Stephen King weighs in on gun control

[2shameless]

I should point out that my intention with this thread was to make a cheap joke about teenagers with psychic powers, not start another tedious gun debate. Oh well.

I believe that about as much your "I don't watch Youtube videos."

Gun culture extends to the absurd belief that guns are necessary to defend against government tyranny. It's the sort of thing that makes people feel the need to carry a concealed handgun to a wedding. The sort of thing that concentrates on the highly unlikely circumstance of an armed home invasion to the degree that a teenager who forgot his keys can be shot to death with no attempt to determine his identity.

So I am less likely to have my home robbed than shoot someone accidentally?

You posted a video that is 18 years old and related to an assault weapons ban. It has nothing to do with current legislation at all, which seeks to limit things like magazine size.

Ah so now you know who Dianne Feinstein is? When that video was shot she had just helped lead the push for the "assault" weapons ban and in a moment of candor, let her true intentions be known. Now she is pushing, has in fact authored, a far more draconian piece of legislation. One that proposes to ban the manufacture, sale and transfer of 150 specific weapons and a whole slew more of types that accept a magazine, even if it is less than 10 rounds. Only this one is permanent, doesn't have an expiration like her last ineffectual law.

The idea that you need guns to defend yourself against your government is ludicrous.

I find the idea that a government could never turn tyrannical to be ludicrous. My particular firearms are for defense, plinking and hunting. In that order. None of those scary "assault" types.

You talk about your constitutional rights then you talk about gunning down criminals. Which is it?

The Constitution gives me the right to own firearms, more specifically restricts the Federal Government from taking them away. What I choose to use them for is my business.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nobody is infringing your right to keep and bear arms. They are limiting you on which arms you can bear. Unless you're arguing for the right to private ownership of nuclear weapons then you advocate at least some limit on what arms are permissible to bear. The question is where you draw the line.

I suggest you look up the word infringe.

In any case the right to bear arms is related the establishment of militias. Not to do with home defence. Not to do with little old ladies with herpes defending their meagre orphans from murderous rapists and government nazis.

Forgetting for a minute that the militia included everyone back in those days, lets not pretend that what comes after the comma refers exclusively to what precedes it. Or what the Supreme Court has determined that it means.

The proportion of gun owners that ever are in the situation where they use their guns to protect themselves from intruders is so tiny it's effectively zero.

Yet it's still significantly higher than those killed in spree shootings.

The odd highly publicised anecdote of the little old ladies who protect themselves from certain rape by shooting an idiot on crack through their door is not indicative of a brave armed citizenry defending themselves from hordes of slightly armed bandits.

You're rambling again.

Hitler rose to power as part of a popular movement. Stalin came to power following the death of Lenin who came to power on the crest of a popular movement.

Are you saying that a majority of Germans elected Hitler to be their dictator?

Fact is that dictators don't steal power from an unwilling populace.

Nonsense.

They get the populace or a a significant proportion of the populace on their side and use that popularity to achieve power.

Which is why our Constitution is so important, it prohibits tyranny of the majority. Like Apartheid, for instance.

So you draw the line at a prohibition on slavery? In the South they considered such a prohibition to be an unacceptable infringement on their rights and went to war over it. How did that work out for them?

Who's drawing a line?

I believe these are restrictions on new sales.

An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2472275.html

And what do you mean "protect themselves"?

What do you think I mean?


A particularly powerful piece of testimony, for those that watch Youtube videos.

[2shameless]

I am talking specifically about California since thats what she is proposing the bill for...

No, she is proposing this bill nationwide.

Second point, do you not know what "and" means? That doesnt mean a detachable magazine only makes the gun illegal. It means detachable mag, AND one of those other features. Just like I said in my post you quoted... Currently from what I understand the law now in Cali is exactly the same only it is allowed 2 of those features, rather than just 1 which is the main proposed change...

I don't really care about California law, as I would never dream of living there, or the fact that you're so satisfied with having one finger up your butt that you're welcoming another.

Ive seen plenty of women shoot .45 with no problems at all. I have never seen even a child have an issue with recoil from a .22... Im not the one claiming recoil is an issue for them. You did.

I take it you didn't reread my post. Reading comprehension much?

[Kenny MF Powers]

No, she is proposing this bill nationwide.



I don't really care about California law, as I would never dream of living there, or the fact that you're so satisfied with having one finger up your butt that you're welcoming another.



I take it you didn't reread my post. Reading comprehension much?

I dont live in Cali player...

Also, dont make assumptions just because I call out inaccuracies in your spreading of hysteria.

[2shameless]

I dont live in Cali player...

Player? So you're just being unnecessarily combative?

Also, dont make assumptions just because I call out inaccuracies in your spreading of hysteria.

So you honestly don't understand?

Forgive me if I don't address the absurdity of the average person disabling 7 attackers with 7 bullets in the middle of the night, especially say a small woman who can't handle the recoil of more than a .22 or .25.

My condolences. Do you have any reason why so many people carry a .22 for self defense? It's certainly has nothing to do with stopping power. Hysteria? I'm definitely against the permanent ban on the weapons I posted pictures of, two of which I have owned in the past and enjoyed. The current hysteria is causing ammo to become scarce and expensive, making regular, necessary, target practice prohibitive.

[Kenny MF Powers]

My condolences. Do you have any reason why so many people carry a .22 for self defense? It's certainly has nothing to do with stopping power. Hysteria? I'm definitely against the permanent ban on the weapons I posted pictures of, two of which I have owned in the past and enjoyed. The current hysteria is causing ammo to become scarce and expensive, making regular, necessary, target practice prohibitive.

Well, I don't think as many people as you think carry a .22 for defense. It's not a very effective round at all...

I would think its more for:

1. A deterrent, just having a gun, hoping to diffuse a possible hostile situation.
2. Small size, low weight compared to more effective caliber firearms.
3. As you mentioned yourself, cheap as ****. Not just the ammo though, the gun as well. Even to just go out and shoot. Around 20 bucks for a bulk 550 pack. It's cost effective. Of all the guns I've owned and sold, the .22s I tend to hold on to.

As for the part you keep posting insisting I don't get it, I think it's you who doesn't understand my response. I have yet to see a single person who can't handle really any rimfire cartridge. It's like a damn rubber band popping off your finger. It's nothing... If not for the noise, I'd bet my one year old daughter could handle the recoil of a .22, not that I plan to find out of course.

[2shameless]

Well, I don't think as many people as you think carry a .22 for defense. It's not a very effective round at all...

I would think its more for:

1. A deterrent, just having a gun, hoping to diffuse a possible hostile situation.
2. Small size, low weight compared to more effective caliber firearms.
3. As you mentioned yourself, cheap as ****. Not just the ammo though, the gun as well. Even to just go out and shoot. Around 20 bucks for a bulk 550 pack. It's cost effective. Of all the guns I've owned and sold, the .22s I tend to hold on to.

There are tons of snub snose .22 revolvers sold, as well mini semiautos like the Taurus I posted in a woman's hand. None are range guns. They are small, virtually recoilless weapons that are comfortable to shoot. Unlike say a Glock 27, which are extremely uncomfortable to shoot, as are many of these new, extremely light, concealable pistols in larger calibers, like a Ruger LCR .357.

As for the part you keep posting insisting I don't get it, I think it's you who doesn't understand my response. I have yet to see a single person who can't handle really any rimfire cartridge. It's like a damn rubber band popping off your finger. It's nothing... If not for the noise, I'd bet my one year old daughter could handle the recoil of a .22, not that I plan to find out of course.

I'll wait for one of my posts saying that there is anyone on earth that can't handle the recoil of a .22. Until then I'll just assume that you're trolling or are incapable of basic comprehension.

There are some rimfires that have a noticeable kick, like the Kel Tec PMR 30 though when the mag is almost empty. You can absolutely feel some hot magnum loads due to the sheer weghtlessness of that pistol.

[cupocity303]

I think I could live with "tyranny" comprised of asking me not to own people. Maybe that's just me.

Well done in this thread. I haven't noticed you before, but I'll keep an eye out for future posts.

[cupocity303]

A particularly powerful piece of testimony, for those that watch Youtube videos.

Woah!!!

Good watch. Thanks for posting.

[Kenny MF Powers]

There are tons of snub snose .22 revolvers sold, as well mini semiautos like the Taurus I posted in a woman's hand. None are range guns. They are small, virtually recoilless weapons that are comfortable to shoot. Unlike say a Glock 27, which are extremely uncomfortable to shoot, as are many of these new, extremely light, concealable pistols in larger calibers, like a Ruger LCR .357.

I'll wait for one of my posts saying that there is anyone on earth that can't handle the recoil of a .22. Until then I'll just assume that you're trolling or are incapable of basic comprehension.

There are some rimfires that have a noticeable kick, like the Kel Tec PMR 30 though when the mag is almost empty. You can absolutely feel some hot magnum loads due to the sheer weghtlessness of that pistol.

No **** alot are sold... Most are cheap to own, and cheap to shoot. I own a few myself. As for personal opinion, I love subcompacts and don't find them uncomfortable at all. A Springfield XD SC40 is what I've used for competitive shooting in the past and done decent with.

"say a small woman who can't handle the recoil of more than a .22 or .25" I take that to mean someone who can barely handle the recoil, yes it says "more than", but lets jump to say a .32 or .380, we aren't talking a huge difference here. A difference, but not significant IMO. Especially from something with blowback operation... If someone can't handle more than a .22 or .25 I really am not fond of the idea of them attempting to fire in a stressful situation. Sounds potentially disastrous.

I'm sorry, even a .22 mag has a weak kick IMO.

[Kenny MF Powers]

I'm really not in favor of gun control at all. Hell, I wish I could easily own full autos, grenades, all that ****. Sounds like fun to me. Full auto is possible in Nevada, but not easy. My idea of fun shooting is propane tanks, and gasoline out in the desert, sometimes Tannerite. Best I got for now really.

I don't think a bunch of vigilante civilians is really a good idea either, and the idea doesn't make me feel more safe. These people aren't trained for these hypothetical situations. That chick in the video has plenty of coulda wouldas. Means nothing to me. Situational awareness, angles, all that **** might be taught in the 2 day course forma CCW which is great, but I'm sure it's gonna be alot different in the live scenario, and anyone can say what they would've done, but who knows how it might actually play out.

Since we love hypotheticals in these discussions. Lets see, dude runs in the Sizzler and starts popping people. Civilian A pulls his CCW and takes him out. Civilian B wanting to be Walker Texas Ranger comes around the corner and blasts civilian A thinking hes the criminal, or worse misses and hits a kid cause he didn't make sure the targets background was clear before firing under stress. Then what do we have? Good Samaritans? Or an irresponsible gun owner?

Again I'm all for gun ownership of all kinds, but I wouldn't be opposed to discussing a change in laws for ownership as well as carry rights.

Honestly I think if anyone is fueling the need for change its the gun lobby by constantly putting this **** out when anything happens. I don't think to most people guns are a big concern as far as being banned. Yet, the spreading of fear and hysteria keeps it front page and on both the minds of the responsible owners, as well as the anti crowd. But I think change is inevitable and the gun lobby knows they can only fight it for so long. Who benefits at times like this? Gun and ammo manufacturers, stores can't keep either on the shelf... Everyones buying up everything they can. How does anyone else benefit from this? I just don't see it. Politicians want votes, messing with gun rights wont do That for them.

Just my opinion of course, but I think the Alex Jones, and James Yeagers who talk about going all 1776 on people are the ones who really put fear in the minds of anti gun types. It's just childish to me. I don't think anyone likes the idea of people who get that angry over some silly anti gun person discussing taking their toys away having guns. I know I don't.

Random thoughts, and rant over.