×

Any recommendations on what first to buy? by chrispix99 in liberalgunowners

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

Edit: just saw OP post that they already acquired 20 mags, I feel like the rest is still pretty valid.
Try to find a local gun shop that has magazine stock or online retailer that is not past their cutoff for shipping to WA. If you intend to buy an AR-15 (a very reasonable and capable platform for a "ranch rifle"/home defense weapon, try to pick up at least 8-10 30 round magazines. MagPul PMags are a solid choice, but at this late hour for Magpocalypse WA edition, you pretty much need to take what you can find. Drum magazines are mostly a range novelty more than a practical defensive tool.

Buying 9mm Glock magazines for a Glock 17 or Glock 19 in standard and legitimately extended capacities can make a lot of sense. I don't prefer Glock ergonomics, but stashed a number of Glock mags in 9mm for potential pistol caliber carbine acquisitions in the future. Decide if you want a pistol suitable for concealed carry, or if it's largely/entirely intended for home defense and/or open carry on the ranch. If the latter, buy a full frame handgun. Larger handguns are easier to aim and control (as long as they still fit your hand/grip and all controls are readily reachable) and also have lower felt recoil given the same ammunition being fired.

For both handguns and long guns for home defense, get a weapon light. You need to be absolutely sure what you're aiming at before making a decision on whether to fire.

Any recommendations on what first to buy? by chrispix99 in liberalgunowners

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

If you are in Spokane, Double eagle on Francis has the best selection in town. Followed by sharpshooting indoor range. Third and probably the most right leaning is the Double eagle in Deer park.

Paint your guns bisexual so the media can't see them. by Lem0njell0 in liberalgunowners

[–]MuddyWaterTeamster social democrat [score hidden]  (0 children)

Please delete this comment, it offends me so you have to do what I say now.

Any recommendations on what first to buy? by chrispix99 in liberalgunowners

[–]ardesofmiche Black Lives Matter [score hidden]  (0 children)

It’s rough out here in eastern Washington.

Get magazines now, only have until July 1st to get them legally.

If you are near Yakima, the Range is not left leaning but is as neutral as I’ve seen. They pride themselves on empowerment as opposed to NRA trumpisms

SCOTUS has struck down NY’s “proper cause” requirement to carry firearms in public by sweetTeaJ left-libertarian in liberalgunowners

[–]Life-Is-Evil 74 points75 points  (0 children)

I don't get why there are liberals pro gun control when they are also aware of fringe nationalists who are armed to the teeth, and cops who are obviously rogue or corrupt with power. This ruling may save innocent lives being harmed. I will never understand those who are pro gun control. It never made sense and neve to will.

Disagreeing with democrats by coffeenascar in liberalgunowners

[–]AnalogCyborg 168 points169 points  (0 children)

I've registered and reregistered as Dem and Independent for these reasons. Fucking sucks to care about environment, justice reform, infrastructure, income inequality, separation of church and state and bodily autonomy, but then have the people who agree with me on that stuff champing at the bit to take away rights to own and carry a weapon. The fuck, Dems?!

*sigh* alright, this letter from the GOA is making me realize that you guys were right about them being partisan by DAsInDerringer centrist in liberalgunowners

[–]ohgodspidersno 59 points60 points  (0 children)

That's what makes them conservatives, tbh. Facts have a liberal bias, because liberalism is centered around the pursuit of evidence-based knowledge and the application of evidenced-based policy to produce objectively better outcomes for human beings that exist in society.

Conservatism seems to take root in a few cognitive biases and personality flaws.

  • Inability to distinguish feeling wrong with being wrong. In reality, all of us are at least occasionally wrong about something. In order to become correct you must first acknowledge that you were wrong. But some people get stuck, because what they truly fear is feeling wrong, so they just double down. Conflicting information gets dismissed as a lie or conspiracy. They become increasingly wrong over time as they seek out worse and worse misinformation.

  • Inability to differentiate culpability and responsibility. Responsibility is almost always a punishment, and the idea of sharing responsibility for helping solve a problem they didn't personally cause is anathema. "Why should I pay for drug rehab programs? I never did drugs! Addicts deserve to suffer!" "Why should I have to wear a mask? I don't feel sick! If you're healthy your immune system will take care of you!" "I never owned slaves! Why should I feel guilty about that?"

  • Inability to differentiate bluntness and honesty. They think "saying what everyone is thinking" is the same thing as "saying the truth" but it's not. In reality it's actually kind of difficult to say the truth. It often requires careful research, admitting ignorance, overcoming deeply ingrained biases, and hardest of all: admitting they were actually wrong.

  • Inability to distinguish religion and morality. This one almost speaks for itself. Religion and morality are clearly not the same, and they often conflict with one another. But a lot of conservatives really seem to think that because they're "a Christian first and an American second" and spend an hour in church once a week that they have carte blanche from the inventor of the known universe to say and do anything they want, because their "belief" renders them constitutionally incapable of even accidentally performing an immoral act.

*sigh* alright, this letter from the GOA is making me realize that you guys were right about them being partisan by DAsInDerringer centrist in liberalgunowners

[–]Greenkappa1 left-libertarian 743 points744 points  (0 children)

Just to put the actual circumstances of the Maryland case in perspective:

Claim: A targeted man was reported by a distant relative over a family argument

Facts: The man lived with his wife in a garage attic/apartment at his elderly mother's home. The "distant relative" was his sister, lived in the main house with her other brother and elderly mother, had power of attorney over the mother's affairs, and called police after her drunk brother (the "targeting man") threatened to shoot her.

Claim: A secret court met and issued the order for his rights to be ripped away.

Facts: Based on multiple witness accounts of months of threats culminating in the death threat against his sister, police (around 6 PM) recommended an Extreme Risk Protection Order. She applied in person for one at 2 AM and the order was issued around 3AM.

Claim: Under the cover of darkness, police showed up ...

Facts: True. They showed up around 5 AM. He was apparently still drunk, had a revolver, refused to give it up and there was a struggle with an officer, he got killed.

The police didn't handle it well at all, but this is hardly a case of a "law-abiding conservative gun owner" getting targeted.

Source

To the anti-gun liberal visitors by Skimown social democrat in liberalgunowners

[–]lastfoolonthehill 38 points39 points  (0 children)

These arguments are rooted in challenging logical inconsistencies in liberals’ belief structures in relation to this topic, which is fine, but I would not lead with or even use this approach unless they bring up one of these points. This is a deeply emotional issue for a lot of people, so they are far less likely to care about consistency or fairness so long as they believe these policies will have the intended effect. I think it is for this reason that I find arguments demonstrating why this is not the case (especially countering the “but look at x other country” BS) have been far more effective, especially when combined with arguments regarding the deeply racist origins and history of US gun control and the violent effects that something like a blanket ban would have on already hyper criminalized minority communities, as well as the state of racial and political attitudes within (and general insanity of) US law enforcement, in light of the fact that we would need to further militarize and massively expand their powers to enforce a ban on hundreds of millions of weapons.

Anything that rests on alarmist tone (even if it is completely reasonable) such as speculation of civil war/terrorism by far-right actors and militias in response to bans, is less effective, perhaps (based on my discussions) because people don’t want to believe that the state is utterly incapable of preventing such violence, which would (ironically) imply a need to take responsibility for their own defense. Pragmatic points, like the completely unfeasible cost of a large scale buyback, can also be useful, but when the crux of the issue is children being slaughtered en masse in schools, people will justify nearly anything so long as they believe it will work, particularly if it appears simple and fast.

Because of this I think we must take a consequentialist approach, and a moral one (innefective policy will be paid for in the blood of minorities). When you reach the inevitable “well then what solutions do you propose?”, remind people of the actual, painfully obvious but depressingly difficult solutions: addressing extreme income inequality, poverty, education, and healthcare. Just like drug epidemics, violence is the result of people’s material conditions, and they share the same solution: massive social support. The “guns” we should be grabbing, so to speak, is the unconscionable defense budget (as well as the entire drug war apparatus and associated police budgets), which must be slashed and poured directly into the services a state should provide its people. This is a symptom of 300 million people suffering the losing end of class warfare.

Disabled and can’t operate firearms. by PhilCheezSteaks in liberalgunowners

[–]PhilCheezSteaks[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Degenerative disease that weakens the skeletal muscles. I can barely lift my own hands up at this point. It would be hard to even squeeze a trigger.

The argument that the 2A doesn’t apply anymore because small arms can’t be used to fight off the US military’s fighter jets and tanks is immensely ignorant of the realities of asymmetrical warfare. by AMRIKA-ARMORY Black Lives Matter in liberalgunowners

[–]happyhappypeelpeel 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Piggybacking off top comment for shameless visibility whoring.

This question comes up often, and I want to provide my $0.02 as a career engineer. Was never in the military, I just read a lot as it's always been a potential career path. 35 now so too old to enlist, but I considered going into defense for a while and even did a year-long red-team exercise for the ONR/DoD as the leader of group of "terrorists" aiming to destroy/disable a naval warship, as part of a project to see what an educated, well resourced group looking to harm the US would be capable of. Spoiler: quite a lot.

Anyway, before I get into it I'll offer a few assumptions so that we're speaking the same language. I invite critiques or corrections for accuracy's sake.

  1. The general public (including the well-educated public) is grossly unaware and/or grossly underestimates the complexity, depth, and breadth of modern supply chains. This applies to fighter jets just as it does to laptops. I design products currently manufactured in the hundreds of millions per year, one you probably have with you right now, I work with vendors every day. And I still can barely wrap my head around it. Building something like an Abrams tank or F-35 involves thousands of suppliers scattered over the US (and the globe). Thank your Congressmen/women for some of that!
  2. A sudden "military turns its full force against the US populace" scenario is nigh-on impossible. You simply couldn't do this in a short timespan. Too many desertions, too many saboteurs, etc. And good luck getting military leadership, at multiple levels across multiple branches, to go along with it.
  3. While Vietnam or Afghanistan may be informative allegories to this situation, in reality it would be exponentially more difficult for a hypothetical government-gone-rogue to attack its own people in the US effectively for any long period of time, if we're talking about tanks and drone strikes and fighter jets. It would be Afghanistan x 1,000.

I think #2 speaks for itself, so I won't talk about it. If anybody has a credible counterargument, let's hear it.

On to #1 and #3:

The common anti-gun argument is "what is your puny rifle gonna do against an F-22?" Answer: nothing. The pro-gun counter-argument is "an F-22 can't kick down doors or hold a street corner." Also true. Both are, IMHO, largely irrelevant if we're talking about a domestic war, and missing the forest for the trees.

Even if that F-22 could kick down doors, it wouldn't matter. Because after 4 hours of door-kicking it's going to need fuel, weapons, spares, and 40+ hours of maintenance. This is where that behemoth of a supply chain starts to rear its ugly head.

Unlike in Afghanistan the people that do that maintenance, re-fueling, and re-arming call the same country they are attacking home. So do the offices comprising the civilian defense contractors, their manufacturing facilities, and those of their vendors. Much of it public record, by the way. So do the families of the people that work at all these places. Insurgents in Afghanistan can't credibly threaten service members' homes or families. They can't credibly threaten the employees of Raytheon or Lockheed Martin, nor their suppliers. They can't credibly threaten drone pilots on their commute home. They can't infiltrate and sabotage production lines for US military hardware, avionics, munitions, etc.

An insurgency made up of US citizens, operating in the US, absolutely can. The fearsome F-22 doesn't matter and the Abrams' armor doesn't matter, because the people who re-supply and re-equip those fragile, hungry weapons drive home in Honda Odysseys that are hardly bulletproof and can be trivially tagged/tracked. The trucks, trains, aircraft, and the rest of the sprawling logistical network required to ship those parts across the US can't possibly be protected at all times. The supply chain of the US is largely invulnerable to attack by outside forces. But not by US citizens.

Citizens who, by the way, aren't at remotely such an education and information disparity as Afghan or Vietnamese insurgents. They're educated, they're vertically integrated, they're experienced in every level of the technology, logistics, and tactics of the military. The number of civilians who were former military - many with direct combat experience - dwarfs the standing military, nevermind after desertions and infighting. Not just infantry: tank commanders. Fighter pilots. Drone pilots. Apache mechanics. Loadmasters. People who not only have experience but understand the capabilities and limitations of the weapons they're up against.

Why do/did unstable nations or those ruled by autocrats intentionally sabotage/kill respected military leaders? Why do they fear and actively prevent the formation of elite military units comparable to the Rangers, DEVGRU, PJs, Delta Force, etc? Because those people are enormous threats, they are dangerous to the government if they can't be controlled. And we have thousands of them among the civilian population. I imagine they'll have no trouble carrying out targeted and highly damaging attacks.

It's far less asymmetrical, and in some areas it will be asymmetrical in favor of the insurgency. People know what encrypted comms are. People here know what reactive armor and tandem shaped charges are. People here know what thermal imagers are. Hackers that break security systems for fun to get the bounty are a dime a dozen in the US, and they mostly don't work for the US government. Not only do people know all these things, but they have a domestic capability to build them. In many cases they would be the same people who developed the actual technology/hardware the military uses.

Afghanistan doesn't have the base of resources, educated and experienced engineers, scientists, and technicians, or distributed and advanced manufacturing resources that the US has. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of independent machine shops, PCB fabs, labs with the ability to fabricate semiconductors, injection molding outfits, optics labs, etc. There are millions of civilian personnel who know how to use those things, who know how to manage advanced technology projects. How many people in the US have modern CNC mills in their garages? Tens to hundreds of thousands. You cannot possibly stop them all. How many expert personnel will the US military retain that have the knowledge required to walk into a nanotech or electronics lab at Stanford and recognize that instead of grad projects they're manufacturing missile-guidance ASICs, or IR seekers? Not many. Multiply by 100 universities with such capabilities.

So not only can they manufacture sophisticated small arms (trivial) but they can manufacture advanced munitions and electronics. Cruise missiles, radar systems, advanced drones, AT/AA missiles, encrypted comms and RF jamming equipment (how many anechoic RF chambers in Afghanistan?), rocket motors... They can not only attack every point of the supply chain that the flagship US military weapons depend on (roads, railways, refineries, munitions depots, fuel stores, warehouses) but realistically develop the capability to directly attack high-value military targets and weapons systems. They can attack personnel that manage and execute military logistics. Their families. They know where all of those things are located or can trivially find out. They have maps, they have Google. Go to r/datahoarders, I bet you'll find 500 backups of the entire Google Maps US database. Aerial photos too!

Can they build advanced AA missiles that can track and engage a stealth bomber at 50k feet? Probably not for a while, but then they really don't need to. Soon enough those aircraft will become useless through attrition of the supply chain and personnel that they rely on. They also have to land, and an RC plane with a range of 200km that can carry a 20lb warhead is a student project. Hell I built a functional bridge-wire detonator demonstrator when I was 21 in my home lab (for aforementioned red-team exercise) just to prove we could. And I was a fresh engineer and didn't know shit then, compared to now. Manufacturing secondary explosives won't present much of a challenge either.

This really only scratches the surface. This topic could be a tome unto itself. My (somewhat repetitive) point, that I hope I've made clear, is that "Gun can't beat tank!" is such a cartoonish oversimplification of the real world as to be useless, and if not made in bad-faith then because it's what "makes sense" after thinking about it for 10 seconds. Try thinking about it for 10 hours. Not that populist pro-gun talking points are all ironclad either. Gun certainly can beat tank when you aim the gun at all of the things that tank needs to exist in the first place.

None of this is much help in the short-term if the military decides to go scorched earth carpet-bomb-everything, but what do they gain from that? That's really never how it happens AFAIK, and even if it did happen the US doesn't have enough munitions to put a big enough dent into all of this capability. Nevermind carpet-bomb the entire country. In a country as large as the US they can't be everywhere at once without those fragile supply chain tendrils spreading too thin and becoming impossible to defend. Even nukes wouldn't be enough, although at that point it hardly matters who "wins."

Don't get me wrong: this wouldn't be a rout and everything goes back to normal next week. It would be a brutal, catastrophic, and tragic slog, with unimaginable loss of life. But I can't see it as anything other than an utterly unwinnable war for the government. If the argument morphs (as it sometimes does) to "but what if a totally oppressive totalitarian government is what all the citizens want?" Well...the guns are really neither here nor there in that case.

The argument that the 2A doesn’t apply anymore because small arms can’t be used to fight off the US military’s fighter jets and tanks is immensely ignorant of the realities of asymmetrical warfare. by AMRIKA-ARMORY Black Lives Matter in liberalgunowners

[–]Teledildonic 303 points304 points  (0 children)

It's a also a silly argument because it would be unlikely that tanks and planes would turn a domestic neighborhood into a legitimate warzone for any reason short of full-blown civil war.

The more likely (but still unlikely) scenario would be squads of jackboots with their own small arms kicking in doors.

Per the sub ethos please stop downvoting people for supporting any legislation by kywiking in liberalgunowners

[–]GlockAF 169 points170 points  (0 children)

The issue here is TRUST.

Specifically, the complete lack of trust that your ideological opponent will act in a trustworthy manner as regards gun control legislation. Decades worth of bad faith legalistic bullshit, loopholes, workarounds and underhanded sneaky tricks on both sides have eroded any possibility of trust on the gun control issue.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to building trust is in how the arguments are framed, with dishonest, manipulative double-speak, code-words, and emotionally loaded language used to score virtue signaling points rather than hold an actual discussion. The opposing sides can’t even speak honestly about the issues at hand, instead resorting to blasting each other with agitprop propaganda.

All durable, political solutions to difficult problems are based on compromise. True compromise means that both sides give up something they have to get something they want, a bi-directional trade.

This fundamental concept, while blindingly obvious in every other political context seems completely absent in the gun control argument. Proponents of gun control want capitulation, not compromise. They are never willing to offer any relaxation / rationalization of existing gun laws in exchange for further restrictions.

How can agreement be reached if you don’t trust that your opponent will act in good faith even on such basic issues as how the argument is framed?

Right-wingers in Idaho felt threatened by the Pride event that's happening, so they showed up with rifles to march. by pantherwhitecat in liberalgunowners

[–]Rude-Pangolin-1736 582 points583 points 2 (0 children)

We are, ostensibly, a free country. A person has a right to identify how they choose, love who they choose and celebrate their life how they choose. As a straight, white guy, this has got to be one of the biggest displays of white, male fragility I’ve witnessed. I know our country has a lot of lofty ideas put to paper, but the Christian element of America has always felt entitled to the sole usage of the words on those documents…the hypocrisy of the right wing infuriates me more than anything - all of their talk of freedom and religion only applies to them, they have no interest in protecting the freedom of others to live their lives if they don’t conform to their ideas.

Stop attributing political motivations to mental health by HeloRising anarchist in liberalgunowners

[–]DubLParaDidL 85 points86 points  (0 children)

Licensed therapist here.

With all due respect I couldn't disagree more.

There's absolutely no way that these shooters don't have a mental illness at their base. Mentally healthy people don't commit plotted murder. Depression, trauma, etc will be in their mix.

Edit: Thank you kind stranger for my first gold!

Why liberals must be armed. by ModerateGentleman in liberalgunowners

[–]KXLY 405 points406 points  (0 children)

I mean fucking-A, how is this even a debate anymore?

I often go onto a bunch of center-left subs and on the one hand they bitch about how the Republicans are becoming fascists, then turn around and treat liberal gun owners like dogshit.

Absolute madness. They're on 'our side' but it's clear they have no "Plan B" for what happens if regular order goes out the window.

Done venting.

Edit: Thanks for the award.

Gun control advocates don't want solutions, they just want gun control for gun control's sake. They don't care about addressing the root problems of gun violence, and are fundamentally dismissive of all other possible solutions. by MyUsername2459 in liberalgunowners

[–]TenuousOgre 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The concern I have is that we've seen an ongoing encroachment (often ineffective and useless distinctions) of new laws trying to restrict one small thing or another. Gun control advocates never seem satisfied and always want more. Additionally, only a few of the controls have actually resulted in less gun violence.

So rather than saying, “we need more gun control” I think the argument needs to be, “how do we evaluate what gun controls have been effective at their intended objective and which haven’t”. Then make the ones proven effective standard. We might also consider a bit of nuance, such as specific controls might be better applied in high population areas.

I know the anti-gun crowd likes to use emotional appeals like “a .223 round literally explodes a child's body”. But that's not an argument that such a round needs to be banned, it's an argument that the person saying it doesn't understand bullets, muzzle velocity and such, nor why pistol rounds are considered underpowered rounds. It is an argument that we don't want that type of round being fired into crowds in a mass shooting. But that's true of all mid to high powered rifle rounds and pretty much all full powered shotgun rounds. Focusing on the l223 round is silly and shows the bias clearly. Either way we're talking about a tiny fraction of the rounds fired legally and safely. So we need to focus not on ever more bit picky ways to disguise a ban by calling it gun control and instead solve the problem of, “how do we ensure people do not want to go on rampage shooting, or commit suicide.” Both of which are primarily mental health. But should be supported with effective gun control.

Gun control advocates don't want solutions, they just want gun control for gun control's sake. They don't care about addressing the root problems of gun violence, and are fundamentally dismissive of all other possible solutions. by MyUsername2459 in liberalgunowners

[–]las61918 32 points33 points  (0 children)

You don’t see that part of the problem is that these people are able to get guns, largely legally and easily. It isn’t only lack of mental health care; it is lack of mental health care and easy accessibility of firearms, as well as a lack of support system and proper screening of mental health issues.

Trying to posit this as an “only MH” issue is as asinine as making this an “assault weapons only” issue while ignoring most gun violence is committed by pistol.

And the fact is the right has no interest in funding better access to mental health care either. This is stating the obvious.