should be let off, if you didn’t mail anything illegal!”

Well done. You argued…with yourself…and lost!

:-)

It was an analogy.

Except I did mail something illegal when they are assembled into one unit. I wasn't running a business sending individual components, to order. Reading the law using the purposive approach* I should be sent to jail, it could even be argued I need a harsher sentence because of my efforts to escape punishment.

Allowing me to walk would be an absurdity, the law was designed to prevent the mail-order sale of guns. I am running a mail-order gun business.

*look it up, it is not the only way to read and apply the law but in the UK it is usually considered the best approach.

You kept on insisting it wasn't a pistol, none of us cares about the current legal definition of whether it is a pistol because it is a shitty law.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It was an analogy.

Except I did mail something illegal when they are assembled into one unit. I wasn't running a business sending individual components, to order. Reading the law using the purposive approach* I should be sent to jail, it could even be argued I need a harsher sentence because of my efforts to escape punishment.

Allowing me to walk would be an absurdity, the law was designed to prevent the mail-order sale of guns. I am running a mail-order gun business.

*look it up, it is not the only way to read and apply the law but in the UK it is usually considered the best approach.

You kept on insisting it wasn't a pistol, none of us cares about the current legal definition of whether it is a pistol because it is a shitty law.

“a shitty law”…is that a technical, or legal, term?

Be well.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So, if I don’t have a 3 or 5 yr old, and keep my guns locked up, I qualify, right?

Btw, what’s important to me is that the guns are safely secured and I follow the law….not what people on BM have to say about that.

Do I STILL qualify?

P.S. Your example is, literally, the definition of a NON-responsible gun owner, so how can you promote otherwise?

2 qs for you: Do you think Kyle Rittenhouse is a responsible gun user or an irresponsible gun user? I don’t know all the facts in that case — did he break a law or not? — but what’s your perspective?

And if I see a non-uniformed person standing in the street holding a gun in a circumstance in which it is legal, how am I to know if he is a responsible user or an irresponsible user? How do you tell?

 

[idahoblues]

2 qs for you: Do you think Kyle Rittenhouse is a responsible gun user or an irresponsible gun user? I don’t know all the facts in that case — did he break a law or not? — but what’s your perspective?

And if I see a non-uniformed person standing in the street holding a gun in a circumstance in which it is legal, how am I to know if he is a responsible user or an irresponsible user? How do you tell?

If you hear some loud bangs, run

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

If you hear some loud bangs, run

Light is faster than sound!

 

[Gray]

To all you resident US Blues, what do you really make of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Sid C]

Barrel length is just one criteria for whether something is a pistol, it's also the weakest criteria as proven by the AR-15 gun manufacturers taking the piss.

A rifle can have its barrel shortened and become a carbine.

These pro-gun lawyers are advising people about how to skirt the law and when a brace might fall within the classification as stock and therefore fall within the control of the ATF.

Do you think anyone can competently shoot a target with one of these weapons without a brace or a stock?

Pistol Braces for AR Pistols: A Gun Lawyer’s Take - Is This Even Legal?

Pistol braces for large pistols, including AR pistols are potentially problematic. A gun rights lawyer addresses the pistol brace head on.

lifebacklegal.com

I'm not going to give you a legal opinion on what poorly drafted or manipulated laws say is a pistol. But I will maintain the system has been gamed and it isn't a pistol, that much is clear.

None of the guns referred to in the article as pistols are pistols, all are designed to be held with both hands.

If I take a shotgun and turn it in to a sawn-off does it become a pistol?

Imagine there was a ban on mailing guns through the post, but I get around this ban by taking it apart and mailing each component to the same address in individual envelopes and then provide an idiot proof instructional video on how to assemble and on-call technical support.

Should I be let off because I never actually sent a whole firearm in the post?
The hypothetical lawmakers didn't have enough foresight that they discussed this issue but the pupose of the law was to prevent guns being available to buy via mail order, logically I should come within the scope of the offence.

Not sure where you are coming from there mate.

The law is an ass but not that much of an ass. Unauthorised possession of a component part of a firearm is classed as the same offence as possessing a complete firearm.

Case law deems component parts to be barrel, chamber, cylinder, frame body or receiver, breech, block, bolt etc etc. In short if the component part has no other use than to be part of the whole firearm then it is an offence to possess it. Obviously screws, washers, even sights that may have other uses would not be classed as component parts.

The various laws in other countries have little concern to me but I can’t envisage any ‘law maker’ being stupid enough to allow a loophole such as a firearm not being a firearm until it’s fully assembled.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Not sure where you are coming from there mate.

The law is an ass but not that much of an ass. Unauthorised possession of a component part of a firearm is classed as the same offence as possessing a complete firearm.

Case law deems component parts to be barrel, chamber, cylinder, frame body or receiver, breech, block, bolt etc etc. In short if the component part has no other use than to be part of the whole firearm then it is an offence to possess it. Obviously screws, washers, even sights that may have other uses would not be classed as component parts.

The various laws in other countries have little concern to me but I can’t envisage any ‘law maker’ being stupid enough to allow a loophole such as a firearm not being a firearm until it’s fully assembled.

Read the next post explaining. It was an analogy and hypothetical (I wasn't referring to real legislation on mail-order gun laws). Real circumstances aren't relevant to the analogy.