Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

I don't think it would be right for students to be given an assignment to write to lawmakers urging support for the 2nd Amendment.

Similarly, I don't approve of a seventh grade teacher instructing her students to write to lawmakers pushing for gun control as a classroom assignment.

I agree. They should not be pushing their political agenda in schools. Teach academics and do their political activities on their own time.

[Dystemper]

Temeber universal background checks just means they want to ban the sale if firearms between private parties, and inherting them or gifting a gun that's been in the family to a son or daughter. That's all they mean by universal back ground checks

[lockedout]

It thus prevents the CDC from doing any kind of research into gun violence beyond number of shootings and number of deaths. Beyond that, anything that is a study on the nature or basis of gun violence, and studies on what might or might not be effective gun control are banned from being conducted by any governmental agency. There's a pretty clear intention here, that it's the gun industry's bottom line is what really matters.

CDC should not be doing the research.

[Ghostpanther]

I thought this guy in the video made some really good points on the subject of gun control and school shootings. But as a warning, if you are a NRA hater, do not watch it as it may cause some to get upset.

[Bullettime]

http://13wham.com/news/local/legisla...es-in-new-york

New law in New York requiring domestic abusers to surrender firearms. That's a hard thing to be against but it'll be interesting to see how people and the NRA try to spin it as a negative.

[Svifnymr]

http://13wham.com/news/local/legisla...es-in-new-york

New law in New York requiring domestic abusers to surrender firearms. That's a hard thing to be against but it'll be interesting to see how people and the NRA try to spin it as a negative.

Felon's or those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can't possess firearms, so not sure what they've broadened in the definitions. It might just be that the firearms license itself never checked for these things that disqualify you for a firearm.

[Mullet Man]

http://13wham.com/news/local/legisla...es-in-new-york

New law in New York requiring domestic abusers to surrender firearms. That's a hard thing to be against but it'll be interesting to see how people and the NRA try to spin it as a negative.

I'm in the NRA.
This seems reasonable to me and similar to laws in most states.

Here is a quote from the article:

The legislation was passed to close a loophole in state law in
order to ensure domestic abusers are required to surrender
all firearms, not just handguns.

The legislation prohibits anyone with an outstanding warrant,
a felony, or other serious offenses from receiving or renewing
a firearm license.

[Stormdash]

I'm not sure I follow what this loophole is -- is the idea that prior-owned weapons are now to be confiscated from those with previous convictions but who had not heretofore been barred from retaining them? That skates up perilously close to being ex post facto law. Assuming it's not, it might also be more just in general to force them to sell or transfer them, so they can at least be compensated for what had been legally owned firearms. I'm on the fence.

[Tasttey]

I'm not sure I follow what this loophole is -- is the idea that prior-owned weapons are now to be confiscated from those with previous convictions but who had not heretofore been barred from retaining them? That skates up perilously close to being ex post facto law. Assuming it's not, it might also be more just in general to force them to sell or transfer them, so they can at least be compensated for what had been legally owned firearms. I'm on the fence.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/go...OGRAM_BILL.pdf

Found the actual text of the law.

Basically adds "rifle and shotgun" to all the places where it only said hand gun before and adds more misdemeanors into the "serious" category when the victim and criminal are members of the same house hold.

[Stormdash]

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/go...OGRAM_BILL.pdf

Found the actual text of the law.

Basically adds "rifle and shotgun" to all the places where it only said hand gun before and adds more misdemeanors into the "serious" category when the victim and criminal are members of the same house hold.

So the only tangible change from existing law is the class of weapons to which it applies? Fair enough. I mean, my instinct is to be immediately suspect of new regulation of almost any kind, but this seems pretty innocuous.

What I've enjoyed this weekend is that my man Austin Petersen had people having to argue against repealing the NFA and Hughes Amendment instead of trying to come up with some new restrictions.

[Tasttey]

What I've enjoyed this weekend is that my man Austin Petersen had people having to argue against repealing the NFA and Hughes Amendment instead of trying to come up with some new restrictions.

Hell I'd be fine with keeping the NFA (although removing suppressors from its purview) and just removing the Hughes Amendment from FOPA. Considering there has been 3 (iirc) murders committed with legally owned machineguns since the NFA was passed and 2 of those were committed by off duty police officers, the addition of the Hughes Amendment was rather pointless, another law to solve a problem that didn't exist.

I enjoyed a few hours of pistol practice out at the range this weekend and got to break in the new Rex Zero 1 compact. Not sure if I'll carry it concealed on a regular basis (particularly in the summer, its a bit bulkier than my M&P 9c) but it is quite enjoyable to shoot.

[Stormdash]

Hell I'd be fine with keeping the NFA (although removing suppressors from its purview) and just removing the Hughes Amendment from FOPA. Considering there has been 3 (iirc) murders committed with legally owned machineguns since the NFA was passed and 2 of those were committed by off duty police officers, the addition of the Hughes Amendment was rather pointless, another law to solve a problem that didn't exist.

I enjoyed a few hours of pistol practice out at the range this weekend and got to break in the new Rex Zero 1 compact. Not sure if I'll carry it concealed on a regular basis (particularly in the summer, its a bit bulkier than my M&P 9c) but it is quite enjoyable to shoot.

Repeal the Hughes Amendment, take suppressors AND SBRs/SBS out of the NFA, and I could probably open up to some horsetrading. Hell, repeal the Hughes Amendment and banning bump stocks is moot.

Post your thoughts on that Arex. I have been curious about this. I'm kinda love/hate with Sigs (I really wanted a P229 but just not really liking how it sits in my hand), but the price on the Arex could sway me.

[Tasttey]

Post your thoughts on that Arex. I have been curious about this. I'm kinda love/hate with Sigs (I really wanted a P229 but just not really liking how it sits in my hand), but the price on the Arex could sway me.

I really like it, fit and finish out of the box was outstanding and even though I only put about 100 round through it so far, no malfunctions as of yet. I opted for the nickel plated slide on top of the black anodized frame, set me back about $650.

Pros:
Recoil impulse is quite smooth, a tad bit snappy but that's to be expected with the higher bore axis but the weight of it (25oz) balances it well

Production quality is on point (smooth parts were mirror smooth with no discernible tool marks and rough parts [serrations] gave great grip)

External Safety (yes I know some people hate them, but on hammer fired guns I like them) sweeps cleanly and has an audible click at both settings

SA trigger is short, smooth and breaks crisp, good tactile/audible cue on the reset as well

Magazines not only drop free, they shoot out of the grip

Cons: (kinda)
DA trigger is heavy but the pull is smooth (not gravelly like some) and it breaks cleanly

Availability (FIME group has limited distributors so you might find yourself buying it online and having it shipped to your LGS) also means the prices don't vary much

Grips are meh at best, honestly its my one big gripe with AREX, great pistol, but the grips feel so cheap, good texture but the material just feels off; luckily Hogue already makes grips for them (looking at the piranha myself)

Mag release needs some break in time (off all the things you'd think need a break in period, nobody thinks mag release) I spent about 30 min just inserting/ejecting empty mags to get the spring to loosen up a bit

Not for small handed/short fingered people; she's fat in the back end (grips might be part of the issue, we'll see) and in DA the trigger sits almost 1/2 in further forward than it does in SA. While I don't have overly small hands the fingers are a bit on the stubby side, and I found myself more often than not using the thumb on my supporting hand to drop the slide/decock it. Safety and trigger (particularly in SA) sat really well, but that decocker sits just hair too far forward for my stubby thumb to get good leverage on it.

Final Thoughts:

Its basically a SIG p229 for 60% of the price. Quality seems to be up there with SIG as well, with the exception of the grips (seriously figure another $70 into the price and get yourself a nice set of Hogues.)

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

I carry a CDL (commercial drivers license). I am required to carry a CDL because my job requires me to operate large trucks and even a school bus on occasion. Lawmakers decided these vehicles demanded more responsibility than driving a regular passenger vehicle so they put in stricter licensing requirements. In addition, I am held to a higher standard in order to keep my CDL. My limit for alcohol tests is half that of other drivers before receiving a DUI. Likewise, my license could be suspended for half the accumulated points required to suspend a regular drivers license. Personally, I think these are good laws because someone driving a bus full of passengers should be held to a higher standard.

I would like to see weapons handled the same way. I don't want to keep guns out of the hands of responsible citizens, but I do want to make it more challenging for troubled individuals to access the most lethal weapons. Someone who wants a standard shotgun for hunting or a simple pistol for self defense would get a standard license. Someone who wants an assault rifle or high capacity magazines would need a stricter license. We won't stop drug cartels with this system, but we could stop troubled teens and individuals with histories of mental illness. Not an end-all solution, but a reasonable start.

[Ghostpanther]

I carry a CDL (commercial drivers license). I am required to carry a CDL because my job requires me to operate large trucks and even a school bus on occasion. Lawmakers decided these vehicles demanded more responsibility than driving a regular passenger vehicle so they put in stricter licensing requirements. In addition, I am held to a higher standard in order to keep my CDL. My limit for alcohol tests is half that of other drivers before receiving a DUI. Likewise, my license could be suspended for half the accumulated points required to suspend a regular drivers license. Personally, I think these are good laws because someone driving a bus full of passengers should be held to a higher standard.

I would like to see weapons handled the same way. I don't want to keep guns out of the hands of responsible citizens, but I do want to make it more challenging for troubled individuals to access the most lethal weapons. Someone who wants a standard shotgun for hunting or a simple pistol for self defense would get a standard license. Someone who wants an assault rifle or high capacity magazines would need a stricter license. We won't stop drug cartels with this system, but we could stop troubled teens and individuals with histories of mental illness. Not an end-all solution, but a reasonable start.

Getting my CHL ( Carry conceal handgun ) license was more time intensive, restrictive and costly than getting my driver license. Which also allows me to carry a handgun loaded within my vehicle, which without one in Ohio, you can not. So I see your point. I have no issues with having permits required for some type of firearms like the AR-15. Not age restrictions however over the age of 18, as I think that is contradictory with being a adult.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

Getting my CHL ( Carry conceal handgun ) license was more time intensive, restrictive and costly than getting my driver license. Which also allows me to carry a handgun loaded within my vehicle, which without one in Ohio, you can not. So I see your point. I have no issues with having permits required for some type of firearms like the AR-15. Not age restrictions however over the age of 18, as I think that is contradictory with being a adult.

The age limit is a can of worms, isn't it? Because on one hand we've already acknowledged that humans are prone to engage in risky behavior at 18. We don't allow them to buy alcohol until 21, and insurance companies charge them high rates till 25! BUT... if we start saying 18yos are not mature enough to buy guns, how can we justify sending them off to war at 18? And if we don't allow young men and women to enlist until they're 21, how many will still be naive enough to fight for chicken hawks and oil barons?

[Ghostpanther]

The age limit is a can of worms, isn't it? Because on one hand we've already acknowledged that humans are prone to engage in risky behavior at 18. We don't allow them to buy alcohol until 21, and insurance companies charge them high rates till 25! BUT... if we start saying 18yos are not mature enough to buy guns, how can we justify sending them off to war at 18? And if we don't allow young men and women to enlist until they're 21, how many will still be naive enough to fight for chicken hawks and oil barons?

Exactly. This whole bullshit of making a person a legal adult at the age of 18 and then having so many age restrictions based on them not being mature enough to make good decisions, is just total hyprocy in my opinion. If that is true they are not mature enough, then raise the age of a legal adult to 21. Back the way it use to be.

Insurance however is different. As they can charge you for being a higher risk, sometimes not based on age, but driving record at any age.

[Clone]

He never mentioned pulling out a gun, just carrying one and exercising his constitutional right. I have no problem with him or anyone else doing so. You should care what the supreme court says about guns since they ultimately are the deciding factor.

Don't be stupid. You can't use a gun if you don't pull it out.

I care about what self defense stats say about guns, since they talk about application, not whether or not carrying is allowed.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realism the number of victims in mass shootings such as Vegas and Texas or the Fla school shootings, are not representative of the majority of shootings and all of those were helpless victims, which better security , would have prevented. Most shootings occur from gang/drug wars in isolated cities, such as Baltimore.

And for your better education on this subject https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent
“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control

Oh course it matters. You lack a understanding of how our highest court in the land rulings, can impact how you get to exercise a right. Because of their ruling, I get to exercise my right to defend myself according to the Constitution with a firearm.

I do not live in Switzerland, so it really does not matter for myself what they do there. And as a comparison for here,the State of Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the Union and has for decades, yet has a extremely low crime rate. So clearly the reason for high crime is not the tool being used.

First and most importantly, what the Supreme Court says doesn't matter. Not because I don't care about the law or anything, but their ruling doesn't change reality. There is a gap between legality and practice, and I understand it just fine.

Better security might have prevented Parkland shooting and etc, but better security doesn't mean 2A. Security exists in many places without 2A. What else could have prevented these shooting is if these gunman had no access to guns, and this is not something that can be contested with reason.

Crime deterrent is a pretty broad term. Having an alarm system is a crime deterrent, so is being situational aware.

[Stormdash]

Don't be stupid. You can't use a gun if you don't pull it out.

When do you consider it "pulled out"? Mere display can be enough to deter or defuse a situation. Indeed that's more frequent than anyone having to draw, or anyone that drew having to fire.

I care about what self defense stats say about guns, since they talk about application, not whether or not carrying is allowed.

Stats are that guns are used legally for defense more often than violent crimes are committed with them.

First and most importantly, what the Supreme Court says doesn't matter. Not because I don't care about the law or anything, but their ruling doesn't change reality. There is a gap between legality and practice, and I understand it just fine.

He cited a (not banned!) CDC study from five years ago, not the Supreme Court.

Crime deterrent is a pretty broad term. Having an alarm system is a crime deterrent, so is being situational aware.

Deterrence is rooted in the perceived risk of an immediate consequence to actions. I delivered pizza for a good while while I was getting my education, it provides a good example -- it's a generally accepted industry standard in the US anyway to keep drivers from carrying more than $20 in cash on their person, as a disincentive to robbing them. It's also, for entirely separate liability reasons, pretty industry standard that drivers aren't *supposed* to carry weapons. Yet drivers still get robbed, and drivers violate policy and carry weapons. Occasionally, it comes up that someone tries to rob a driver and gets their guts blown out. Which do you think is the bigger psychological deterrent to a criminal in the vicinity of, or near the timeframe of, something that like happening? That the driver might have no more than $20 and some pizza to steal, or that the driver might leave you bleeding to death in the street? Unless you feel like jerking around, the answer is the latter. Even one such story does more to discourage similar robberies in that region for a few months than any number of laws against robbery, or any loss prevention principles designed to make it a low-return investment of effort.

EDIT: TL;DR

What is the biggest deterrrent to the choice to engage in a predatory criminal act, like a robbery?

A) the possibility of being subsequently arrested and convicted of a crime
B) the possibility that the act will not be sufficiently profitable.
C) the possibility that the act will get you seriously injured or killed, right then and there.

[Ghostpanther]

Don't be stupid. You can't use a gun if you don't pull it out.

I care about what self defense stats say about guns, since they talk about application, not whether or not carrying is allowed.

- - - Updated - - -


First and most importantly, what the Supreme Court says doesn't matter. Not because I don't care about the law or anything, but their ruling doesn't change reality. There is a gap between legality and practice, and I understand it just fine.

Better security might have prevented Parkland shooting and etc, but better security doesn't mean 2A. Security exists in many places without 2A. What else could have prevented these shooting is if these gunman had no access to guns, and this is not something that can be contested with reason.

Crime deterrent is a pretty broad term. Having an alarm system is a crime deterrent, so is being situational aware.

It absolutely matters. Their rulings allowed women the right to a abortion and for gays to have a recognized marriage and all the benefits which come with it. Those rulings changed reality to the point those effected get to exercise that right. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and is also the most powerful force within the Government, which has the most impact on the every day lives of people. That is reality.

True. There are ways to deter crime without having a firearm. Esp in your home, with better security. But a criminal breaks in somehow and is armed and you are not? Go ahead and call the police. It takes 8 mins average response time for them in the cities. Rural areas, even longer. You could be dead and the criminal long gone before they arrive.
Out in the public, security that you have direct control over, becomes much less. Situational awareness is important. But lacking the tools to effectively defend yourself, may cost you dearly. Your choice, go ahead and live by it. I made my choice.