Anecdotally I have always paid cash. I show my ID to get the military veteran discount but they don't write anything down. I would be curious if the online ammo sites will give people warnings. I also assume the firearm youtubers will be talking about this.
just read through it. it seems to be about deobfusicating a firearms purchase by making the credit purchase classification a bit more granular, and descriptive of such purchases, rather than [sporting goods store].
also adds flags for suspicious purchases, so how you conduct yourself will be reflected as well.
Which is kind of silly to add flags for suspicious purchases. Any firearms transfer at a store with an FFL if he is suspicious of the transaction should not sell it or do the transfer. There are already laws on the books to prosecute FFL transfers when you should have known or reasonably known the person you were transferring it to wasn't eligible to have the gun.
The federal government is banned by law from compiling a firearms owner's database. This is just a back door to do that. Very likely will accomplish zero reduction in crime or straw purchases. Because when you're buying a gun to commit a crime or for someone else it's generally a few hundred dollars because it's the cheapest gun you can get easy to pay in cash with.
This is an owner's database for expensive guns that are not used in crimes. Because those guns are more difficult to pay in cash with for example the last two guns I purchased were $10,000 and $17,000. Clearly these are the weapons that are used in committing crimes.
AFAIK there are only a handful states where black/silver tip ammo is not legal to sell and/or requires a special permit. [1][2] Most can still sell green tips. The definition appears to have evolved over time to include brass/hard-cast for some calibers/states. [3] AP are supposed to be law enforcement only. The ATF exempt some AP intended for specific sporting or industrial purposes. I've never personally found a need to buy it.
really big game like alaskan bull moose or grizzly bear have thick dense, bone, and very large muscle mass. I would consider AP to be closer to wise than overkill, id have to check the book for regulations im not sure if it would be allowed on a legal hunt.
i just read through the hunting regulations for alaska this season, and there seem to be some changes. there used to be a lower limit [.30] to centerfire rifle calibre. it seems that has been removed, and you cant use rimfire [.22] calibres except in special hunt of caribou crossing a river.
it seems [.223] would be a legal calibre for large game this year but id go larger.
the concern is that a well placed shot as in staying in an 8" group at 200 yards is good enough to take large game.
a big bore rifle of such recoil that you cant place a shot is more likely to end in a wounded animal chase, than an accurate smaller bore of lower recoil that you can manage.
Because owning a firearm potentially harms others (that is the whole job of the tool, one would argue), sometimes at ridiculous scale for a developed civil society (gestures broadly to mass shooting after mass shooting and overall gun violence [1] [2]). An abortion is healthcare. I fail to see the comparison or how the two can be equated.
This is an attempt to technically excuse away a tool that you always treat as loaded until confirmed otherwise and you never point at something unless you intend to destroy what you’re pointing at. You’re not using it to open doors or fix tractors. A tool to drive nails into concrete with gunpowder is not a gun; it’s sold at Home Depot or insert your big box store here.
Invasive hog hunting? Sure. Self defense? Sure. Clay pigeon shooting? Why not. 45k gun deaths a year in the US, half of which are suicide? Also true. Regulate that which causes harm, that is the role of government. There is a large canyon between “guns for everyone” and “take away all the guns”, and room for improvement as it relates to harm reduction.
Switzerland comes to mind. Very high gun ownership rate, much lower gun violence/death rate.
Edit: One might also point to the UK, Canada, and Australia, but that wouldn’t be a fair comparison due to how heavily firearms are restricted in those countries.
Oh don't point out Switzerland gun control advocates hate it when you point out Switzerland. Because Switzerland shows that it is not the guns themselves but it is a cultural problem.
It is much easier to blame the guns than it is to put the problem right where it lies in a divisive media egged on by politicians that is stoking cultural problems. All for them to retain their seats of power.
>This is an attempt to technically excuse away a tool that you always treat as loaded until confirmed otherwise and you never point at something unless you intend to destroy what you’re pointing at.
Same logic applies to line throwers, flare guns, seed shotguns, pyrotechnic shells, the myriad uses of a 40mm grenade launcher i fail to see your point. Something can be dangerous without it's primary use being kill someone, or else power cords would be classed as deadly weapons.
>There is a large canyon between “guns for everyone” and “take away all the guns”, and room for improvement as it relates to harm reduction.
Uh huh, and what the plan is is to eventually put in place enough friction that no one would bother buying more, then sit and wait for the old stuff to age out, right? That's not reasonable though, right, because we haven't gone through a century of having the thumbs screws applied to firearms in myriad ways; because we haven't had the mere presence, but non employment of a firearm turned into an escalation criteria from misdemeanor to felony with statutory sentencing stapled on? Because firearms haven't been "regulated" through a constitutional backdoor whereby the means of legally owning something has been mandated to have no Federal budget spent on it's upkeep, thereby infringing on a 2nd Amendment via indirection.
Sorry, not sorry. I'm more than read up on that minutiae. I know the arguments, and most of them degenerate down to "I don't feel safe other people are free to own those things." To which my response is, tough luck.
You want harm reduction? Maybe start looking at the core problem. Stop architecting the economic system to massively favor the capital wielding class. Pay people fairly, stop looking for fiscal growth potential for it's own sake, and decrease the overall risk of merely existing by rendering sane the medical infrastructure. Reinstate public works where necessary to create and upkeep infrastructure while increasing economic mobility and bounceback potential.
People tend to be much less violent when the game isn't so blantantly tilted in someone else's favor.
Compare: the percentage of gun purchases that result in ending a human life; the percentage of abortion service purchases that result in ending a human life.
23 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 59.8 ms ] threadalso adds flags for suspicious purchases, so how you conduct yourself will be reflected as well.
The federal government is banned by law from compiling a firearms owner's database. This is just a back door to do that. Very likely will accomplish zero reduction in crime or straw purchases. Because when you're buying a gun to commit a crime or for someone else it's generally a few hundred dollars because it's the cheapest gun you can get easy to pay in cash with.
This is an owner's database for expensive guns that are not used in crimes. Because those guns are more difficult to pay in cash with for example the last two guns I purchased were $10,000 and $17,000. Clearly these are the weapons that are used in committing crimes.
i think this is where the head space is with putting flags on.
[1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/ammunition-...
[2] - https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardwar...
[3] - https://rocketffl.com/ap-ammo-are-armor-piercing-bullets-leg...
[1] - https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/ammunition-regulat...
it seems [.223] would be a legal calibre for large game this year but id go larger.
[edit] i just went a little further on:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.firearms
the concern is that a well placed shot as in staying in an 8" group at 200 yards is good enough to take large game.
a big bore rifle of such recoil that you cant place a shot is more likely to end in a wounded animal chase, than an accurate smaller bore of lower recoil that you can manage.
(Full disclosure: prochoice firearms owner)
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-da...
[2] https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america...
It's an open ended, mechanically triggered, gas generator frequently employed to convert chemical to kinetic energy of a poperly dimensioned payload.
That has many many uses.
Invasive hog hunting? Sure. Self defense? Sure. Clay pigeon shooting? Why not. 45k gun deaths a year in the US, half of which are suicide? Also true. Regulate that which causes harm, that is the role of government. There is a large canyon between “guns for everyone” and “take away all the guns”, and room for improvement as it relates to harm reduction.
Edit: One might also point to the UK, Canada, and Australia, but that wouldn’t be a fair comparison due to how heavily firearms are restricted in those countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...
It is much easier to blame the guns than it is to put the problem right where it lies in a divisive media egged on by politicians that is stoking cultural problems. All for them to retain their seats of power.
Same logic applies to line throwers, flare guns, seed shotguns, pyrotechnic shells, the myriad uses of a 40mm grenade launcher i fail to see your point. Something can be dangerous without it's primary use being kill someone, or else power cords would be classed as deadly weapons.
>There is a large canyon between “guns for everyone” and “take away all the guns”, and room for improvement as it relates to harm reduction.
Uh huh, and what the plan is is to eventually put in place enough friction that no one would bother buying more, then sit and wait for the old stuff to age out, right? That's not reasonable though, right, because we haven't gone through a century of having the thumbs screws applied to firearms in myriad ways; because we haven't had the mere presence, but non employment of a firearm turned into an escalation criteria from misdemeanor to felony with statutory sentencing stapled on? Because firearms haven't been "regulated" through a constitutional backdoor whereby the means of legally owning something has been mandated to have no Federal budget spent on it's upkeep, thereby infringing on a 2nd Amendment via indirection.
Sorry, not sorry. I'm more than read up on that minutiae. I know the arguments, and most of them degenerate down to "I don't feel safe other people are free to own those things." To which my response is, tough luck.
You want harm reduction? Maybe start looking at the core problem. Stop architecting the economic system to massively favor the capital wielding class. Pay people fairly, stop looking for fiscal growth potential for it's own sake, and decrease the overall risk of merely existing by rendering sane the medical infrastructure. Reinstate public works where necessary to create and upkeep infrastructure while increasing economic mobility and bounceback potential.
People tend to be much less violent when the game isn't so blantantly tilted in someone else's favor.
Additionally you can use certain attachments or rounds with guns for breaching doors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_round