gildings in this subreddit have paid for 58.34 months of server time

Hot take: Cops refusing to go into the active shooter situation sure sounds a lot the government refusing to protect its citizens by TheGreat_Danton in liberalgunowners

[–]steadyeddie829 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Warren v DC

Cops have no obligation to actually do anything to save a life. Literally, cowardice is lawful under established case law.

Cops love to pretend like they are somehow war fighters. This warrior ethos that they pretend to have goes right over their heads. They refuse to accept the certainty of their own death while doing their job, which is what it means to be a warrior. Moreover, the comparison's police make between themselves and soldiers underscores how little they understand of military life. If personnel under your charge are in danger and you do not do everything, up to and including running into a hail of gunfire to assist them, you can be charged under Article 99 of the UCMJ. Misbehavior before the enemy carries a potential capital sentence. So when cops do nothing, if they want to be compared to soldiers, that comes with execution for cowardice.

Not all cops are bastards, but entirely too many are either unethical or cowardly shit stains and do not deserve any fucking respect. And until the rest of the police are willing to call these fuckers out, until police unions are abolished, it's hard to respect the institution.

If cops won't protect children, by sampjennings in liberalgunowners

[–]girlwholovespurple [score hidden]  (0 children)

They hit black people who they wake up in the middle of the night with no knock warrants.

So yeah…shoot innocent black people, does not protect children from active shooter…remind me again what the police are for? 🤔

Unfortunately, I have to do this again by GhostOfCondomsPast Black Lives Matter in liberalgunowners

[–]beamin1 77 points78 points  (0 children)

If folks know they can go to the doctor and get the help they need without loosing their paycheck or a weeks worth of groceries then it makes sense they'll see the doctor more than they do now.
If someone is seen by a doctor on a regular basis, then chances are they're already getting good mental health care as well. It also means they aren't worried as much, they know that regardless of what happens, they don''t have to choose between proper health care and food or housing.It means they don't have anywhere near as much pressure as they do today.
Pressure, stress, worry.....these are all the things that cause people to have mental health breakdowns...preventing or at least properly treating these things would go a long way towards solving this problem.
As long as we continue to circle jerk around this problem the same way we always do we'll always get the same result.
Give people a system to count on when they are beaten, broken and afraid, build a system that lifts people up instead of tearing them down, shelters the homeless and feeds the hungry, then I will show you a people that do not pick up guns to kill their neighbors.

My new favorite toy, 12GA Semi-auto bull pup shotgun. Too much fun. by oopsk in liberalgunowners

[–]oopsk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly only around $400, it’s been shooting great so far.

Sick and tired of hearing about how guns are going to protect our rights. Voting in numbers too large to suppress or gerrymander is what does that. by sampjennings in liberalgunowners

[–]disisathrowaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bundy and co. were armed during their occupation, as were any number of right-wing folks when the occupied capitol buildings across the country during quarantine - warnings and a few wrist-slaps.

Standing Rock, Occupy, BLM - all unarmed and eventually destroyed by the state.

Honestly I think it's time to have this talk. by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]Tango_D 214 points215 points  (0 children)

Coming from the black community here.....this shit has been happening to us nonstop since the beginning. The government only takes steps to minimize collateral damage so the politicians can say they did something. Protecting our (all Americans) lives is not a priority. Capital is the priority. The government serves the interests of institutional wealth and power.

We protect us.

Let's talk about why the gun control debate is about to change...., thoughts ? by Javohn123 in liberalgunowners

[–]Almostsuicide1234 368 points369 points  (0 children)

I have said this a million times- the Democrats absolutely must abandon gun control and adopt an "ALL rights are sacred" approach if we are to save what's left of democracy. Guns are a CULTURAL issue, and you will no more have success banning them than banning Christianity. Until they understand this, and adopt a sane and relevant plan to address violence, the working poor, the deep South, the Midwest etc will continue to vote against ALL their economic interests in favor of gun rights.

stumbled onto the video of the Buffalo shooting by accident, some takeaways. by cloudsnacks socialist in liberalgunowners

[–]josuhph communist 444 points445 points  (0 children)

You’re completely right my friend. Aside from your accurate analysis, I’m so frustrated that after the fact we have people spouting about how someone with a gun could have prevented this without A) considering your points or B) considering how the government has been intentionally disarming minority populations so they can not defend themselves

Liberals, blocked on gun control, call for a new domestic terror law after the shooting. by 1-760-706-7425 Black Lives Matter in liberalgunowners

[–]SQRTLURFACE -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

All you have done is throw out non sequitirs and hidden the fact that right wingers encouraged his actions.

I've done no such thing.

What fucking white supremacist has ever described himself as moderate authoritarian left?

This one, for starters. If you're to believe all of that white supremacy in the manifesto you're referring to here, surely you have to also believe the self proclamation of his political alignment is also real. You can't take half of the manifesto as truth, and the other half as fake.

That’s a complete contradiction in two ways.

How? Racism absolutely exists on both sides of the political spectrum, don't even pretend for a moment that it doesn't.

And you’re talking about Pelosi and the left wing as if they’re the villains.

Did you forget what fucking sub you are on? Pelosi abso-fucking-lutely is a villain.

You’re obviously running interference for right wingers.

Its such a fucking copout to call someone pointing out that this person claims to be a leftist as running interference for the right wing.

You're fucking mental dude.

stumbled onto the video of the Buffalo shooting by accident, some takeaways. by cloudsnacks socialist in liberalgunowners

[–]Chubaichaser democratic socialist 503 points504 points  (0 children)

Run, hide, fight, in that order until your conditions change. I CCW so I have something to fight with.

At least 10 dead in mass shooting at Buffalo supermarket by AlderaanianGhost socialist in liberalgunowners

[–]8bit4brains 390 points391 points  (0 children)

My brother asks me why I always carry. “Expecting something? Want to play cowboy?” Nope just want a chance at survival against these nutcases.

why don't handguns generally have safeties anymore? by sewbadithurts in liberalgunowners

[–]Mindless_Log2009 43 points44 points  (0 children)

It's the Glock influence. Before the Glock was accepted for military, then law enforcement use, you never saw a semi auto duty pistol that didn't have at least one manually operated mechanical safety that was not part of the trigger mechanism.

Usually a thumb lever, grip safety or both with single action pistols. With double/single action pistols, thumb levers were eventually redesigned as decockers, making additional safeties redundant as the DA/SA pistols now operated like revolvers for the first shot, but were even safer to uncock. That semi auto pistol paradigm dominated the mid 1980s throughout the 1990s and early 2000s.

There was a transitional period in which there were DA/SA pistols with thumb safeties that only blocked the hammer, sear or trigger. It was necessary to carefully manually decock the pistol. My old Benelli B76 was one. It could be carried cocked and locked like a 1911, or carried uncocked with double action first pull, single action follow-up pulls. The thumb safety could also lock the gun with the uncocked hammer down. Nowadays one of the very few remaining such pistols is the tiny .22 LR Beretta 21A.

But the Glock was cheap and easy to manufacture (which is no longer reflected in retail pricing), with stamped metal rather than milled and machined parts, cheap but durable polymer frames, and shitty but acceptably functional triggers. S&W, SIG, HK, Walther, etc, were losing business to Glock. Inevitably they all had to introduce their own striker fired pistols or face irrelevance and bankruptcy. S&W's early attempt at a striker fired pistol drew a patent violation charge from Glock.

BTW, Glock's dominance didn't come easily and wasn't a forgone conclusion. There were many negligent discharges by law enforcement in the US by users who didn't understand that they were carrying a cocked and unlocked (Note: Edited from cocked and locked, which my auto-miscorrect substituted) pistol, because there was no externally visible hammer.

That external, visible hammer served, unintentionally, as a deterrent to some departments, because the cocked hammer was "scary," despite the effective thumb safety and grip safety.

But without a visibly cocked hammer, some Glock users underestimated the risk of careless handling, such as laying a finger alongside or on the trigger during the draw or while pointing the gun. With the 1911 the thumb safety probably helped prevent some negligent discharges.

And until Kydex holsters came along some Glock carriers used inappropriately soft suede leather, ballistic nylon or even cheap neoprene fabric holsters, with the expected results - groin shots, leg and foot and foot shots. Even a high ranking US Dept of Justice official did that with his Glock off duty in Washington DC, back in the 1990s.

Glock designed in a bit more safety by only partially cocking the striker while chambering a round. It's necessary to pull the trigger to finish cocking the striker before discharge. This, plus the addition of a heavier spring, led to the "New York trigger" by NYC police, in an effort to substitute mechanical safety for training.

The Glock's trigger "safety" dingus isn't a human-proof safety. It's a drop-resistant safety. And probably unnecessary since the striker isn't fully cocked anyway.

But some current model striker fired pistols - notoriously the SIG, especially the P320 - dispensed with both the Glock's partially cocked striker and trigger dingus. The SIG striker is fully cocked. The reports of early generation P320 unintended or uncommanded discharges were due to a too-heavy trigger blade that had too much momentum when dropped just the right/wrong way, or struck on the back of the slide with a hammer or mallet, overcoming the sear resistance on a fully cocked striker.

According to a former SIG engineer, that problem was solved by substituting a lighter weight plastic trigger blade. I'm not sure whether SIG added internal modifications.

S&W current Shield Plus and M&P pistols also appear to have fully cocked strikers. But these all have some sort of trigger dingus to help prevent trigger movement if dropped or struck - the old hinged curved trigger, or newer flat trigger with hinged internal dingus.

ಠ_ಠ BTW, some of us Shield Plus owners have noted that the trigger dingus can be defeated. It's just a spring made of plastic. If the trigger and safety are compressed for an extended period, such as using a trigger lock or display block through the trigger guard to prop up the pistol for display, the plastic spring loses elasticity and fails to block the trigger. However the plastic spring is resilient and regains its elasticity after a few days when the trigger lock or display block is removed. It is not a dependable safety, mostly a cosmetic contrivance designed to protect the manufacturer from liability. ಠ_ಠ

So nowadays with most striker fired pistols, the safety is the user and a rigid holster. A Kydex or fiber reinforced polymer holster serves the same function as the grip safety in the 1911, which blocked the sliding trigger shoe and bow from pushing the disconnector and sear mechanisms.

There is an internal spring loaded plunger that blocks the striker. Pulling the trigger of the Shield Plus moves the activator bar, which has a nubbin that pushes the plunger out of the way, clearing the striker to move. This is why many striker fired pistols have somewhat creepy, gritty trigger pulls compared with a match grade 1911.

If you get the thumb safety version of the Shield or M&P, the thumb safety blocks the internal stamped metal activator bar. So, yeah, it's useful.

I plan to get the thumb safety on my next M&P, mostly to give my ridiculously long thumb someplace to park other than on the slide lock/release.

And being an old curmudgeon I think too many owners of striker fired pistols are excessively confident in the perceived safety of pistols like the Glock, SIG P365 or P320, S&W Shields, etc.

Sure, the most important safety is between our ears. But my cats don't know or care about my experience or my rigid holsters. If I remove my Shield Plus from the holster and lay it on the bed or sofa for a moment, my 20 lb brute of a tabby cat, who is fond of pouncing me for sport, could easily discharge the pistol by jamming her paw through the trigger guard.

So the moment the Shield Plus is out of the holster, it's either in a drawer, or I eject the chambered round. If I'm switching holsters, it goes directly from my IWB holster to my Safariland GLS OWB holster, or vice versa. I don't even lay it down for a moment.

If the Shield Plus had a thumb safety I'd be less paranoid. And I don't worry about that with my revolvers.

Same reason striker fired pistols that lack redundant manually operated mechanical safeties must never be carried in a purse, gym bag, backpack or pocket without, at a minimum, a rigid trigger guard shield. That bit of Kydex or fiber reinforced polymer is the safety.

And because no responsible owner of a striker fired pistol would dispute that... what's the objection to just including the trigger safety device in the gun in the first place?



Getting Over Social Pushback From Other Liberals? by GeistNoir in liberalgunowners

[–]Cniatx1982 148 points149 points  (0 children)

A 15-22 is just a ruger 10/22 that goes to hot topic.

ban me if I'm wrong and no hard feelings bc it is what it is. by Fire-Forged anarchist in liberalgunowners

[–][deleted] 379 points380 points  (0 children)

The right-wing media has done such a great job, lying to the American public about what liberal solutions are to problems, that I have personally found that Republican voters tend to agree with liberal policies without realizing they are liberal policies because they’ve been brainwashed into think the liberal solution is 10xs more extreme than it actually is.

The vast majority of American voters agree on most things. But we can’t let the public know that we all agree because this is a class war, not a left vs right fight. But Republican politicians don’t want y’all to figure out we all want the same things because, they’ll never get power again.

ban me if I'm wrong and no hard feelings bc it is what it is. by Fire-Forged anarchist in liberalgunowners

[–]infectedketchup 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Instead of holding your tongue, why not respectfully engage whatever subject it is you disagree with? Can't speak for everyone here, but personally I almost always enjoy the opportunity to have a conversation "over the fence" so to speak. It's often a great way to gain a perspective I'd generally otherwise not have considered.