Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[SirRobin]

well... we find one thing we can agree on... the rest we will have to currently agree to disagree. Because you are wanting semi automatics as well... sorry... you really should just come out of the closet and say what you really want, I'd respect that a hell of a lot more.

Out of the closet? Is this where I'm supposed to say you first? Or is there where I post a whole bunch of older posts again so you can see I've already covered that?

Personally I doubt we even agree on that but who knows, it is Christmas after all.

[Seranthor]

Is this where I say you first? Or is there where I post a whole bunch of older posts so you can see I've already covered that?

Personally I doubt we even agree on that but who knows, it is Christmas after all.

pretty much already have outlined what I was interested in seeing in any legislation. Was what I asked for unreasonable in any way?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Considering that it hasn't been written yet, they yes, in its current state then its unreasonable... thats why the time to have the conversation is NOW, not a monologue, but a conversation. Also, its come to mind, that CT had an assault weapons ban in place at the time of the shooting, doesn't that mean that because the shooting occured that the ban doesn't work? I ask that because its the same logic that claims that armed security in the schools doesn't work because of Columbine.

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 06:05 PM ----------



well... we find one thing we can agree on... the rest we will have to currently agree to disagree. Because you are wanting semi automatics as well... sorry... you really should just come out of the closet and say what you really want, I'd respect that a hell of a lot more.

Wait, did you just admit that you oppose a ban that has been hashed out (at least a preliminary version of it), but you didn't bother to read its provisions or care to do your homework for the purposes of the discussion? Here, I'll do your homework for you, so that you can remain an informed and valid participant in the discussion of what is reasonable and what isn't:

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;

Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga, SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or
Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,

Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip,
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The above proposed also grandfathers in any weapons that fall under those categories obtained legally before the ban.

[Elegiac]

Wait, did you just admit that you oppose a ban that has been hashed out (at least a preliminary version of it), but you didn't bother to read its provisions or care to do your homework for the purposes of the discussion? Here, I'll do your homework for you, so that you can remain an informed and valid participant in the discussion of what is reasonable and what isn't:

Wait, we're legally allowed to own a Tavor?

Must buy one...

[Cthulhu 2020]

That was an early version, and I think they've added a few more things since then, like grenade launcher attachments. I saw a more up to date version than the one I posted but for the life of me couldn't find it and the only thing I remember noting was the addition of grenade launchers being illegal. That and the grandfathering of previously owned weapons that fall into that category. (i.e., they're not going to come confiscate your guns bought before implementation of the bill, so best go buy your Tavor now!)

Also, I thought Tavor's could accept 30 round magazines? See the streetsweeper catch all category for rifles.

[Seranthor]

Wait, did you just admit that you oppose a ban that has been hashed out (at least a preliminary version of it), but you didn't bother to read its provisions or care to do your homework for the purposes of the discussion? Here, I'll do your homework for you, so that you can remain an informed and valid participant in the discussion of what is reasonable and what isn't:



The above proposed also grandfathers in any weapons that fall under those categories obtained legally before the ban.

I see where I can support some of this list, some. not all.

[lockedout]

I especially liked the part where she pointed to the problems there with firearms, but willfully ignored the fact that the US government ALLOWED hundreds of weapons of all kinds to be bought by straw buyers and walked over the border without consent of the Mexican government. over 2,000 guns were allowed to be sent into Mexico, 1400 of those guns the DOJ lost track of, and only about 700 to date have been recovered, most at crime scenes, including the ones where an ICE agent was murdered, and where a Border Patrol agent was killed, not to mention hundreds of mexicans.

Our country supplies other countries with weapons. It has been happening for about 100 years.

[Seranthor]

Our country supplies other countries with weapons. It has been happening for about 100 years.

But they usually ASK for the weapons, and we didn't get their permission, if you really wanted to look at it harshly it could be viewed as that we attempted to undermine their government.

[SirRobin]

pretty much already have outlined what I was interested in seeing in any legislation. Was what I asked for unreasonable in any way?

OBAMAGUN: Seran's "Deal"

1. More restrictions on assault weapons and lots of other words to make sure Seran is okay with restricting each one.
   
   Again, the wackos' access to weaponry that makes it easier for them to puff up their body counts is the problem. Since we'll never stop all the wackos. Is that just assault weapons or does it include semiautomatics in general? We need to strangle that access. May not even need bans. Just make it as hard as possible for them to turn them on random people in public places.
2. More mental health screenings
   
   That sounds nice but what if the wacko hides his condition and passes the screening? What kind of screenings would they be? How long? How thorough? How frequent?
3. Compulsory inpatient treatment
   
   So if they fail the screening, or someone just figures they should have, there will be compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment? That raises some interesting questions as well but as someone who has been committed before, that probably won't come as a shock to many, its not actually very hard to trick the shrinks. It doesn't mean you are cured by any means either. So we could just as easily end up making the wacko even more wacko as make them less. Either way we could also just be delaying their mass shooting a little.
4. More school security
   
   More than inconclusive, ineffective. Again, and again, we've seen on at least two occasions were armed guards were ineffective. Additionally, no where near convinced that adding even more bullet launchers in a school, is going to actually lower the body counts.
5. Close the gun show loophole
   
   Of course. Rather pathetic that it still hasn't been. If I recall correctly, all the weapons used at Columbine thirteen years ago were traced back to the same gun show.

Okay, so now lets get into the funding itself. How will this be paid for? Armed guards for schools could cost almost eight billion. Any estimates on how much the additional screenings and compulsory inpatient care would cost? Considering how many are diagnosed with depression at least? Easily billions and billions. Now, since the guards will be there to protect schools from legal gun owners' guns. Will they pay for them?

[FusedMass]

Fused, your President, his Attorney General and Department of Justice have been willfully giving automatic weapons to the mexican drug cartels, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF THE MEXICAN GOVERMENT. Where have you been for the last 4 years?[COLOR="red"]

You are aware that the project your talking about Fast and Furious started under Bush and Obama assumed control when he took office. As far as I'm aware hes not MY President. Hes OUR President and rep the nation as such even if the Republicans did not elect him.

The way you talk sometimes. It concerns me slightly. I'll explain why. I was watching a show about the background of the Timothy McVeigh the person who bombed a building. He came back from military life and had a hard time adjusting to civil life. He had PTSD after living through that experience and in his words living on razors edge he couldn't take a normal life.

He got involved with a local gun community. Where I'm going with this. The reason he did those bombings was because he felt the goverment was trying take away his guns and his freedom. Here is is a quote from him.

If guns become outlawed. Then only outlaws will have guns.

And I will become an outlaw if guns are banned.

He was so fiercely defending HIS freedom and distrust in the government. He wanted to hurt them in a tall way. I heard the recordings how he went into details about his plans to hurt the government the most attacking a building full of people. I'm not saying your like that by ANY means. However when you say MY President and your massive distrust in the government.

It made me make the wonder slightly from you defending your guns..you're freedom as you call it. To what he did and in his mind thats why he did what he did to protect himself. To be honest. Yes I believe a ton of gun owners have a distrust in the government and I also believe some would rather have a shoot out then give up their weapons.

That to me. Is disturbing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think the main points of this proposed gun control legislation are:

If you owned one before the bill, it remains legal.
No rifles or pistols that accept magazines larger than 10 rounds.
No shotguns that accept magazines larger than 5 rounds.
No rifles or shotguns with pistol grip.
No threaded barrels.
No grenade launchers.

Oh, I think I saw silencers mentioned in the revised version.

[FusedMass]

On a separate note before I head to bed. I want leave some food for thought here.

A newspaper in NY has published the names of EVERYONE that owns a gun. I think the media is finally on to something. Was it illegal? no. Should it have been done? maybe not or maybe since people have a right to know about guns where they live and to protect them self.

Here is the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...opstories.html

[Ghostpanther]

On a separate note before I head to bed. I want leave some food for thought here.

A newspaper in NY has published the names of EVERYONE that owns a gun. I think the media is finally on to something. Was it illegal? no. Should it have been done? maybe not or maybe since people have a right to know about guns where they live and to protect them self.

Here is the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...opstories.html

They only have the names of those who have registered or been given permits of gun owners in "thier" area. Just saying.

I for one...have guns I optained many years ago, which are not registered or ever will be. Mine's primary use is for home defense. You break into my home without my permission and you are subject to be shot. Which my state gives the right to use deadly force if someone breaks into your home. Of course this would exclude police with a legal search warrant.

On the topic of this thread, I have nothing against banning assault weapons ownership for those who donot want to obtain a license to own such guns. But I am not for a across the board ban of them, as this gives the goverment too much power.

[Cthulhu 2020]

On a separate note before I head to bed. I want leave some food for thought here.

A newspaper in NY has published the names of EVERYONE that owns a gun. I think the media is finally on to something. Was it illegal? no. Should it have been done? maybe not or maybe since people have a right to know about guns where they live and to protect them self.

Here is the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...opstories.html

Everything the paper did is available through public record; it's information that anyone can look up at any time they want. Why are gun owners so upset that they did this? Aren't gun owners always arguing that they own a gun to deter potential burglars/robbers? What good is it doing if they don't know you own a gun? If anything they should be more upset that the paper exposed their non gun owning neighbors as targets for potential home ransacking!

[Ghostpanther]

Everything the paper did is available through public record; it's information that anyone can look up at any time they want. Why are gun owners so upset that they did this? Aren't gun owners always arguing that they own a gun to deter potential burglars/robbers? What good is it doing if they don't know you own a gun? If anything they should be more upset that the paper exposed their non gun owning neighbors as targets for potential home ransacking!

Can not speak for other gun owners, but this would not upset me. The odds are, the ones who break into your homes are people you know or knows you. Everyone who knows me, know I have weapons in my home, ready to use on a intruder. And one of the valid points about citizens being able to have a license to carry a concealed weapon is the crooks donot know who may be carrying one. As one wise old policeman told me once when I asked him about carrying a gun as a private citizen remarked , " I would rather be caught with one, than without one ".

[SirRobin]

Everything the paper did is available through public record; it's information that anyone can look up at any time they want. Why are gun owners so upset that they did this? Aren't gun owners always arguing that they own a gun to deter potential burglars/robbers? What good is it doing if they don't know you own a gun? If anything they should be more upset that the paper exposed their non gun owning neighbors as targets for potential home ransacking!

This is an interesting one for me. While it is public record, feeding some people's illusory persecution complex probably won't help matters. It is more likely to inspire further entrenchment on both sides instead.

[Grizzly Willy]

Everything the paper did is available through public record; it's information that anyone can look up at any time they want. Why are gun owners so upset that they did this? Aren't gun owners always arguing that they own a gun to deter potential burglars/robbers? What good is it doing if they don't know you own a gun? If anything they should be more upset that the paper exposed their non gun owning neighbors as targets for potential home ransacking!

It doesn't matter if they have a gun or not. Giving people targets is never a good thing.

[SirRobin]

It doesn't matter if they have a gun or not. Giving people targets is never a good thing.

That's it. That is what's been bugging me. Whether the 2nd Amendment, quite inconveniently for some, includes the words "well regulated" or not. Highlighting those who have firearms is not only bad because of distrust over how irresponsible they might be with those firearms. It also points out where firearms can be found. In case a local wacko is unable to find them elsewhere easily enough.

[FusedMass]

One last thing I wanted to add tonight.

An officer was killed today. This is on top of the two fireman killed earlier today. Three people total were killed in one day related to guns. A few weeks ago. 20 Childern died related to guns and months back at a dozen people died at the movies related to guns.

If having a gun equals protection. Then why is the crime rate so high in the United States as against Canada for example where you know murder rate in Canda related to guns? it's like maybe one or two a year.

A YEAR

We in the United States have an average of ten thousand deaths a year related to guns.

It blew my mind because Canada pretty much has the same number of guns as we do in the United States. I come across this while watching Michael Moores bowling for Columbine. If you forget it was when three or four kids brought guns to school and started shooting up their gun that left dozens of people dead. The death toll in the US related to Guns is mind blowing considering country's with nearly almost same laws have almost none.

Why does Canada have almost virtually no violent shoot outs and here in the states we do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2360488.html

[zazuch]

The assault weapon ban did nothing but stop sale of assault weapons pre made. I did a senior project in high school about it. You can mail order all the parts with EASE to make any weapon into a assault weapon by the definition of the law. Its a visual band aid on the issue and didn't really stop anything. Because you could still sell even as this article says its only for future sales. Ex things that exist now are legal and still will be legal to sell.