I'm pro-gun - ask me anything!

[M14 Shooter]

How were you introduced to firearms & firearm safety?

We started when I was around 11, with my dad and 22s.. My uncle, a little later, introduced us to the AR15.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Why shouldn't everyone have access to full-auto weapons?

Certain people- criminals, those adjudicated mentally infirm, illegal aliens, dishonorable dischargees, etc - are prohibited from ownership and possession of any and all firearms because they have lost their right to keep and bear arms thru due process, or never had the right to begin with.
This applies to full-auto weapons as well.

Why can't everyone legally allowed to own a gun have access to full-auto weapons and suppressors?

Under federal law, they can.

Without tax stamps and red tape. I kinda already know the deal.

 

[Marion Morrison]

How were you introduced to firearms & firearm safety?

I was taught at 4: Do not mess with the guns.

By 8: Never point the muzzle at anything you don't want to destroy.

By 10: Here's a .22, don't hurt anybody or damage property with it. Always assume a gun is loaded.
Never point the muzzle at anything you don't want to destroy.

That Studebaker in the woods caught hell from them hollow points, though. The bulletproof windshield ricocheted back, too.

Always be aware of where the muzzle of the gun is pointed. That's the best rule.

 

[harmonica]

which way should the toilet paper come out of the roll?

 

[M14 Shooter]

which way should the toilet paper come out of the roll?

Depends on if you have cats.

 

[Missourian]

Will the modular AR15 platform suplant traditional hunting rifles?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

First, let me say that the M14 is one of the finest firearms ever built. I spent a day with the late Hook Boutin back in the 1990s building an M1a with him. He said then he wasn't going to be around forever and thought some of us "young guys" should start learning how to work on rifles.

Today I could do some work, but realize that there will only be one Hook in this lifetime. Anyway... Here are my own personal questions:

1) From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?

2) In a country with extreme gun control measures, do you think the news media chose to focus on White Nationalism in the wake of that Australian shooting so as to avoid admitting that the theory of banning guns saves lives? For those who don't know, Australia has ALL the gun control laws the liberals want to impose here in America

3) Since many Americans are applying for licenses to have a firearm AND submitting to National Gun Registration already, what will their legal argument be once Trump and / or the states ban their weapons should they decide to destroy their weapon or turn it in?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your ar eon ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

Anything wrong with 9mm for self-defense?

Not a thing

 

[M14 Shooter]

Will the modular AR15 platform suplant traditional hunting rifles?

Supplant, as in replace?
No. While the AR platform is versatile, when you get into rounds larger than 7.62x51 - .30-06, 300WM, etc - you start spending a LOT of money.
So, for bigger game hunters (at least), the bolt-action will always be here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
1) From where do you get your unalienable Rights from?

We are endowed by our creator. Our rights exist because we exist and they are inherent to us.
The state cannot grant us our rights because we created the state; the state cannot have anything we did not first give to it.

2) In a country with extreme gun control measures, do you think the news media chose to focus on White Nationalism in the wake of that Australian shooting so as to avoid admitting that the theory of banning guns saves lives? For those who don't know, Australia has ALL the gun control laws the liberals want to impose here in America

Unquestionably.. Whatever doesn't fit the narrative is ignored; what does fit the narrative gets brought to the front ans sensationalized.

3) Since many Americans are applying for licenses to have a firearm AND submitting to National Gun Registration already, what will their legal argument be once Trump and / or the states ban their weapons should they decide to destroy their weapon or turn it in?

National Gun Registration? Is this something new?
The legal argument is as always - The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; the 2nd protects firearms "in common use sat the time", and indeed protects "all bearable arms" with the same vigor.
Enforcement of the law ultimately comes down to who is willing to use the most force - the state, or the people. Gun control is nothing more than a means to ensure the state has the upper hand.

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

Do you understand the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited; that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose?

Yes........and they have ruled on this in the Supreme Court in Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Miller and in particular, Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller stated that the AR-15 rifle is in particular protected by the 2nd Amendment and in Miller, weapons that were useful for military purposes are protected by the Constitution...

Do you understand that?

Do you understand this statement in Heller?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Do you understand that the AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amendment.....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

Do you understand the fact that it’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to be a gunowner – to be ‘pro-gun’ – and support and defend current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and support regulatory measures consistent with that jurisprudence, such as universal background checks?

Do you understand that the only reason that anti-gun activists want universal background checks is to demand universal gun registration?

Do you understand this?

Criminals and mass shooters are not stopped by current Federally mandated Background checks.....criminals use straw buyers, who can pass any background check, or steal their guns, and mass shooters can pass any background check or steal their guns.

Since current background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters, what will universal background checks achieve? Nothing. The anti-gunners know this.

They know that after passing UBCs, criminals will still get their illegal guns through straw buyers or stealing them, and mass shooters will still get guns and shoot people in public places.....

But....

Once the gun crimes continue, the anti-gun activists will come back and demand universal gun registration...they will say the only reason UBCs are not stopping gun crime is that we don't know who has the guns in the first place.......

Gun registration is the goal and universal background checks is the required step to get gun registration.

Do you understand this Clayton?

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

Do you understand the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of concealed firearms facilitates a reduction in crime?

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Do you understand that that is just one paper of many....and that is one paper against about a dozen that shows the opposite conclusion?

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

A

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

Do you understand the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of concealed firearms facilitates a reduction in crime?

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Do you understand that according to the CDC that Americans use their legal guns on average 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders? And, in fact, in those instances, crime is reduced because individuals with their personal firearms stop rapes, robberies and murders?

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

Do you understand the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of concealed firearms facilitates a reduction in crime?

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Do you understand that research into mass public shootings and these events, where armed civilians have access to their legal guns, have stopped the mass shooting and/or reduced the deaths and injuries at a rate of 94%? And that this is, in fact, a reduction in crime?

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one else?

 

[candycorn]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

I'm more concerned about cover and the ability to get away; absent either, I am more concerned about getting hits and not running out of ammo.
That's why my carry guns have 12 to 16 round magazines, with at least 1 reload on hand.
Why do you want me to run out of ammo?

You can talk all you want about rushing shooter during a split-second magazine change; in doing so you completely ignore the extraordinarily high probability that any person who would rush said shooter would prefer to have a firearm on hand to shoot the shooter instead.

 

[hunarcy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

I think that if you extend your thinking to voting, voting is important and that only people who can read should vote, so we should have literacy tests.

 

[sartre play]

How many guns do you own?, are you a hunter?