Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[Shraggs]

Where are you getting your data on an AR only penetrating 1-2 layers of drywall?

A number of years ago there were a few decent gun and ammo tv shows sponsored by the hard print that produced them. Honestly can’t recall the name. Had a full show dedicated to a well designed, well controlled demonstration of said calibers and weapons with different weights bullets too. I recorded it, but lost it. Think some links BJorn listed talk to this too. Mini 14 vs ar us purely ergonomic as they are the round as you know.

there was also another gun forum I liked a lot, not ar15. And now I can’t remover the guru I believe was fbi ballistics authoring offers of white papers. Read them all, and echo what that show filmed vs Forensic evidence. But his work was fascinating regarding Bullet construction in determine barrier defeating and how effectiveness in tissue declines. The projectiles in my shotgun and ar are not barrier capable will not over penetrate

I was fascinated with not only being effective and but safe. I honestly was surprised the ar penetration so low. But if you think about how a 7mm 3000+ round can hit bone on a deer at 50 yards and learn it over fragmented. And that was observed on film. Good first hole second layer that 22 shattered into half dozen or more pieces.

I’ve been attacked, my father had, family has, had a girlfriend sister killed, my house broken into and trashed. I get fun money working gun shows selling (not guns) and do some training. Some of the stories re told to me are disappointing to see the least of victims.

Above it has shaped me. Respectfully and responsibly. Some mentioned above how this entire subject even by hunters isn’t well understood, and I agree with that. I’m trying to do my part. I’m a board member at a nice gun club. We’re over run with church teams, corporate teams with secret employees and of course CPL trainers biding for range time for huge classes. Had to rewrite some polices in fact.

Btw. I like and choose a shotgun in my home. I have two special needs kids and that’s my choice. Handgun is fir personal defense outside my home. My ar well if a large group of extremists are in my area that is the best tool should my family, friends, community or property become a target.

 

[Rob5589]

At least, that's what they will claim. However, I suspect a run through the data would show that AR's are rather low on the list of weapons actually used in self defense, far outnumbered by handguns and other weapons.

Can you use one for self defense? Sure you can. I can also use a baseball bat. But are they used? I'd be surprised if the instance of AR's actually used for self defense is more than 10% of all cases.

How often they are used makes no difference. The fact that they can be used is what is written.

 

[Newtosavage]

How often they are used makes no difference. The fact that they can be used is what is written.

It was in response to the "common" definition.

But I suppose lots of folks at the time had pitchforks, which "could" be used, but maybe not that often...

 

[Rob5589]

It was in response to the "common" definition.

But I suppose lots of folks at the time had pitchforks, which "could" be used, but maybe not that often...

Frequency of use has no bearing.

 

[Newtosavage]

Frequency of use has no bearing.

It might as it relates to the word "common." But then again, maybe not. That's for the justices to decide.

 

[Rob5589]

It might as it relates to the word "common." But then again, maybe not. That's for the justices to decide.

Common use, and actual use, are not the same thing. I have guns I use for self defense, yet I have never actually used one (thankfully).
I would be confident in a wager to say more people buy an AR15 for the unlikely event they ever need to defend themselves and family than ones that buy them for hunting purposes.

 

[Maverick1]

 

[Newtosavage]

Common use, and actual use, are not the same thing. I have guns I use for self defense, yet I have never actually used one (thankfully).
I would be confident in a wager to say more people buy an AR15 for the unlikely event they ever need to defend themselves and family than ones that buy them for hunting purposes.

It would be really interesting to know in what % of actual self or home-defense scenarios, an AR is used vs. a handgun, shotgun, etc.

 

[Huntinaz]

It would be really interesting to know in what % of actual self or home-defense scenarios, an AR is used vs. a handgun, shotgun, etc.

What if the nature of home defense changed for some reason? What if property defense became necessary? Is planning for a worse-case future scenario out of the question? What about situations where they are the best or one of the best options, we just say hey those are a minority so screw ‘em? Is the bill rights not a document that tries to preserve freedoms, a safeguard against many possible future scenarios, both foreseen and unforeseen?

This is (partially) why a lot of people don’t think those percentages do matter or should matter

 

[Newtosavage]

What if the nature of home defense changed for some reason? What if property defense became necessary? Is planning for a worse-case future scenario out of the question? What about situations where they are the best or one of the best options, we just say hey those are a minority so screw ‘em? Is the bill rights not a document that tries to preserve freedoms, a safeguard against many possible future scenarios, both foreseen and unforeseen?

This is (partially) why a lot of people don’t think those percentages do matter or should matter

Valid questions.

Looking back at precedent however, were the "infringements" on the 2A (as some would consider them) making it very difficult to own a fully automatic weapon, removing the ability of convicted felons from possessing firearms, etc., not weighed against the value of those infringements to public safety?

 

[BjornF16]

At least, that's what they will claim. However, I suspect a run through the data would show that AR's are rather low on the list of weapons actually used in self defense, far outnumbered by handguns and other weapons.

Can you use one for self defense? Sure you can. I can also use a baseball bat. But are they used? I'd be surprised if the instance of AR's actually used for self defense is more than 10% of all cases.

Actually, I have an SBR with suppressor that is my primary home self defense weapon. My sidearms are available to help me get to my primary tool.

I've linked to several articles discussing AR-15 for self/home defense, and the FBI testing that shows pistol and shotgun penetrate more than an AR-15 with typical self defense bullets (not FMJ...that would be crazy ;-)

@Rob5589 makes a GREAT point with DC v Heller...I wasn't even looking at those right now since I was really in the "original intent" mode, looking at 18th Century writings and the first real SCOTUS decision on 2A in US v Miller.

Here is a link to DC v Heller:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

Primary Holding
Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

Edit: The majority opinion here is from Justice Scalia, whom I referenced we can thank for the most "recent" expansion (really, regaining) of 2A rights.

 

[Newtosavage]

Actually, I have an SBR with suppressor that is my primary home self defense weapon. My sidearms are available to help me get to my primary tool.

I've linked to several articles discussing AR-15 for self/home defense, and the FBI testing that shows pistol and shotgun penetrate more than an AR-15 with typical self defense bullets (not FMJ...that would be crazy ;-)

@Rob5589 makes a GREAT point with DC v Heller...I wasn't even looking at those right now since I was really in the "original intent" mode, looking at 18th Century writings and the first real SCOTUS decision on 2A in US v Miller.

Here is a link to DC v Heller:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

Primary Holding
Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

Edit: The majority opinion here is from Justice Scalia, whom I referenced we can thank for the most "recent" expansion (really, regaining) of 2A rights.

I suppose I could see someone who was trained on an AR or M4 choosing one as their primary home defense weapon. A fella needs something they can run in the dark, under stress.

 

[Huntinaz]

Valid questions.

Looking back at precedent however, were the "infringements" on the 2A (as some would consider them) making it very difficult to own a fully automatic weapon, removing the ability of convicted felons from possessing firearms, etc., not weighed against the value of those infringements to public safety?

Yes but regardless of how we feel about what’s already been done. In The context of The original intent of the thread about what may be coming next, and about the likely firearms in question for most of this debate which I would say is the AR15 (and magazine size is invariably going to be part of these conversations), I personally do not buy the evidence about this weapon and its infringement on public safety.

I believe the examples most often given as examples of an assault on public safety would not be addressed nor mitigated by the legislation most commonly proposed and also any violence that would cease to be committed by these means would only be committed by others which are also readily available. There are a plethora of examples that I won’t bore anyone with but the pile of dead hogs over time at the end of your mini-14 or you 30-30 lever gun is as good an example as any

What it would accomplish in my opinion, is another step towards the decadence of a very important set of rights which would ultimately lead to a reduction in the ability of the individuals and communities of this nation to defend themselves and each other against whatever threat may come their way and if history has shown us anything it’s that it is likely to come your way at some point

 

[BjornF16]

It would be really interesting to know in what % of actual self or home-defense scenarios, an AR is used vs. a handgun, shotgun, etc.

Not exactly what you are looking for, but interesting nonetheless:

Gun Violence in America

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated...

nij.ojp.gov

Armed Civilian Firearms Saving Lives: FBI Report [Updated]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released an important report indicating the civilian use of firearms in self-defense is much more prevalent than some would have us believe and far more successful than previously reported. This is great news as law enforcement officers understand that...

www.bluesheepdog.com

 

[Rob5589]

It would be really interesting to know in what % of actual self or home-defense scenarios, an AR is used vs. a handgun, shotgun, etc.

We don't want the courts to base their decisions on frequency of use. To infer an AR isn't needed for self defense due to the low incidents of use; one could argue the opposite that there needs to be tighter restrictions on handguns due to their significant use in crimes.

 

[Newtosavage]

Yes but regardless of how we feel about what’s already been done. In The context of The original intent of the thread about what may be coming next, and about the likely firearms in question for most of this debate which I would say is the AR15 (and magazine size is invariably going to be part of these conversations), I personally do not buy the evidence about this weapon and its infringement on public safety.

I believe the examples most often given as examples of an assault on public safety would not be addressed nor mitigated by the legislation most commonly proposed and also any violence that would cease to be committed by these means would only be committed by others which are also readily available. There are a plethora of examples that I won’t bore anyone with but the pile of dead hogs over time at the end of your mini-14 or you 30-30 lever gun is as good an example as any

What it would accomplish in my opinion, is another step towards the decadence of a very important set of rights which would ultimately lead to a reduction in the ability of the individuals and communities of this nation to defend themselves and each other against whatever threat may come their way and if history has shown us anything it’s that it is likely to come your way at some point

Fair enough. But I understand why the general non-gun person would be suspicious when in so many instances of mass shootings over the past 20 years, the AR has been the weapon of choice. Of course more people are murdered with other types of firearms, but it's easy for me to understand why the typical suburban mom would focus on the one that is being chosen time and again for the worst mass shootings.

I say "suburban mom" because like most here, I don't care what the far left wingnuts think, just like I don't care what the right-wing extremist home-brew militia members think. Not enough votes there to matter. But I do care what most suburban moms who are non-gun people (like my sister-in-law) think because if we can't convince them, then we haven't done our job. And there's a lot of votes there.

 

[Newtosavage]

We don't want the courts to base their decisions on frequency of use. To infer an AR isn't needed for self defense due to the low incidents of use; one could argue the opposite that there needs to be tighter restrictions on handguns due to their significant use in crimes.

I would agree with that assessment.

 

[BjornF16]

Fair enough. But I understand why the general non-gun person would be suspicious when in so many instances of mass shootings over the past 20 years, the AR has been the weapon of choice. Of course more people are murdered with other types of firearms, but it's easy for me to understand why the typical suburban mom would focus on the one that is being chosen time and again for the worst mass shootings.

I say "suburban mom" because like most here, I don't care what the far left wingnuts think, just like I don't care what the right-wing extremist home-brew militia members think. Not enough votes there to matter. But I do care what most suburban moms who are non-gun people (like my sister-in-law) think because if we can't convince them, then we haven't done our job. And there's a lot of votes there.

Facts and logical arguments...leave the emotions out.

There’s a good book by John Lott on debunking gun crime myths

 

[Huntinaz]

Fair enough. But I understand why the general non-gun person would be suspicious when in so many instances of mass shootings over the past 20 years, the AR has been the weapon of choice. Of course more people are murdered with other types of firearms, but it's easy for me to understand why the typical suburban mom would focus on the one that is being chosen time and again for the worst mass shootings.

I say "suburban mom" because like most here, I don't care what the far left wingnuts think, just like I don't care what the right-wing extremist home-brew militia members think. Not enough votes there to matter. But I do care what most suburban moms who are non-gun people (like my sister-in-law) think because if we can't convince them, then we haven't done our job. And there's a lot of votes there.

I guess I’m against blaming scapegoats in general and that’s what the AR15 is in this case

“I can see why that scapegoat makes sense to people” is not a valid argument in my opinion

 

[Newtosavage]

I guess I’m against blaming scapegoats in general and that’s what the AR15 is in this case

“I can see why that scapegoat makes sense to people” is not a valid argument in my opinion

I completely understand, but the fact is if we can't convince enough suburban moms, it doesn't matter.

I always think of my grandmother when topics like this come up. She was the most logical, reasonable person I ever knew. Grew up poor on a farm in the TX panhandle in the 20's and 30's and raised 9 kids, again, on a farm. She didn't say much, but when she spoke you either listened or you were an idiot. LOL

I can just imagine what she'd have to say about this topic, and frankly, she wouldn't be wrong.

Good conversation fellas. I appreciate those who have stayed focus on the topic. Lots to think about.