Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

In a way, yes. If a man shoots 10 rounds and then takes 1 second to reload and take aim three times instead of shooting 30+ rounds, that's 3 seconds of time for people to react. Not alot, but it can mean the difference if there is someone in the crowd with a hand gun.



Even one life is worth being saved. Are you so selfish that you wouldn't give up something you don't need to save someone else? No one is taking your guns away or the right to protect yourself/family. They are limiting the means in how you do it.

See, thats the point. Do you think it would save one life? Is everyone here going to pretend like they never do anything dangerous? Thats just bullshit. Do you speed? endangering lives. Have you ever driven after having one beer? Endangering lives. Text or mess with your radio while driving? Endangering lives. Buy something made in a sweat shop? Endangering lives.

[Laize]

I thought you could still buy fully-automatic weapons? Regardless of how regulated they are or not, you still can legally buy a fully-automatic weapon, right? Why aren't the anti-gun freaks trying to ban thos... oh wait, it's because those weapons haven't been used in these recent mass-shootings, right?

Well to be honest there's a reason for that. The National Firearms Act specifies that any fully automatic weapon purchased and registered prior to 1986 will remain legal to own (and transfer). This even includes the GE M134.

These weapons, however, have soared in value and almost all belong to collectors (Or Ted Nugent, probably). The M134, for example, fairly regularly goes for $200,000-$400,000. That kind of puts its price tag out of range of your average psycho.

[Orbitus]

Right and Wrong. There are universal background checks for any firearm purchased from a dealer, gunshow or not. Any gun shipped interstate must be shipped to a dealer and has a background check as well. Most states lack a requirement for a private transaction to have a background check (not sure where you got 33 states). If you buy a gun on the internet, the newspaper, meet a guy at the gunshow, and deal in person and the seller is not a dealer, there is no background check. Though, I never see anyone worried about the seller being a criminal (selling a stolen gun, getting rid of evidence, whatnot), though of course that applies to anonymous gun buy backs too.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 10:28 PM ----------



But you said AR15's are easy to convert to a machinegun, so why didn't they just do that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2347420.html
They just label their table as private sale. Which is most of the time wrong. Instead of bringing their entire shop down to sell they bring limited guns they couldn't normally sell without using this loophole. I think and most of the people in this thread would agree that if all gun sales had to go through background checks there would be less gun related crimes/mass shootings. Especially if they required the now mandated mental health screenings.

[Wells]

Very much so

Oh well that makes sense. Look at this video of how easy it is to catch a football!

maybe add 2 seconds tops for a poorly skilled individual.

6-10 seconds is not insignificant in a real world situation.

[Endocry]

Not surprising that such a high percentage of people that spend inordinate amounts of time in fantasy worlds support an assault weapons ban.

[alturic]

In a way, yes. If a man shoots 10 rounds and then takes 1 second to reload and take aim three times instead of shooting 30+ rounds, that's 3 seconds of time for people to react. Not alot, but it can mean the difference if there is someone in the crowd with a hand gun.



Even one life is worth being saved. Are you so selfish that you wouldn't give up something you don't need to save someone else? No one is taking your guns away or the right to protect yourself/family. They are limiting the means in how you do it.

So, I'm confused, with these talks of bans, are we trying to give people more time to react to a shooting or stop shootings outright somehow? I'm under the impression it's to prevent shootings.

The more I read your posts, the more it seems like you have the same mentality as me. I don't think anyone's guns should be taken away, but I do think it's way to easy to obtain a gun, I just don't know the solutions to make it harder for the crazies to obtain them.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 11:26 PM ----------

Well, I am not a murderer, or a psychopath. If I were to shoot more often with a semi-auto rifle, I think it would be personal preference. It would likely ssave time and money, although I am not sure the difference in costs between 3-10's and 1-30.

Regardless, I am not in favor of useless legislation, especially not for the sole reason of appeasing people who THINK it would help, or just as a stepping stone for the anti-gun people.

Oh, I feel the same way about the discussion being had in it's current form, but I haven't seen a real argument (outside of the "why shouldn't I (legal citizen who never commited a crime) be able") about why something like it is NEEDED.

[Dillon]

The difference is (which you haven't answered) why do YOU specifically for example, NEED (I don't care about your wants) a 30+ round magazine? What does it do for you that 3 10 round magazines doesn't? I'm playing devils advocate since I know banning a 30 round magazine will solve nothing, it won't magically prevent 1 killing, but without simply saying "who are you to tell me what I need", why do you NEED it?

That's the whole point, the only thing someone NEEDS is food and water, and not freezing to death.

When rights are concerned, "need" by very definition is entirely irrelevant.

But if you insist, I need one because my government needs one.

[Laize]

In a way, yes. If a man shoots 10 rounds and then takes 1 second to reload and take aim three times instead of shooting 30+ rounds, that's 3 seconds of time for people to react. Not alot, but it can mean the difference if there is someone in the crowd with a hand gun.

Even one life is worth being saved. Are you so selfish that you wouldn't give up something you don't need to save someone else? No one is taking your guns away or the right to protect yourself/family. They are limiting the means in how you do it.

If you're referring to further limitations on guns we are allowed to possess, we are permitted to place a price we are willing to pay on that right.

One life is worth being saved, but things such as banning magazines that hold more than 10 bullets will save no one (Lanza's magazines held 10 rounds) and serve no purpose other than to hinder the exercise of the hundred million law abiding gun owners.

The tradeoff is simply not worth it.

[Svifnymr]

6-12 months? Is that just some arbitrary waiting period or is the ATF THAT damn busy? Heh. So basically it's the simple matter of the price of the gun (because they are not able to be made anymore) that's the "difficulty" in getting a full-auto?

The 6-12 months is due to there only being 7 examiners. ATFE doesn't care, so they don't add more. While some might cry "budget problems!", it's a bit silly when you consider that they are doing PAID transfers. The more/faster they go, the more money the division would contribute. $200 per person, even if just one person a day is $73,000 a year.

It'd be nice if some of these gun bills would update the NFA Division, while they're always talking about how out of date stuff is with the rest of the division. By most accounts, they have lost track of hundreds of machineguns.

I can't stay in this thread all day (I tend to get no work done) and with the massive amount of replies it's difficult to keep up, but I just honestly try to figure out what goes on in the anti-gun crowds head when they think simply banning pistol grips, or 30 round magazines will actually do anything?

Pistol grip banned. Suddenly we will see less mass-shootings? HOW exactly?
30+ round magazines banned. Suddenly you'll be seeing more magazines being brought with them, it did what exactly?

The thread jumps 10+ pages when I go to work, but it's okay, they're mostly just back and forth "no YOU'RE not proving stuff!", so not a big loss.

The magazine ban was a pain in the ass, construction of 10 round magazines makes them a pain to load rounds into. Driving prices up for "pre-ban" magazines, like most things it had no measurable effect on crime, but the idea is simply that it needed thousands of years more and it would have had an effect. I know Canada passed a 10 round limit at some point, maybe someone could find their numbers to see if it was good or bad for them. It's okay though, because people don't NEED stuff, so they don't deserve it just because they're not a problem.

[Wells]

So, I'm confused, with these talks of bans, are we trying to give people more time to react to a shooting or stop shootings outright somehow? I'm under the impression it's to prevent shootings.

Magazine restrictions give victims a better reaction window. 10 seconds is a lot of time in that kind of situation. And it limits the amount of ammunition that can be easily carried by a would be shooter. Lot easier to carry 2 30 round mags than 6 10 round mags.

[Templar 331]

See, thats the point. Do you think it would save one life? Is everyone here going to pretend like they never do anything dangerous? Thats just bullshit. Do you speed? endangering lives. Have you ever driven after having one beer? Endangering lives. Text or mess with your radio while driving? Endangering lives. Buy something made in a sweat shop? Endangering lives.

And that's why they're illegal(minus the buying and messing with radio). Your not supposed to do it. If you do, there's a large chance of endangering someone. If I can avoid risking someone's life and it wouldn't affect me in the least, I'd do it. Go the speed limit? I'd love to if no one else would run me off the road. Never had a beer before, don't have a cell phone to text with, so those are out. If EVERYONE followed the laws, lives WOULD be saved.

[Orbitus]

Wait a minute, you mean that if I privately sell you a gun to you (assuming I have to legally transfer it to you) I'm going to be an accessory to whatever crime you commit?

I don't know what state you are from but here in Iowa, if I were to sell one of my guns to a friend, there is no legal transfer required. So if that gun I just sold was used in a crime I could be held responsible for an accessory. Even in a gun controlled state such as California. After the initial sale you don't need a legal transfer. If you sell to a felon, you are in big trouble then. Another reason why there should be background checks unless you want to face legal recourse.

[Grizzly Willy]

Magazine restrictions give victims a better reaction window. 10 seconds is a lot of time in that kind of situation. And it limits the amount of ammunition that can be easily carried by a would be shooter. Lot easier to carry 2 30 round mags than 6 10 round mags.

I question the validity of this. It was reported that the shooter at Sandy Hook reloaded frequently, often with 15 rounds left in his mag. Assuming he was using 30 round clips, and thereby expending 15 rounds before reloading, would 5 less rounds have made a difference?

[gr4vitas]

Oh well that makes sense. Look at this video of how easy it is to catch a football!

6-10 seconds is not insignificant in a real world situation.

There is nothing spectacular about how quickly the person in that video reloaded. Go on youtube, you'll find thousands of people reloading just as quick.

6-10 seconds is pretty insignificant when the shooter is just taking is time over the course of several minutes (6-10) shooting people methodically.

The point is, there are far more significant things in a real world scenario that CAN make a difference. Like stopping this shit before it happens with proper mental checks and background checks.

[alturic]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2347420.html
They just label their table as private sale. Which is most of the time wrong. Instead of bringing their entire shop down to sell they bring limited guns they couldn't normally sell without using this loophole. I think and most of the people in this thread would agree that if all gun sales had to go through background checks there would be less gun related crimes/mass shootings. Especially if they required the now mandated mental health screenings.

That's a reason I don't think a criminal background check is the end-all-be-all to solving the "problem" (which I might add is nothing more than a crazy person deciding to kill people) considering the basic break-down to denying a sale based on background check is:

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

which... didn't matter in the sandy-hook situation primarily because he didn't buy the guns. I don't know if anyone has done checks into seeing if the aurora guy would have failed the check or not, but yea.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 11:33 PM ----------

That's the whole point, the only thing someone NEEDS is food and water, and not freezing to death.

When rights are concerned, "need" by very definition is entirely irrelevant.

But if you insist, I need one because my government needs one.

I sincerely hope you aren't one of the pro-gun people who think tyranny is something that's realistic? I don't think you are implying that, but ugh. :P

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

And that's why they're illegal(minus the buying and messing with radio). Your not supposed to do it. If you do, there's a large chance of endangering someone. If I can avoid risking someone's life and it wouldn't affect me in the least, I'd do it. Go the speed limit? I'd love to if no one else would run me off the road. Never had a beer before, don't have a cell phone to text with, so those are out. If EVERYONE followed the laws, lives WOULD be saved.

But how much is worth saving one life? If there was no facebook, it would save many lives of people who were cyber bullied, should we then outlaw social networking sites? One person literally died from staying awake too long playing WoW, should we then ban WoW? More than one person dies from cars, should we ban them? You can ride your bike to work in most cases. Don't whine about the inconvenience though.

[Wells]

I question the validity of this. It was reported that the shooter at Sandy Hook reloaded frequently, often with 15 rounds left in his mag. Assuming he was using 30 round clips, and thereby expending 15 rounds before reloading, would 5 less rounds have made a difference?

There's no way to know in an specific capacity as you're asking. The only thing we can say is "would a shooter have less lethal capacity with fewer rounds in a mag? I think pretty clearly yes.

6-10 seconds is pretty insignificant when the shooter is just taking is time over the course of several minutes (6-10) shooting people methodically.

As a percentage of total time? Sure. But that's not important. What matters is 10 seconds an amount of time to give would be victims a window to take action of some sort. Yes.

The point is, there are far more significant things in a real world scenario that CAN make a difference. Like stopping this shit before it happens with proper mental checks and background checks.

This isn't an either or thing.

[alturic]

If you're referring to further limitations on guns we are allowed to possess, we are permitted to place a price we are willing to pay on that right.

One life is worth being saved, but things such as banning magazines that hold more than 10 bullets will save no one (Lanza's magazines held 10 rounds) and serve no purpose other than to hinder the exercise of the hundred million law abiding gun owners.

The tradeoff is simply not worth it.

Wait, are you saying it's a fact he only had 10 round magazines? Hilarious people are even talking about bans on larger magazines then.

[Mwat1676]

The 2nd amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It is our right as Americans to keep and bear MILITIA style weapons (i.e. assault style weapons OR real assault weapons) to protect ourselves encase the government try's to infringe on the rights we have as Americans that this country was founded on.

And for all you pro-gun control people, controlling guns will only effect the law abiding citizens, criminals will still have them because they don't abide by the law.

[Dillon]

I sincerely hope you aren't one of the pro-gun people who think tyranny is something that's realistic? I don't think you are implying that, but ugh. :P

No, I don't think tyranny is "realistic", in fact in the US, I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. But I'm not one to stop getting insurance, because I've never been in an accident, or throw away the fire extinguisher because my house hasn't caught on fire.

But looking at the history of man, better to have, and not need, than need and not have. Not being prepared for a government gone out of control is a mistake a free people can make only once.