Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wells]

The counterargument, though, is that the time it takes to reload is so insignificant that the proposed limit is also insignificant.

Its something. Even if its just 4 seconds, that's a lot of time in context.

[vastx]

Washington Post Article

White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings
By Philip Rucker, Saturday, January 5, 3:57 PM

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

-continued-

I'm deeply curious to the details of the bill Obama and/or Feinstein proposes.

[Svifnymr]

Its something. Even if its just 4 seconds, that's a lot of time in context.

In context of the school shooting, it's not really. The guy was inside for 20 minutes. During the ban there was a shooting down here in South Florida, disgruntled city employee went inside and shot a bunch of people. He used 10 round magazines, reloading twice (total of 3 magazines, 30 rounds).

It may seem like it matters to someone that isn't familiar with firearms. It may seem like making someone reload at 10 instead of 15 or 20 or any other arbitrary number will give someone a chance to do something, but it really doesn't make a difference the small number of shootings that occur where a large number of shots are fired. The odds of anyone rushing the person during a reload are slim to none, if they have a firearm of their own to counter the shooter, then maybe, but they'd still be better off firing at the guy during the shooting to drive them into cover and slow the encounter down into a siege. (Which would obviously depend on the defensive shooter having enough rounds to matter, since he won't be carrying the extra's that the criminal does, not having planned on such an event.)

AFAIK, Canada has had a 10 round limit for a while. I'm not sure if it was passed in conjunction with any of their other gun laws though, as to whether it would provide any sort of independent (of other laws) context.

[Wells]

4 seconds is enough time to run out of a room, to shut a door, to move from behind one object to another.

Stop making assumptions about what I'm familiar with and not. Its almost as stupid as the people who claim everyone who opposes them is just afraid.

[Svifnymr]

Washington Post Article



I'm deeply curious to the details of the bill Obama and/or Feinstein proposes.

"Stanek said the meeting also included significant discussion of mental-health issues, violence in video games and movies, and the poor quality of information contained in databases used to conduct criminal background checks before issuing gun permits."

[LilSaihah]

"Stanek said the meeting also included significant discussion of mental-health issues, violence in video games and movies, and the poor quality of information contained in databases used to conduct criminal background checks before issuing gun permits."

Good, I think. I'd be surprised if people weren't adversely affected by the monolithic sex-drugs-violence culture, especially young people.

[Wells]

I don't really think the idea that we're subjected to more violence now to be an assumption that is just taken on faith.

[Svifnymr]

4 seconds is enough time to run out of a room, to shut a door, to move from behind one object to another.

How many seconds does it take to realize the guy is out of bullets and reloading?

Stop making assumptions about what I'm familiar with and not. Its almost as stupid as the people who claim everyone who opposes them is just afraid.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were not familiar with speed shooting/ magazines changes and tactical situations. A proper rebuttal would be "I am familiar with firearms in these situations", but it doesn't really matter. If you're familiar with any of it, it's pretty obvious that it doesn't make a difference, even neglecting the fact that it bans "new manufacture" of magazines that already exist in the millions.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 07:19 PM ----------

Good, I think. I'd be surprised if people weren't adversely affected by the monolithic sex-drugs-violence culture, especially young people.

I (personally) think of it more as an outlet that someone with other issues might use. But there might be something to be said about folks that let the tv raise their kids. Though, they neglected to mention music and tv specifically, it's just some random discussion group.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 07:22 PM ----------

I don't really think the idea that we're subjected to more violence now to be an assumption that is just taken on faith.

It'd be interesting to see how the tv/movies through the decades compare to violence in society. I tend to dislike the press, so I think they over glorify violence in events, but then I also live in a country that watchs Honey Boo Boo, so it's probably too late.

[FusedMass]

Edit: Looks like they made good on what they said. To those said they would never sign a bill like this. It appears at least its being brought in. Will it pass. I'm not sure but they are there.

With new Congress comes a new push for gun laws

On Day One, lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced nearly a dozen bills related to gun violence.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, a longtime gun control advocate, led the fight on the Democratic side of the aisle. She's sponsoring legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales -- including at gun shows -- and ban online sales of ammunition. McCarthy is also co-sponsoring a bill to ban high-capacity magazine clips with Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. DeGette's district includes Columbine High School, where two gunmen killed 13 people in 1999, and is next to Aurora, where a gunman killed 12 people in a mass shooting at a movie theater in July.

"These assault magazines help put the 'mass' in 'mass shooting' and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America," said McCarthy, whose husband was killed and her son critically wounded in a mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad in New York in 1993. "These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible, and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people."

Meanwhile, two Republican freshmen, Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have introduced bills that would allow more guns around schools.

In the Senate, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein plans to introduce a bill to ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 firearms. The bill would also ban certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine, and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. The assault weapons ban Feinstein helped pass in 1994 expired in 2004. Feinstein is in the process of gathering support for her bill in both chambers.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/05/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

[Fugus]

Law gets passed banning Assault Weapons.

The result, absolutely nothing happens to criminals who already break the law in getting them. They don't even get that much harder to get which still means fuck all since they are hardly EVER used in crimes to begin with. But the legal civilian just lost his liberties.

And sorry miffy, but if the US citizens and military went to war, the military would lose. We literally have them out done in every area and provide much of their support and equipment.

They have satellites, we have satellites.
They have guns, we have lots more guns. Sure maybe not as high tech guns, but we are close enough to match them and beat them.
They have drones, we made their drones. We can make our own drones and we can even shut down their drones as we know how the operate.
They have tanks, we may not have tanks but you can take out multi-million dollar tank with $50 in explosives.
They have military bases, we have the rest of the country and have virtually every base surrounded at all sides.
They have nukes, they wouldn't dare use them as they would effectively kill themselves as well also.
They have whole armories of weapons. We still have more than they do and many of their armories are placed OUTSIDE the base which will immediately be raided. I know we have an Armory right next to a major public rec center right in the middle of town, took my ASVAB there.

They are less than 1% of the population, even if only 10% of the population stood up to them, they wouldn't stand a chance. I know our Military is strong and I can tell you have a great respect for their power, but they aren't strong enough to take out the people who fund them and provide them with their support. If we stopped helping them, they would be worth nothing pretty quick. They weren't strong enough to take us all before, let alone when the privatized much of their stuff making them even MORE reliant upon us.

[ovm33]

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, a longtime gun control advocate, led the fight on the Democratic side of the aisle. She's sponsoring legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales -- including at gun shows -- and ban online sales of ammunition.

I have no problem with this.

McCarthy is also co-sponsoring a bill to ban high-capacity magazine clips with Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado.

There is zero point to this. If it takes you longer than two seconds to reload a gun, you're doing it wrong.

"These assault magazines help put the 'mass' in 'mass shooting' and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America," said McCarthy, whose husband was killed and her son critically wounded in a mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad in New York in 1993. "These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible, and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people."

Assault Magazine... is that like Soldier of Fortune? (Made up term is... made up...)

The bill would also ban certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine, and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Am I reading this right? Basically they are banning every weapon that could possibly use a magazine, that could in theory, hold more than ten rounds? I know they said certain weapons, but have you seen that list?

[FusedMass]

I have no problem with this.



There is zero point to this. If it takes you longer than two seconds to reload a gun, you're doing it wrong.



Assault Magazine... is that like Soldier of Fortune? (Made up term is... made up...)



Am I reading this right? Basically they are banning every weapon that could possibly use a magazine, that could in theory, hold more than ten rounds? I know they said certain weapons, but have you seen that list?

Pretty much everything there is accurate. The Dems hold the Majority in Both the Senate and White House. While some have said they would never be brought in. People claimed it was just a headline and a rash emotional reaction to the shootings. However as stated on Day One as promised they have done this. This will not be a repeating headline and more talk with no action.

I know some are surprised at this. That it would even be brought up to consider. There you have it. Furthermore it would ban weapons with a de-tachable magazine but that is going be brought in later. No doubt Bills have been sent in. We have four years to figure out if any are going to pass. I highly doubt any of the GOP will pass. The House Speaker could not get his own Plan B to pass.

I doubt they would vote on his Bills.

[Wells]

They have satellites, we have satellites.

Wait where's my spy satellite?

They have drones, we made their drones. We can make our own drones and we can even shut down their drones as we know how the operate.

Oh christ stop watching so many movies.

They have tanks, we may not have tanks but you can take out multi-million dollar tank with $50 in explosives.

You *can*

You know what they have? Fighter planes, national intelligence networks, chains of command, training.

[Svifnymr]

Pretty much everything there is accurate. The Dems hold the Majority in Both the Senate and White House. While some have said they would never be brought in. People claimed it was just a headline and a rash emotional reaction to the shootings. However as stated on Day One as promised they have done this. This will not be a repeating headline and more talk with no action.

I know some are surprised at this.

Anyone that's surprised hasn't been paying much attention. Most of the bills introduced are actually being reintroduced. McCarthy and Feinstein submit the same bills every year. I'd like to view the bills about licensing and such. It would be interesting to see if they actually reduce gun control laws in the more stringent states. Didn't see the text online yet, but maybe soon.

[Fugus]

Wait where's my spy satellite?

They are called commercial satellites. They are privately owned but not government owned.

Oh christ stop watching so many movies.

Quit watching them 2 years ago. And it is true. The drones used by the US military were made by private companies. They have subcontracted that out.

You *can*

You know what they have? Fighter planes, national intelligence networks, chains of command, training.

Yes, they have fighter planes which gives them great air superiority but not enough to win when their ground superiority is lacking compared to their opponent.

National Intelligence Networks, yes which we can cut if we go after the companies that run the networks. They run through the same companies and lines as the civilians.

Chain of Command, yeah, they got us here. But 1,000 trained soldiers still won't stand much of a chance against 100,000+ armed civilians.

Training. Many of us lack training, many of us don't and if we go to war, we can learn pretty quick.

[Grizzly Willy]

Why are we assuming that American soldiers would turn on their own families?

[Svifnymr]

You know what they have? Fighter planes, national intelligence networks, chains of command, training.

It's all a bit far into thought-experiment, but I wonder how corporations would react. Too many years with Shadowrun back in the day though, so I'm easily distracted by the plots.

[Fugus]

Why are we assuming that American soldiers would turn on their own families?

We know they wouldn't. At a minimum 50% would defect immediately taking all their equipment and training with them and probably sabotaging the military on their way out. Also why I dislike the thoughts of a fully automated military, the controllers can go power crazy and they can't reason and as such just keep following orders.

Just trying to point out that even if they didn't, the US military still could not overpower the population of the US.

[Wells]

They are called commercial satellites. They are privately owned but not government owned.

So they're not available to the civilian population at large. And you do know there is a difference between a comsat and a spysat right?

Quit watching them 2 years ago. And it is true. The drones used by the US military were made by private companies. They have subcontracted that out.

And a bunch of gun nuts can totally just show up and get one themselves.

Seriously dude, lay of the CoD.

Why are we assuming that American soldiers would turn on their own families?

What would probably happen is one political ideology would gain complete dominance in the government and you'd see some kind of recession movement. It wouldn't be military against everyone else like Fugus seems to think. It would be the US government dominated by either a left wing or right wing government fighting against opposing ideology states, in otherwords, Civil War 2 Electric Bugaloo.

Fun fact, democracies go bad when their population goes bad. Even Hitler had to get elected into office.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 02:09 AM ----------

It's all a bit far into thought-experiment, but I wonder how corporations would react. Too many years with Shadowrun back in the day though, so I'm easily distracted by the plots.

Doesn't really matter. If a civil war breaks out does anyone really think the military would just leave weapons factories sitting around?

[Svifnymr]

Doesn't really matter. If a civil war breaks out does anyone really think the military would just leave weapons factories sitting around?

Didn't mean weapons factories specifically, just meant a situation where the USA is using military to suppress a rebellion on it's own shores. Lots of international corporations, taking sides or leaving the country, what do employees do, blah blah blah.