You know who is coming to take your guns?

[Deepak]

And in all cases, the purpose is to compete to see who can hit the target the best using a device design to kill stuff where hitting the targets the best is the goal.

A car can be used on a race track to compete against each other, as well, but that isn't what is was designed to normally do.

And more than that: a car that can be used for sporting purposes isn't normally street legal at all, since in most cases its high performance comes at the expense of road safety.

Applying this same logic to guns, the only firearms that should be legal in this country are hunting rifles and bench rifles, and then only for people who are licensed and trained. Shotguns on a per-permit basis.

How much time do you spend on the track? Most amateurs that I've encountered don't own trailer queens. Maybe we should ban cars as fast or faster than Miatas because they're commonly used in autocrosses.

 

[Rhea]

And more than that: a car that can be used for sporting purposes isn't normally street legal at all, since in most cases its high performance comes at the expense of road safety.

Applying this same logic to guns, the only firearms that should be legal in this country are hunting rifles and bench rifles, and then only for people who are licensed and trained. Shotguns on a per-permit basis.

How much time do you spend on the track? Most amateurs that I've encountered don't own trailer queens. Maybe we should ban cars as fast or faster than Miatas because they're commonly used in autocrosses.

Hey, now, don't you ban my autocross Miata! When used for its intended purpose without R tires it's perfectly safe! And no, I don't trailer it, although I have been known to pull a trailer _with_ it to hold said R tires.

 

[DBT]

Guns, unlike fishing rods, are potentially dangerous, even extremely dangerous, in the wrong hands, hence the need for sensible regulation...but more importantly, a change in public attitude towards guns.

A shift away from the idea as 'weapons used for killing people' and solving personal problems, to tools either for hunting or for sport, competition, recreation, etc.

Without the change in attitude to gun use, there will always be a problem. Though regulation helps, and is necessary, alone, without a major attitude change, it is not enough.

The attitude which needs to change is that guns are a way to solve problems and, more specifically, the attitude that if you feel at risk, taking out a gun is a way to increase your safety levels.

It can change, and it should be worked on with an intensive media campaign and education programs at school level (instead of the constant bombardment and reinforcement of the Hollywood hero shoot up shit)

I'd say that the American attitude towards guns is still extremely rare amongst licensed gun owners in Australia. I've had guns since I was 12 years old growing up on a farm, as were many of my school friends at the time, but actually shooting people in order to settle a dispute never even crossed our minds. As far as I know, it never happened in that time and place. It's still rare for a registered gun owner to misuse a firearm. The shootings that do occur are largely gang related using black market firearms.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And more than that: a car that can be used for sporting purposes isn't normally street legal at all, since in most cases its high performance comes at the expense of road safety.

Applying this same logic to guns, the only firearms that should be legal in this country are hunting rifles and bench rifles, and then only for people who are licensed and trained. Shotguns on a per-permit basis.

How much time do you spend on the track? Most amateurs that I've encountered don't own trailer queens. Maybe we should ban cars as fast or faster than Miatas because they're commonly used in autocrosses.

Most amateurs I've known had to jump through all kinds of insane hoops to make sure their cars WERE street legal after qualifying them for races. But my sample size is probably biased because said friends also participate occasionally in demolition derbies

There's also quite a bit of illegal street racing that goes on around here, and the open secret is that the police are totally in on it because it's better to know when it's happening and keep people safe than to not know about it and have to scrape fifty bodies off the pavement. That's a different thing, but it's a relatively small problem.

But again, all this leaves out the fact that guns are not vehicles, and that their potential lethality is a FEATURE, not a drawback. The ability of a gun to kill the things it's aimed at is the WHOLE REASON TO OWN THEM. If you aren't interested in killing things -- if you only want to practice shooting accurately for accuracy's sake -- you don't buy a real, you buy an airsoft rifle or nerf gun.

 

[DBT]

''if you only want to practice shooting accurately for accuracy's sake -- you don't buy a real, you buy an airsoft rifle or nerf gun.''

The challenge is distance, wind, trajectory, projectiles, load development, etc.....which airsoft cannot provide, not having any range to speak of. Shooting at 500 mtrs cannot be compared to plastic pallets at 10.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

''if you only want to practice shooting accurately for accuracy's sake -- you don't buy a real, you buy an airsoft rifle or nerf gun.''

The challenge is distance, wind, trajectory, projectiles, load development, etc.....which airsoft cannot provide, not having any range to speak of. Shooting at 500 mtrs cannot be compared to plastic pallets at 10.

Actually a good airsoft rifle can get some pretty good accuracy at up to 50 meters. Farther under some conditions. Paintball guns and pellet guns are farther still.

I don't know that target shooting -- or skeet shooting, for that matter -- is actually that popular of a sport in and of themselves. Both are associated closely enough with hunting that people who do one usually do the other. OTOH, there's the question of handguns and the fact that a handgun's effective range is much shorter than that a rifle, nor does a pistol generally have sufficient stopping power to be used in hunting. There's really only one kind of target you could possibly have in mind when you buy a .357 magnum from a gun store.

 

[DBT]

The challenge is distance, wind, trajectory, projectiles, load development, etc.....which airsoft cannot provide, not having any range to speak of. Shooting at 500 mtrs cannot be compared to plastic pallets at 10.

Actually a good airsoft rifle can get some pretty good accuracy at up to 50 meters. Farther under some conditions. Paintball guns and pellet guns are farther still.

What do you consider to be good accuracy?

 

[Rhea]

Actually a good airsoft rifle can get some pretty good accuracy at up to 50 meters. Farther under some conditions. Paintball guns and pellet guns are farther still.

What do you consider to be good accuracy?

Or, why do you need distance to establish gun skill?
It seems like it becomes a manufacturer's race rather than a shooter's skill. At which point?
Some people like to test themselves rather than manufacturers. They don't use tripods or wait for windless days, they test themselves against it all.

Not that there's anything wrong with enjoying a fine piece of equipment, I just can't buy that as a reason why regulations need to be compromised.

Analogy is that when I race at the track, I like to use underpowered cars. There is something DEEPLY satisfying about getting a point-by from someone with 200 more horsepower because your cornering skills beat their car's manufacturer's skills. Or the look on their face in the mirror when they check the rearview of their corvette only to see a 150-HP car has come up behind them - for the second time.

Not everyone likes that kind of skill competition, but it demonstrates that not everyone needs high-powered distance firing equipment to enjoy target shooting as a precision sport.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, the rural states just kill 'em by accident instead of on purpose...

Wyoming is an interesting case, because it has one of the highest firearm death rates but a homicide rate of zero

And the sheep are very afraid.

 

[DBT]

What do you consider to be good accuracy?

Or, why do you need distance to establish gun skill?
It seems like it becomes a manufacturer's race rather than a shooter's skill. At which point?
Some people like to test themselves rather than manufacturers. They don't use tripods or wait for windless days, they test themselves against it all.

Distance adds to the challenge, trajectory, wind factor...distance magnifies operator error and so on. Shooting at 500 mtrs is not the same as shooting at 50 or a 100. It's far more challenging. There is no comparison. And it is challenging whether shooting on a bench rest or prone, it still requires control and skill. Which, as a sport or skill, is not driven by manufactures or marketing. They just provide the tools.

I just can't buy that as a reason why regulations need to be compromised.

I've never said that there shouldn't be regulation. I have always supported reasonable gun regulation. It's the excessive regulation (some even lobby for total ban here) crowd that I oppose.

 

[ksen]

define "reasonable"

 

[Rhea]

I just can't buy that as a reason why regulations need to be compromised.

I've never said that there shouldn't be regulation. I have always supported reasonable gun regulation. It's the excessive regulation (some even lobby for total ban here) crowd that I oppose.

define "reasonable"

Yes, please. That's something I'm always looking for; the gun-owners preference for reasonable gun control.

See, I am a gun owner. And I have opinions on what I think is reasonable.
And it includes registrations of owners, weapons and ammunition. Annual audits of anyone owning more than 3 (or maybe 5) weapons, and annual self-audit statements of anyone owning fewer. Background checks for any change of ownership. Liability insurance. Mandatory anti-accident technology. And _NO_ public carry of a loaded weapon. You take your weapon to your range, hunting land or friend's house in a locked case with the ammo in a separate locked case. And no home ownership of armor-piercing ammo and no home ownership of high capacity magazines. This leaves room for those fun weapons to be purchased and housed through a club or range and used exclusively on that site; transported between sites by authorized weapons transport companies.


What are yours?

 

[beero1000]

I've never said that there shouldn't be regulation. I have always supported reasonable gun regulation. It's the excessive regulation (some even lobby for total ban here) crowd that I oppose.

define "reasonable"

Yes, please. That's something I'm always looking for; the gun-owners preference for reasonable gun control.

See, I am a gun owner. And I have opinions on what I think is reasonable.
And it includes registrations of owners, weapons and ammunition. Annual audits of anyone owning more than 3 (or maybe 5) weapons, and annual self-audit statements of anyone owning fewer. Background checks for any change of ownership. Liability insurance. Mandatory anti-accident technology. And _NO_ public carry of a loaded weapon. You take your weapon to your range, hunting land or friend's house in a locked case with the ammo in a separate locked case. And no home ownership of armor-piercing ammo and no home ownership of high capacity magazines. This leaves room for those fun weapons to be purchased and housed through a club or range and used exclusively on that site; transported between sites by authorized weapons transport companies.


What are yours?

I'd be cool with English/Australian type laws. It would be a bit of a hassle, but worth it IMO. If I had to come up with the system myself I would model it on car ownership - age limits, differentiated license categories, registration, annual inspections, insurance, etc.

But then again, I view guns as tools, not ego boosters. I've seen enough on the internet to know that the militaristic, video game, 'tacti-cool' aesthetic is about feeling powerful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

define "reasonable"

Regulations that:

1) Do not pose an unreasonable infringement on lawful gun owners. Examples:
1a) Regulations that run up the cost for no appreciable benefit.
1b) Regulations that preclude any substantial numbers of lawful gun owners from having a gun.
1b1) Storage requirements that effectively prohibit guns in rental units.
1b2) Storage requirements that effectively prohibit guns in upper stories.
1c) Regulations that preclude any law-abiding use of a gun.
1c1) Storage requirements that make it take too long to ready a gun for self-defense use.

2) Provide an actual benefit, either to the safety of users or keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals.

3) Given the track record of the gun-banners, regulations that do not produce a list of guns.


As far as I'm concerned, by far the #1 regulation that should be passed is gun possession licenses--equivalent to driver's licenses but you are considered to be operating the gun if you have it in your possession and the location of the gun is considered to be to the range it's bullets can reach.

Like driver's licenses you must show a knowledge of safety and a knowledge of the law in order to get one. Possession would be considered to have the unsupervised control of a gun--you can still take your kids out shooting because you're watching them as they do it. (One gun per licensed adult, though--any one person can only supervise one gun at a time.) One-on-one supervision is not required in a classroom or range rental-gun situation so long as there is access control--someone can't just walk out with the gun.

 

[DBT]

define "reasonable"

I had already given an outline earlier in this thread.

Basically,

1 - a comprehensive background check that includes medical records (mental health)
2 - a safety course and with an assessment of competency.
3 - secure storage that excludes anyone in the household who is not licensed from having access to firearms.

These are reasonable requirements, both for the gun owner (not being overly restrictive) and society because it filters out those who are perhaps not suited to handling potentially dangerous tools/objects such as firearms. Just as we do with car licences, hazardous chemicals, explosives.....

Using the standard definition of 'reasonable'
reasonable

ˈriːz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: reasonable

1. having sound judgement; fair and sensible.
"no reasonable person could have objected"
synonyms: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable, decent; More
intelligent, wise, level-headed, practical, realistic;
based on good sense, sound, judicious, well thought out, well grounded, reasoned, well reasoned, valid, commonsensical, advisable, well advised;
tenable, plausible, feasible, credible, acceptable, admissible, believable, viable
"a reasonable man"
antonyms: unreasonable, illogical
based on good sense.
"it seems a reasonable enough request"
archaic
able to reason logically.
"man is by nature reasonable"
2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

 

[DBT]

I'd be cool with English/Australian type laws. It would be a bit of a hassle, but worth it IMO. .

Some the aspects of our gun laws are reasonable, but some of it goes into territory that provides no additional benefit to public safety but appears to be designed to make things difficult for licensed gun owners. Which is unreasonable.

 

[ksen]

thanks :hug: