Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[cz75fan]

Opinion polls is the most reliable way to get a grasp on public opinion... as long as they are conducted properly. The margin of error is calculated maths/statistics, so as long as you believe in math you are golden.

It's pretty big business actually, I work as a project manager for TNS Sifo(we are hiring btw so any students in Gothenburg reading this, go apply, 3 evenings per week) and we get all kind of clients, everything from local newspapers to multinational corporations.

I don't believe the opinion polls can even remotely come close to getting good numbers for a majority of the things they set out to collect. I love math and all, but math is only great without human error.

[Jackmoves]

I don't believe the opinion polls can even remotely come close to getting good numbers for a majority of the things they set out to collect. I love math and all, but math is only great without human error.

"Math took man to the moon" ;P

You should read up on how margin of error is caculated, opinion polls are not 100% accurate(hence the margin of error ;P) but they still paint a pretty good picture of something, it does depend on the questions asked etc as well.. hence my comment on them being conducted properly, questions formulated to give a biased result is worthless.

[cz75fan]

"Math took man to the moon" ;P

You should read up on how margin of error is caculated, opinion polls are not 100% accurate(hence the margin of error ;P) but they still paint a pretty good picture of something, it does depend on the questions asked etc as well.. hence my comment on them being conducted properly, questions formulated to give a biased result is worthless.

Since you work in the industry as it work then perhaps you could answer me this. In the United States they are limited to the times in which they can call. It has been shown that cell phone calls make up an extremely limited percentage of numbers dialed. Now under the assumption that they are limited to call between the hours of 8am to 5pm ( which happens to be the traditional work hours here) then you're left with the unemployed, people on their days off, the elderly or retired, single parents, and I'm sure a few others. So in that demographic when you were to ask questions for opinion on Violent Video games, how is the margin of error calculated.

[PhaelixWW]

So what is the total number for cell phone related, which was his point? (Also, roughly 9k or so deaths per year with firearms are suicide.)

Actually, the CDC puts it at just under 20k suicides by firearm.

If I change a Remington 700 to a stock like the following... is it then illegal?

No, because it's a bolt-action rifle. The law specifically targets semi-automatic firearms.

You only need to look at the top of this page to see the reverse. As I said, this poll includes Europeans, so it is a bit splayed, but you only need to do a quick google search to see that support is rising sharply and is no longer the minority.

Don't confuse the different polling questions as the same. The poll at the top of this page is for an assault weapon ban. When gallup asked the same question, it was 51% opposed and only 44% support. The majority are for stricter gun legislation, but not specifically a ban.

I, for example, would be part of that disparity. I think we need a background check every time a gun changes hands. I support a ban on drum magazines larger than 30 rounds, unless the magazine is for an automatic firearm that you have all the other appropriate licenses for. I support a moderate waiting period.

But I don't support an assault weapons ban.

It's not just Gallup that indicates a rise in the gun control movement. It was the first thing that popped on the google search, but googling "gun control polls" brings up a plethora of search results that indicate it is far from the "minority" movement.

Once again, read the questions being asked. This poll doesn't even ask about an assault weapons ban.

[Boogieknight]

You realize modifying an AR-15 like that is very illegal, right?

Yeah, and no one does illegal things with guns. Using cz75fan's car analogy there are illegal mods that are done to cars every day as well. Additionally there are legal modified AR-15s (prior to the 1986 weapons ban) that can be sold and traded under current laws where the ban on assault weapons has been lifted. The AR-15 should be included on the assault weapon ban.

Pro-gun rights ARE the majority. Nowhere did I say that you they are all NRA members. I'm not an NRA member.

NRA membership, like any other organization, is brought up all the time in order to skew support where needed. I have friends and family members registered with the NRA from simply going to the firing range with a friend. Again, I'm wholly in favor of gun ownership, gun control, and banning assault weapons. None of that is mutually exclusive.

I'm going to address these together.
<snip>

Anyone wanting to modify an AR-15 will do it legally or illegally in spite of federal laws. One way or another if someone wants to modify a legally obtained semi-auto weapon to full auto that should be considered and taken into account if an actual ban is put in place. Since when did being illegal stop people from doing things with guns that they shouldn't. Regardless it doesn't change the fact that the weapon itself is capable of being fully automatic and should be included in the ban. Just like Blizzard overly restricts stuff like transmog, the ban should be a little more stringent than necessary since it is easier to relax control than increase it if needed at a later time.

I'm very pro gun and very anti NRA. I'm about as sick of them as I am of snow.

With you there. I think the NRA is too powerful and detrimental to their own cause, but simultaneously provides a voice to the pro-gun extremes. I wonder how many NRA members actually know that the second amendment wasn't clarified to apply to personal firearms (not the collective munitions of a "well regulated militia") until rulings in the last 12 years with the 2 major landmarks being in 2008 and 2010.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Random internet polls show an even stronger trend towards people supporting tight gun controls and assault weapon bans. Those don't really have a time frame bias. They are limited to people who own a computer or smart phone with internet service though!

[PhaelixWW]

Random internet polls show an even stronger trend towards people supporting tight gun controls and assault weapon bans. Those don't really have a time frame bias. They are limited to people who own a computer or smart phone with internet service though!

ROFL. Googled for some online polls. First one led me to this results page showing 98.37% opposing a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

[cz75fan]

Yeah, and no one does illegal things with guns. Using cz75fan's car analogy there are illegal mods that are done to cars every day as well. Additionally there are legal modified AR-15s (prior to the 1986 weapons ban) that can be sold and traded under current laws where the ban on assault weapons has been lifted. The AR-15 should be included on the assault weapon ban.

Since when did being illegal stop people from doing things with guns that they shouldn't. Regardless it doesn't change the fact that the weapon itself is capable of being fully automatic and should be included in the ban.

You're first comment isn't really well put together. They are legally sold if the laws for which the process of being sold are followed. Not sure what the problem is there. Besides, we're talking $10-15,000 minimums and also include a list of weapons from WWI and WWII.

Secondly, all semi-auto weapons can be converted to full auto. A L L O F T H E M. By your statements on justification, you support a ban on all semi-autos.

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 02:16 AM ----------

No, because it's a bolt-action rifle. The law specifically targets semi-automatic firearms.

Actually, according to http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

This is a nightmare for records.

[PhaelixWW]

Actually, according to http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

This is a nightmare for records.

That's just a summary. The part about thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons is still referring to semi-automatics, only. Bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action... they all are exempt.

[Boogieknight]

You're first comment isn't really well put together. They are legally sold if the laws for which the process of being sold are followed. Not sure what the problem is there. Besides, we're talking $10-15,000 minimums and also include a list of weapons from WWI and WWII.

It's put together how it needs to be. People are still obtaining AR-15s legally, modifying them illegally to be fully automatic, and posting videos on Youtube. It's not as rare or difficult an occurrence as people would have you believe. The second part is that legally or illegally modified AR-15s prior to 1986 are grandfathered in and can be sold legally in states that no longer have allowed the assault weapon ban to expire. Writing a federal ban going forward would have to account for these weapons and ban the sale of them and require grandfathering. In the grand scheme of things it's better to just ban "AR-15" than "modified AR-15". Again it's easier to make something very stringent and relax at a later time if necessary than to create a relaxed law and need to increase control at a later time.

Secondly, all semi-auto weapons can be converted to full auto. A L L O F T H E M. By your statements on justification, you support a ban on all semi-autos.

Yes. The video that GreatOak linked had a guy defending specifically the AR-15 (hence why it's the gun I've been mentioning) and stating that assault weapons were defined as fully automatic and that the AR-15 being semi-auto defined it as a sport rifle since it wasn't fully automatic. A semi-auto can be modified illegally or legally to fully automatic and should be included in any ban that defines "assault weapons".

Actually, according to http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

I think Phaelix was replying about the law in California, not the proposed federal law. Thought I could be mistaken.

[PhaelixWW]

I think Phaelix was replying about the law in California, not the proposed federal law. Thought I could be mistaken.

No, I was talking about Feinstein's proposed 2013 FAWB, though it feels somewhat similar to the existing California ban without the rimfire exemption. I suppose I should have said "proposed bill" instead of "law" though. It's late; I'm tired. :P

Though specifically, (and keeping in mind the fact that the bill isn't actually finished being written yet), from her summary:

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
* Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
* Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
* Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Manually-operated means pump-, bolt-, lever-, and slide-actions.

[Boogieknight]

No, I was talking about Feinstein's proposed 2013 FAWB, though it feels somewhat similar to the existing California ban without the rimfire exemption. I suppose I should have said "proposed bill" instead of "law" though. It's late; I'm tired. :P

Gotcha, just assumed you were responding about the California law that was mentioned. Late too and I'm getting tired as well, 12-hour shifts. I'm at work now and trying not to read the actual bill here since you never know what kind of red flags I'll trip on the network here.

Though specifically, (and keeping in mind the fact that the bill isn't actually finished being written yet), from her summary:

• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Manually-operated means pump-, bolt-, lever-, and slide-actions.

Where do revolvers fit in to the bill. Specifically .40 caliber and greater. Acceptable for nothing being semi/fully-automatic?

[PhaelixWW]

People are still obtaining AR-15s legally, modifying them illegally to be fully automatic, and posting videos on Youtube. It's not as rare or difficult an occurrence as people would have you believe. The second part is that legally or illegally modified AR-15s prior to 1986 are grandfathered in and can be sold legally in states that no longer have allowed the assault weapon ban to expire. Writing a federal ban going forward would have to account for these weapons and ban the sale of them and require grandfathering. In the grand scheme of things it's better to just ban "AR-15" than "modified AR-15".

I'm not sure why we're talking about fully automatic AR-15s here. They're already subject to the NFA simply because they're automatic. AK-47s were named specifically in the expired 1994 FAWB, but they're not illegal now, except inasmuch as the automatic versions of the AK are already regulated by the NFA. Semi-automatic AKs are legal, except, of course, in states that have specific legislature banning them.

[Jackmoves]

Since you work in the industry as it work then perhaps you could answer me this. In the United States they are limited to the times in which they can call. It has been shown that cell phone calls make up an extremely limited percentage of numbers dialed. Now under the assumption that they are limited to call between the hours of 8am to 5pm ( which happens to be the traditional work hours here) then you're left with the unemployed, people on their days off, the elderly or retired, single parents, and I'm sure a few others. So in that demographic when you were to ask questions for opinion on Violent Video games, how is the margin of error calculated.

The US seems to be different. Somtimes you want limited demographics to btw, ie "18-30 yo".
But this how we do it, two day/evening shifts. Often two different projects though.
Daytime - companies/corporations
Evenings - private people/homes

Numbers get randomized by the computer. We generally end up doing around 1050 random interviews if the client wants 1000.
Only real limitation is the ones we set up ourselfs, for example you might want the interviewer to ask the household for the person who turned 18 most recently, "67% of 18-35 years old think/agree/etc x" or "45% of the 18 year olds use twitter"... and of course the people who tell our interviewers "no thanks".

[Boogieknight]

I'm not sure why we're talking about fully automatic AR-15s here. They're already subject to the NFA simply because they're automatic. AK-47s were named specifically in the expired 1994 FAWB, but they're not illegal now, except inasmuch as the automatic versions of the AK are already regulated by the NFA. Semi-automatic AKs are legal, except, of course, in states that have specific legislature banning them.

GreatOak linked a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

The guy in the video explains that an AR-15 isn't an assault weapon because it's semi-auto and not fully automatic and is defined as a sport rifle but would require registration under the new law. I'm of a mind that if it can be modified to fully-automatic it should be considered as fully automatic. As for pre-existing full-auto AR-15s I know there are some legally registered ones that existed prior to the ban in 1986 and have been sold in some states since the ban on assault weapons expired years ago. Maybe the AR-15 isn't the best example, but if it can be fully automatic it should be treated as fully automatic.

[PizzaSHARK]

Yeah, and no one does illegal things with guns. Using cz75fan's car analogy there are illegal mods that are done to cars every day as well. Additionally there are legal modified AR-15s (prior to the 1986 weapons ban) that can be sold and traded under current laws where the ban on assault weapons has been lifted. The AR-15 should be included on the assault weapon ban.

This isn't helping your case, though. You're pointing out that people can and will do illegal things regardless of what the law says. Why would an "assault weapons ban," stop people from buying and using the banned weapons?

That's just a summary. The part about thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons is still referring to semi-automatics, only. Bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action... they all are exempt.

Why? You can operate a pump-action or lever-action or single-action gun as quickly as a semi-automatic.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm at work now and trying not to read the actual bill here since you never know what kind of red flags I'll trip on the network here.

Well, the full text of the proposed bill is unavailable because... it's not finished being written yet. We have the summary on Feinstein's webpage as well as some judicious extrapolation from the text of the Federal 1994 AWB and California's 1989 AWB. The NRA-ILA claims to have seen a draft of the bill and comments on it. Since it's the NRA, take it with however much of a grain of salt you wish.

Where do revolvers fit in to the bill. Specifically .40 caliber and greater. Acceptable for nothing being semi/fully-automatic?

The laws for the most part have in common the theme of "detachable magazine". Revolvers are fixed-mag, so as long as they don't have a capacity larger than 10 rounds, they're fine. Well, I should say that pistol round revolvers are fine. The Taurus Judge, for example, is illegal in California because it's deemed to be a short-barrel shotgun, as it can handle .410 shotgun shells. This despite the fact that the Judge is an excellent choice for a home defense gun. Oh, well; c'est la vie.

[PizzaSHARK]

The laws for the most part have in common the theme of "detachable magazine". Revolvers are fixed-mag, so as long as they don't have a capacity larger than 10 rounds, they're fine. Well, I should say that pistol round revolvers are fine. The Taurus Judge, for example, is illegal in California because it's deemed to be a short-barrel shotgun, as it can handle .410 shotgun shells. This despite the fact that the Judge is an excellent choice for a home defense gun. Oh, well; c'est la vie.

Just a further example of how silly this bill is. You can barely call the .410 a shotgun shell, it's even tinier than a 20ga shell.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm of a mind that if it can be modified to fully-automatic it should be considered as fully automatic. As for pre-existing full-auto AR-15s I know there are some legally registered ones that existed prior to the ban in 1986 and have been sold in some states since the ban on assault weapons expired years ago. Maybe the AR-15 isn't the best example, but if it can be fully automatic it should be treated as fully automatic.

I just don't see why you can't have one set of legislation for semi-auto and another for fully auto and let the law sort it out. You talk about making it easy by just classifying them all as the same, but... it's not particularly difficult to define fully automatic. The NFA already does a good job of regulating automatic weapons. Since any semi-auto could conceivably be made into a fully automatic weapon, then you'd have to lump all semi-automatic firearms with fully automatics.

It's not like there are a bunch of people modifying their semi-autos to become fully auto. Fully automatic weapons are hardly ever used in crimes, and I'd bet most of those were fully auto to begin with and not converted semi-autos.

Why? You can operate a pump-action or lever-action or single-action gun as quickly as a semi-automatic.

Because laws based on cosmetic characteristics are ridiculous by very nature? :P

[bergmann620]

How would you prevent people from using their phones while driving without banning phones or something like that ? Phones bring in massive advantages, and they're not quite replaceable either. There already are a number of people who can't imagine living without a cell phone.

And yet cell phones are not a Constitutionally granted right. Imagine that. Doesn't it scare people that we're more willing to trade in Constitutional rights than conveniences?

Require all phones to be able to receive a 'kill signal' from the car any time a car is in gear that would render the phone unusable for anything other than a 911 call.

it would be a hassle, especially for passengers... But hey, this whole thread is filled with people that think it would be more than fine to hassle millions of average law-abiding citizens to achieve at best a marginal gain in security.

(By marginal, we're talking about, what, 20-50 deaths a year from AR-styled weapons? CONGRATULATIONS!)