Yves here. The failure to get serious about limits to gun ownership given the Second Amendment is disheartening. Gun registration and background checks should not be so hard. And what about required gun safety classes as a part of registration? Evidence shows that teaching proper weapons handling before ownership is effective, but afterwards, not. There are way too many instances of people keeping guns in a bedside table, and that weapon then being used by kids or in a domestic altercation with predictable horrific results.
Some have suggested limits on bullet buys, although if word were ever to get out, one would expect massive stockpiling before any law went effective, as apparently happened when Obama came into office because he of course would take guns from whites (I even heard tales of guy owners then sealing large caches and hiding them in ponds). And the level of weapons possession should not be underestimated. I attended a workshop about a decade ago in Dallas. An upper-middle income looking couple (as judged by their attire and the newness and model of their SUV) offered me a ride to go to lunch with them. After they exited the car, the man wheeled around, realizing he had failed to lock it, and mentioned in passing that he had 2000 rounds of ammo inside.
By Sonali Kolhatkar, an award-winning multimedia journalist. She is the founder, host, and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a weekly subscriber-funded television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. Her books include Talking About Abolition: A Police-Free World Is Possible (Seven Stories Press, 2025) and Rising Up: The Power of Narrative in Pursuing Racial Justice (City Lights Books, 2023). She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and was a senior editor at Yes! Magazine covering race and economy. She serves as the co-director of the nonprofit solidarity organization the Afghan Women’s Mission and is a co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan. She also sits on the board of directors of Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights organization. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute
The December 14 mass shooting in Sydney, Australia, aimed at the Jewish community during Hanukkah celebrations on Bondi Beach, stunned the world. Fifteen people were killed, including a 10-year-old child. Instead of tackling antisemitism and more strictly regulating guns, right-wing and liberal pundits immediately politicized the incident by blaming pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide activism for fueling the shooting, ignoring the problem of guns altogether.
A similar script unfurled when an Afghan asylee was arrested for the November 26 shooting of National Guard members in Washington, D.C. The Trump administration extrapolated the actions of one suspect to an entire group of people, while ignoring the easy availability of guns.
But for white men, who, relative to their population, commit disproportionately more mass shootingsin the United States, there is neither extrapolation to their entire demographic (nor, of course, policy prescriptions to reduce the availability of guns)—only “thoughts and prayers.”
So untouchable is gun control in the United States that some even double down, saying restricting firearms would lead to more violence because victims wouldn’t be able to defend themselves against perpetrators, never mind that in the case of the Bondi Beach massacre, an unarmed man tackled the gunman with his bare hands, ensuring more lives would not be endangered. If guns truly made people safer, the U.S., which has more guns than people, would have among the lowest rates of gun violence in the world.
But the opposite is true. In 2023, the latest year for which statistics are available, more than 45,000 people in the U.S. lost their lives as a result of gun violence, which is also the leading cause of deathfor children and teenagers. Every day, an average of 125 people are killed in the U.S. because of the easy availability of guns, their blood and bodies swept under the rug, hidden from view.
But perhaps we need to see the bodies in order to end our love affair with guns.
Gun violence is so appallingly prevalent in the U.S. that it is akin to a nation “experiencing active conflict.” There were 392 mass shootings in 2025 alone, one of the most recent taking place on the campus of Brown University on December 13, where two people who escaped death survived previous shootings. Gun regulations barely featured in media coverage of the Brown University shooting. Instead, most coverage focused on the perpetrator being on the loose for days before being found. Such perverted attentions are symbolic of the pro-gun adage that “guns don’t kill people, people do.”
As horrific as the Bondi Beach massacre was, in Australia, a nation with strict gun laws, it was an outlier. It took a single mass shooting in 1996 for Australia to pass strict gun controls. Known as the Port Arthur massacre, a shooter killed 35 people, after which the nation’s politicians united to pass wide-ranging bans on assault rifles, shotguns, and other types of firearms. Authorities bought guns back en masse from the public and melted down as many as 1 million guns.
The results were stark, especially compared to the United States, where right-wing factions seem to consider guns more sacred than human life. Australia’s per capita rate of gun-related deaths was 12 times lower than that of the United States, according to 2023 figures. For more than 20 years, there were no mass shootings in Australia. That record was broken in 2018 with a horrific murder-suicide, and then in December 2025 with the Bondi Beach shooting.
If Australia’s laws were already so strict, how could the Bondi Beach massacre in Sydney have happened? It turns out they weren’t strict enough. Loopholes in the nation’s regulations allow individuals to stockpile guns, and gun club members in particular are allowed to purchase firearms using licenses for recreational use. One of the suspected shooters was a member of such a gun cluband had a recreational license for the gun believed to be used in the shooting.
Moreover, the gun used in the shooting required manual reloading, because semiautomatic assault rifles, which automatically reload, are banned in Australia. They are legal in the U.S. and have been used in horrific mass shootings, such as the 2022 incident in Uvalde, Texas, allowing shooters to spray bullets without pausing. That means the Bondi Beach massacre could have been far deadlier if Australia had the same lax laws as the U.S.
Australian lawmakers and advocates of gun laws are taking the logical next step to ensure that the lives of the Bondi Beach victims were not lost in vain and are actually working to close the loopholethat appears to have led to their killings. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refreshingly announced—alongside protections for the Jewish community—greater gun restrictions.
Gun laws work, and Australia isn’t the only example. Within the U.S., those states with fewer gun restrictions have higher rates of gun-related deaths. A June 2025 study in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics found that “states with the most permissive firearm laws after 2010 experienced more than 6,029 firearm deaths in children and adolescents aged 0 to 17 years between 2011 and 2023 and 1,424 excess firearm deaths in a group of states with permissive laws.” In contrast, “four states had statistical decreases in pediatric firearm mortality during the study period, all of which were in states with strict firearm policies.”
A majority of Americans agree it is too easy to obtain guns in the U.S., and while most Democrats agree on basic regulations such as banning assault rifles, there is a majority bipartisan support for raising the minimum age for purchasing guns to 21.
So, why is it nearly impossible to pass stricter gun laws in the U.S.? A large part of the problem is the stranglehold the National Rifle Association has over the political system.
Additionally, the U.S. is a nation tilting headfirst toward authoritarian rule, and gun owners, who are disproportionately right-wing and white, are seen by the political establishment as far too important to alienate. Republicans are fanatically pro-gun, while Democrats are milquetoast on gun control.
We also have a national cultural attachment to guns that borders on religious. For that, we can thank the mythmaking around gun-toting pioneers who believed they were destined to colonize the nation. Our obsession with individual rights over collective well-being is not limited to a reticence against socialized medicine or college debt forgiveness. Individualism is at the heart of gun ownership, no matter the strong correlation between lax gun laws and gun violence.
We are awash in stories that glorify guns, especially from the liberal purveyors of Hollywood fantasiesobsessively feeding us movies about “good guys with guns.”
But the pain of gun violence survivors is rarely explored in nuanced ways on our television screens, newspapers, or social media. If the Bondi Beach massacre had happened on U.S. soil, there would be little focus on guns beyond the usual advocates calling in vain for stricter controls and gun activists shouting them into silence.
What if, instead of pixelating the images of gun victims—which quite literally renders them invisible—we were forced to face the ugliness of gun deaths?
In 1955, Mamie Till-Mobley insisted on an open casket for Emmett Till to showcase what white supremacist lynch-mob violence did to her son and to force the nation not to look away. Perhaps the news media ought to start showing us what bullets do to a body.
In the 1970s, Graphic footage of the Vietnam War on nightly television news shows helped Americans see the impacts of massacres funded by their tax dollars and turned the tide of popular support against the war. Perhaps today’s censors ought to stop shielding us from how a person’s brains and guts spatter a campus sidewalk when an armed shooter has emptied the assault rifle.
In 2025, former President Barack Obama’s speechwriter Sara Hurwitz credited social media with “smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza,” as a reason for why public opinion has moved against Israel over its genocide. Perhaps social media platforms ought to show us what victims of mass shootings really look like before they are buried or cremated.
Such imagery can carry the requisite trigger warnings to save those already traumatized by witnessing gun violence from being subjected to it again. But those who vehemently support deadly weapon ownership over the right to live free from fear ought to face the results of their dogma.
We should be haunted by the images of the dead. They should invade our dreams. Better to be traumatized by such savage visuals than to end up dead, or worse, lose a beloved to gun violence.
Sadly, guns have more rights than humans in the USA…
I’ve mentioned this before, my to the right of right brother in laws, who are 75 and 80 had become gun nuts circa 2012, and a few years ago I gave them a scenario of a thief making off with their big screen tv, what would you do, and both of them said they’d shoot the perp if he was on their property.
I’ve noticed that big screen tv’s cost about nothing now, so for a $500 Wal*Mart bought 75 inch model, they’d kill or maim somebody.
And these are guys who were engineers and have a bit going on up top, what about the rabble who are armed and dangerous?
2000 rounds of .22 LR isn’t much. I’ve taken people to the range with .22 pistols, and 500 rounds goes very quickly because there’s no tiring recoil.
Worth mentioning that California passed a law a few years ago increasing tax on guns/ammo to about 21%, presumably with a rationale of reducing ownership. Also, ammo sales have to go through federal firearms license holders, i.e. dealers/stores, which has stopped on line bulk/cheap purchases. Theoretically a dealer could handle the paperwork, in practise they won’t.
Films really don’t help. Shooting just one round from a 9mm handgun in an enclosed area like a house without ear protection would cause incremental hearing damage, so not that helpful for home invasion protection without a suppressor (illegal in California).
I am sorry, my father was as hunter with at least 10 long guns and a pistol (for shooting critters he had injured but not killed) and never had that much ammo on hand. He also kept his guns and ammo under separate lock and key. So I am not sympathetic with your defense of poor safety practices.
Yves Smith: This is an important point that the debate (such as it is) always overlooks. Those who use long guns for hunting and have a pistol for accidents are often waved about by second-amendment absolutists as the reasons for no control on gun ownership.
In fact, people who have no demonstrable use of a gun (and I’m not so sure of target practice) should be held to much higher standards. Someone who lives in downtown Chicago should have a greater burden to prove a need for gun ownership than someone with a series of hunting licenses or a farm (where, as a kid visiting a family friend, I was once ushered away by relatives when the farmer had to euthanize a pony that he discovered to have been serious injured).
Sure, we know hunters who before deer season buy a 20 rnd box of 30-30 or whatever, head down to the range and fire three or four to sight in, and then go on their hunt.
In competitive shooting a case of .22LR is 5k rounds and is what you buy to get the same lot. Going to your local sporting goods for a box of 500 is typical. 9MM handgun 500 or 1k purchase is pretty typical. You don’t see as much milsurp 7.62x54R these days as after the end of the USSR.
So I wouldn’t even comment on having a couple thousand rounds in a car. Passengers on commercial aircraft are allowed 5kg in checked baggage which works out to around 140 rounds of 30-06 rifle ammo, more for handgun.
Another thought… in the first half of the 20th c., .32 and .380 calibres were the most popular for civilian and police handguns (pistols/revolvers). Very controllable shooting. Nowadays the emphasis is on ‘stopping power’, with lighter weapons and higher power cartridges that need regular range time to be accurate with.
I still well remember a trip to Florida around 1988, when a company for whom I was doing contract programming flew me down for a week. One day we all went to the local coffee shop and while waiting in line I realized that the two guys ahead of us each had a 9mm on their belts. I thought how paranoid do you have to be to bring a (presumably) loaded handgun to buy coffee.
This is an example of why there is such a wide gulf of opinion on this issue. You see carrying as evidence of psychological problems. While carriers may have different motivations, from what I’ve seen an important one is a perceived duty to protect. A duty that isn’t passed off to some government agency for practical and philosophical reasons.
Maybe it is all a matter of trust. So why does not Hamas disarm? Because then the real slaughter would begin. Why does not Hezbollah disarm? Because they know that would mean that Israel would invade and occupy at least half the country. So now the $64,000 question. Why don’t Americans let themselves be disarmed? And I think that too many Americans have zero trust in their government. No matter what their politics, they see all the ‘security’ measures undertaken by the government in the past 25 years alone and this makes them wary. They see the government making sure that even fairly obscure departments are armed and trained in the use of firearms and wonder why. And the thought of the people being disarmed is one they will not stand for. And though a supporter of gun control, I have heard over the decades an insistence by officials that it is only the military and the police that should have a monopoly of guns and violence. So yeah, I can understand the viewpoint of some gun supporters in America.
The Rev Kev: The kernel here, though, is that the U S of A, although never exactly a high-trust society, is now a low-trust society, descending into ever lower levels of trust. Yes, there are stories of people who never locked the front door, but even in rural areas, those days are gone.
I am a beneficiary of Italy still being a high-trust society (in spite of exportation of U.S. habits and economic practices). Also, Italian law is stricter about gun ownership — although owning a gun isn’t impossible. Further, Italian law is stricter about discharging a firearm — I have read of plenty of cases in which someone claimed to have shot in self-defense and the magistrates indicated that the person used excessive force. (That written, I will point out that Italians do some rather gruesome things with knives…)
Sonali Kolhatkar points out 45,000 gun deaths in the U S of A in 2023 in a population of roughly 330 million.
Here are Italian figures for 2024 in a population slightly less than 60 million. You can do the math:
Nel 2024 si sono verificati 327 omicidi (-2,1% rispetto al 2023): 116 donne
e 211 uomini. La diminuzione ha riguardato soprattutto le vittime di sesso maschile
(-2,8% rispetto al 2023). Gli omicidi di donne sono diminuiti di una sola unità.
[From a report by Istat, the government statistical service.]
Something is seriously wrong in the U S of A, and the debate about the second amendment is a distraction — much as race is a distraction in U.S. culture.
Here in Canada, we have no gun homicide problem. In rural areas, many still leave doors unlocked.
Nevertheless, the Canadian government continues to encroach on citizens’ rights to possess firearms.
These power-grabs have nothing to do with public safety, any more than the surveillance state is about stopping terrorism.
I used to mock the US Second Amendment. But not any more. Now I wish that Canadian citizens had that sort of constitutional guarantee.
Rev Kev, there is some of that. But it seems to me that gun possession has a lot to do with ego. I confess I have not had many chats with gun owners about their motivation. I have a cousin who used to eat granola in Vermont, but then moved to eastern Oregon and became a gun enthusiast, but we have other things to talk about. But just based on the way Second Amendment enthusiasts present when defend their fixation makes me wonder.
Armed in America by Patrick Charles is a wonderfully informative book about the real history of gun control in the US. Charles is an archivist/historian for the US Air Force, a gun owner and no left winger. The story he documents is one of strong controls on ownership and use of firearms throughout our history in all parts of the country. The Second Amendment was intended to keep local government militias strong as a bulwark against potentially despotic federal standing armies. There was also a component of the long-standing English principle of the right to own arms for home defence. This did not extend outside the home. It was seen as something ordinary, not the quasi-religious cause that gun “rights” has become. The points made in the book are an effective antidote to gun propaganda. If they are too sober for gun fanatics, at least they helped clarify my own understanding of the issue
People get fixated on their civil rights, when others are trying to deprive them of those rights.
RE: limits on bullet buys
Chris Rock had a similar suggestion many years ago.
Yes, buy your (single) bullet on layaway.
Always buy more than three bullets.
Yes, buy your (single) bullet on layaway, which was intriguing to me as I managed layaways at a department store at the time.
As everyone knows, armed citizens make America the freest and most democratic nation in the world. The push for gun control by the Australian and Canadian governments is a step toward tyranny. To truly protect freedom and democracy, these governments should issue AR-15s to every citizen.
I think you meant to say “switzerland”
It might be helpful to pinpoint all of these deaths and change the narrative to describe gun deaths as a public health emergency. Maybe a few decades of pounding the “public health” issue might lead down the same path that cigarette smoking is on…or not.
Of course, we’ve seen schools of Public Health and CDC push in that direction from guys like Wintemute at UCD and JHU and Harvard SPH. Keep pounding away.
So this is where I make the obligatory mention of that golden oldie book all the way from 2000, “Arming America”, by Michael Bellesiles. To be sure, he basically ends the narrative towards the end of the 19th century, but it is nevertheless instructive. Essentially, 80% of the book shows that pre-Civil War gun ownership was not really a widespread thing in the US (or the British colonies), and then the other 20% talks about how after the Civil War, gun companies aggressively marketed guns to consumers so as to keep up elevated production levels.
The book is doubly interesting as there has been such a thorough public campaign against it, that the Wiki calls it “discredited” and spends 90% of the text talking about said discreditation. [And this is how I’d originally heard of the book – it was covered in “Historians in Trouble”, which itself is an examination how “establishment-friendly” hacks like Doris Kearns-Goodwin can literally get away with plagiarism, while anti-establishment historians get cut down at the knees at the slightest opportunity.] If you’ve upset the NRA and the powers that be this much, you’ve got to be on to something.
Also, too, on the psychology of gun ownership, this might be the only time I quote Saint Obama on this platform:
I mean, there is a reason why mainstream media jumped all over that statement…
Though Saint Obama only had it half-right. Because a significant chunk of gun ownership is among the affluent (the wealthy have bodyguards instead). Suburban (white) people with money arming themselves against (strictly hypothetical) mobs of poor (and non-white) people coming for their money. While Fox News endlessly bloviates – for decades – about said (still hypothetical) mobs rampaging around “liberal” cities. Hmmm……….
There’s plenty of debunking of “Arming America” online if interested.
COVID deaths, too, are invisible. Americans don’t see what they don’t want to see.
The increasing general poverty, stress, and rage has been increasing in step with gun violence. The more both in both columns increase, the more guns become used in political theater. I get the desire, even the need, to increase the regulation of guns, but gun practice was a thing in many high schools in the middle of the twentieth century and we are facing potential civil war today; I am more concerned about people and society becomes increasingly dysfunctional and violent without regard to gun violence as guns are merely the tools, not the cause, of the expression of those problems.
https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/dataviz/murder-rate-in-the-united-states-per-100000-1950-2024
Looking at the chart linked above, nowhere do I see anything other than good news.
I certainly don’t see anything that could possibly justify a reduction of any constitutional right.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment is not about personal safety–it’s about making sure that people are dangerous, and stay that way.
It’s the most socialist thing in the US constitution. Why would any leftist want to infringe upon it?
https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/dataviz/murder-rate-in-the-united-states-per-100000-1950-2024
I certainly don’t see anything that could possibly justify a reduction of any constitutional right.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment is not about personal safety–it’s about making sure that people are dangerous, and stay that way.
It’s the most socialist thing in the US constitution. Why would any leftist want to infringe upon it?”
Why does the government as well as both the notional left and right try to weaken to uselessness the First Amendment? This right of free speech, association, and belief is foundational to classical liberalism and American political philosophy, which includes the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. All of these are about limits on government power and guarantees of personal liberty or freedom.
For the notional leftists and notational conservatives it is often more about power especially over the “wrong” people, the unwashed masses, those deemed ignorant, and money, and often careerism, not about doing the right thing. There is more to it, but that is the essence.
As Huey Newton taught us, if you really want gun control, organize armed black people.
GUN VIOLENCE:
Note the word “gun” which is only half of that phrase yet the only part that many people talk about. Apparently those people are OK with violence, just not with a gun. And that is what makes most of the anti-gun comments so sadly laughable. Lately in the US news it seems like half the public attacks are with knives yet we don’t hear any such uproar about knives being dangerous and need to be controlled or banned. Nor is there any uproar when a baseball bat or some other heavy object is used. Nor when chemicals or bombs are used. The anti-gun people talk endlessly about gun violence but in reality they just want to get rid of the guns. They just use the word “violence” as an excuse to help justify their position.
“Sonali Kolhatkar points out 45,000 gun deaths in the U S of A in 2023 in a population of roughly 330 million.” – DJG, Reality Czar. Taken out of context one might think that all 45,000 are homicides by lawfully owned firearms and that if you get rid of the lawfully owned guns those deaths would not happen. The reality is much different. Most of those homicides are by inner-city gangs using stolen handguns. But what the anti-gun crowd wants to do is take guns away from the law-abiding citizens which includes about 1/3 of the US population. Assuming 1 person per murder this comes to about 0.05 % of the population are murderers but the anti-gun crowd wants to disarm the 110 million lawful gun owners, who are not the problem anyway.
==============
Breakdown of Gun Deaths (2023)
-Gun deaths are categorized by intent. In 2023, the breakdown was as follows:
-Suicides: 27,300 deaths (58% of all gun deaths)
-Homicides: 17,927 deaths (38% of all gun deaths)
-Law enforcement intervention: 604 deaths
-Unintentional shootings: 463 deaths
-Undetermined circumstances: 434 deaths
Gender and Race Disparities: Males are seven times more likely than females to die by gun suicide. Black Americans are disproportionately affected by gun homicide, with Black people in the U.S. more than 12 times more likely than white people to die by gun homicide. – Statista
=============
Someone mentioned people carrying firearms into a coffee shop as if that was the only time they carry a firearm. Years ago I read that most law enforcement officers (LEOs) never pull their firearms during their career (though that may be different now) but they still carry them. I live in Idaho where carrying a sidearm, open or concealed, is common. These people are like the LEO’s and will probably never have to pull their firearm on someone in their lives. And they hope they never have to. But “It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.” And if by some chance they need it they don’t want to tell the threat to wait while they run home to get their firearm. Another saying is “When there’s a crises the police are only 15 minutes away.” We have very little violent crime in my small town and I’m convinced it’s because so many people are armed, a lot of them concealed so the criminals don’t know who is and who isn’t. And no, just because they’re armed doesn’t mean they’re engaging in shootouts. The legal hassles following even a justified shooting is a very strong incentive to use the firearm only in dire emergencies.
I too would like to see better training to reduce the accidental injury and death by firearms but taking away all firearms is an extreme position. This is like banning all cars to reduce the accidental deaths and injuries. But the true position of the anti-gun crowd is not to save lives, that’s just an excuse. All they want is to get rid of guns, nothing more.
>>>But the true position of the anti-gun crowd is not to save lives, that’s just an excuse. All they want is to get rid of guns, nothing more.
Even as a supporter of the Second Amendment, I am still going to push back on this a little. There is a lot of violence and death in the United States, and while people are often focused on the means, not the creation of the desire for violence, the violence and death is real enough. The irresponsibility of some gun owners is also real enough. I would liken the impulse to restrict guns with the desire to ban drugs because of addiction; some restrictions are necessary. After all, would you want children to use meth? Or a handgun? But just as some ignore the despair that creates the increasing addiction in our nation, others dream of a utopian banning or complete acceptance of drugs, guns, or whatever without looking at the reasons for their use and the costs thereof.
If there was a consensus against gun ownership and for major restrictions, the right and honest course of action would be to repeal the Second Amendment. But that consensus does not exist so strongly that people really want to start eliminating parts of the Bill of Rights, which is one of the bedrock aspects of democracy in the minds of most Americans. So instead we get a raft of laws restricting the right to bear arms that try to pretend they are not infringing on the Second Amendment guarantees and that have to be fought one by one through the legal system (at great expense). The same thing has been going on with the First Amendment for years. At some point your state may require you to obtain a license to express yourself about political issues in public spaces, including the internet. To get that license you may have to pass training that shows you will not propagate “disinformation” (anything that challenges the establishment narratives), and maybe the existing carve-outs that allow for prosecuting speech such as slander and libel now will get extended to “antisemitism” or “anticapitalism”. Why not? Kill one right by the death of a thousand cuts, kill the rest likewise.
The mass murder and gun violence problems in the United States are facilitated by widespread gun ownership, but their roots are in our government’s lust for waging perpetual wars across the world, its repeated attempts to prohibit drug and alcohol use by laws that fail repeatedly and only benefit organized crime, and the media’s glorification of violence in all fictional arenas (books, movies, videogames) while hyperfocusing on the “lone gunmen” who kill in real life and turning their crimes into public spectacles. As long as society valorizes violence as a solution to problems, limiting guns won’t limit our violence.
Well said, thank you.
In the US, from what I can tell violence is seen as one of the first instead of one of the very last ways to settle conflict. Why talk if you can just hit, stab, shoot or bomb. Together with all the economic violence being applied to the population, causing insecurity, anger and despair it’s no surprise to me that we see so much of the physical variety.
I found it interesting during the BLM protests how many non-stereotypical gun owners decided to purchase firearms and sought training. Good for gun range business and good to be on a range with. Whole families at the range safely practicing.
Seemed to be a class thing. Middle class being worried.
Ancient awkward film clip: The President’s Analyst – Meet the Quantrills (1967)
Hey Dad you want the Magnum 357 in the house
Darn it Bing. I told you not to play around with my guns. No I do not want that in the house, that is my car gun. My house gun is already in the house.
Put that right back in the glove compartment and don’t let me catch you fooling with my guns again.
I’m sorry Dad
This is popular at a gun club I am a member of.
BASS REEVES GUN CLUB, INC
Why not?
Anybody turn up at your club with a bolt-action rifle or the like?
Always on 50, 100, 200, 300 yards ranges. It’s a gun club.
It is nicer to be around the rifle shooters when they use suppressors. A bit louder otherwise.
Georgia USA is like a redneck Switzerland as far as firearms are concerned.
I do really love the acronym… but what I say still stands, watch the Georgia space if you become more than a curiosity.
Anybody turn up at your club with a bolt-action rifle or the like?
Very often. I like when the owners mount suppressors on them and shoot subsonic cartridge loads on the 50 yard pistol range.