Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

Did you read his original quote? I left out the parenthetical stuff, but you don't consider making a license required and then making that license very hard to get as infringement? I wonder what you Do consider an infringement?

No, i don´t consider it an infringement because i can´t read his mind and know what he means with "very hard".

[sheggaro]

high capacity magazines need to be banned nationwide

guns aren't and shouldn't be going anywhere, but we don't need people with magazines with capacities of over 100 rounds

[Fahrenheit]

Because reasons.

Several people here have mentioned bans on all semi automatic guns, handguns included, which would make sense as they're the most like gun to kill a person in homicide and suicide alike.

- - - Updated - - -

high capacity magazines need to be banned nationwide

guns aren't and shouldn't be going anywhere, but we don't need people with magazines with capacities of over 100 rounds

Typically they are, most AR variants have 15-30 rounds mags, point still remains, you don't need the ability to fire off a couple hundred rounds in a few mins for home defense or hunting.

[Yvaelle]

Typically they are, most AR variants have 15-30 rounds mags, point still remains, you don't need the ability to fire off a couple hundred rounds in a few mins for home defense or hunting.

But what if your house is being attacked by like, 100+ armed assailants wearing body armor?!

[Stormdash]

After how many rounds should the right of self-defense be required by law to reduce to throwing things? In your learned opinions.

[TITAN308]

Not to mention "I've shot pistols before" when an AR-15 has less recoil than a pistol does. I mean, unless by pistol he means .22 or something. I'd enjoy the reaction he'd vomit out from firing any rifle with a larger round. Or any pistol above a tiny one, really.

Apparently the article writer took so much heat for being a pussy and over exagirating basically everything about the gun he felt the need to write a follow up article.

Apparently its now a gender issue. rofl

After being called out by the pro-gun community for his obvious over exaggeration of the recoil on an AR-15, he wrote another article. The thin-skinned liberal had a hard time being criticized for his writings. Perhaps it’s time he chose another profession. His newest article — To gun lovers, you can’t even have an opinion on assault rifles — unless it’s theirs. Here’s the proof — is Kuntzman complaining about the gun community calling him out. He starts by making it a gender issue: “The gun debate is also a gender war.” (Try not to “lol”.)

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2674555

Dear journalist "LOL"

[Stormdash]

He published himself, a grown man, having a bitch fit over the recoil of a soft-shooting weapon and was pissed off people posted video of shooters a 3rd his age and a 3rd his weight doing it without losing their wits.

[PhaelixWW]

That depends on the information that is provided by the retailer. What information about the purchaser is put into the database in california? Can federals in california produce a list of guns owned by a certain person?

Probably. The information is certainly entered.

Are you deliberatly not following the discussion? This is about the "my gun was stolen" excuse in a world where you have to report gun theft.

You're the one who apparently isn't following his own discussion. I was responding to a quote in which you talked about a gun trace. That's enough to spark suspicion. Any benefit in your scenario is due to the hypothetical law requiring stolen guns be reported. It has nothing to do with the hypothetical registry. If you want to support a law requiring people to report stolen guns, I'd be fine with that, provided that it was somehow flexible enough to not punish cases where people legitimately didn't realize their firearm was stolen.

So the data the ATF relies on is updated how?

Updated with what?

No, i´m still talking about gun tracing and guns linked to crimes, which only works because of a database, that links specific guns to specific retailers and their first purchaser, let´s call that a registry, you know just for fun.

Uh, no. Tracing works without a registry. Demonstrably. Decentralized records are just fine; that's how they're done now.

So an even better registry, that would link every gun to a specific purchaser even after retail would provide more information and would help fighting crime, no?

What, now you're taking a page out of Rukentuts' playbook, imagining some real-time registry? And how exactly is that supposed to happen?

You really don´t follow. When you can link only one crime gun to a person through trace, with a gun registry you now know how many guns that person should have. If he can´t show those guns because he sold them off, like the one that got traced back to him, you can start an investigation on these now known illegal gun sales. With no registry you only know about one crime gun linked to that person and they can come up with a number of excuses for that one gun.

And what exactly is to stop said person from just reporting each one stolen as he sells it? Once again, the best that this can do is give the police a target to investigate. And no real evidence. The ATF has already shown, based on the tools that they already have, that they won't even bother investigating the small fish that they know about.

You do understand that this example was in a world where there IS a federal gun registry, right? So that person will have a hard time keeping his illegal gun business running if the cops can even trace one gun back to him and see that like in the example above he should own way more guns than he does.

And any halfway smart criminal isn't going to purchase 100 firearms himself, he's going to have 5-10 people alternate buying guns and then having them "stolen" in order to blend in more. And as I said earlier, the ATF pretty much ignores the small fish.

- - - Updated - - -

My argument is that you should stop crazy people from owning any guns

Question 11.f on the firearms purchase paperwork (ATF form 4473):

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

Crazy people are already prohibited from possessing a firearm.

- - - Updated - - -

People have to understand the amount of weapons in this country. It borders right around 300 million weapons.

It's actually closer to 400 million now. It was estimated at 270 million back in 2007, and I think there might have been a gun or two sold in the last 9 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't stop the signal

R.I.P. Firefly.

"I'm a leaf on the wind..."

...dammit, now I'm tearing up.

[Deleted]

Question 11.f on the firearms purchase paperwork (ATF form 4473):

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

Crazy people are already prohibited from possessing a firearm.

No, they're not. First of all, that question on that paperwork asks if you've ever been "adjudicated", or "committed", not if you're crazy. If you're crazy and nobody has ever determined that, the question there does absolutely nothing. Secondly, you can lie. Self-reporting doesn't work. Thirdly, is that paperwork even required everywhere, such as gun shows, and with assault rifles? Because as far as I know, it's not.

If you've got proper background checks, then you don't need people to self-report their "craziness", but it becomes evident through the check. This form doesn't work.

Also, proper, thorough background checks are just one of the ways I listed earlier how you can stop just anyone from having a gun, let alone assault weapons.

[Stormdash]

No, they're not. First of all, that question on that paperwork asks if you've ever been "adjudicated", or "committed", not if you're crazy. If you're crazy and nobody has ever determined that, the question there does absolutely nothing. Secondly, you can lie. Self-reporting doesn't work. Thirdly, is that paperwork even required everywhere, such as gun shows, and with assault rifles? Because as far as I know, it's not.

That's that pesky due process again. You ask if you've been adjudicated mentally unfit because it establishes there's something to it other than "somebody said you were crazy that one time", some evaluation of the strength of that assertion.

If you've got proper background checks, then you don't need people to self-report their "craziness", but it becomes evident through the check. This form doesn't work.

Implement for voting and speech, too?

Also, proper, thorough background checks are just one of the ways I listed earlier how you can stop just anyone from having a gun, let alone assault weapons.

"Assault weapons"... still sounds like an FDA regulation against "cooties", for all the technical subject matter expertise is reveals.

[PhaelixWW]

No, they're not. First of all, that question on that paperwork asks if you've ever been "adjudicated", or "committed", not if you're crazy. If you're crazy and nobody has ever determined that, the question there does absolutely nothing.

Seriously? If nobody knows they're crazy, then trying to figure out how to keep firearms out of their hands is a moot point in the first place.

Oh, oh, we should also try to figure out how to keep firearms out of the hands of serial killers who are so good that none of their victims' bodies have even been found. After all, they've never been convicted, they've never been indicted, and they're not even a fugitive from justice because law enforcement doesn't even know there's been a crime committed, let alone who's behind it. So that means they can answer those questions with impunity!

Secondly, you can lie. Self-reporting doesn't work.

Well, duh, that's why there are background checks. The questions aren't really there to see if you can buy a firearm. The questions are there in order to be able to charge you with a felony if you lie on a federal form while attempting to buy a firearm when you're prohibited from possessing firearms.

Thirdly, is that paperwork even required everywhere, such as gun shows, and with assault rifles? Because as far as I know, it's not.

It's required for all retail sales, regardless of where. Even at gun shows. And why do you even bring up "assault rifles" here? Even assuming you mean "assault weapons" instead, are you implying that somehow purchasing an assault weapon is subject to less paperwork than other, more common types of firearms?

If you've got proper background checks, then you don't need people to self-report their "craziness", but it becomes evident through the check. This form doesn't work.

See the above. You really have no idea how the process works, which is rather embarrassing for you considering your relative vehemence in this discussion.

[Deleted]

Seriously? If nobody knows they're crazy, then trying to figure out how to keep firearms out of their hands is a moot point in the first place.

Oh, oh, we should also try to figure out how to keep firearms out of the hands of serial killers who are so good that none of their victims' bodies have even been found. After all, they've never been convicted, they've never been indicted, and they're not even a fugitive from justice because law enforcement doesn't even know there's been a crime committed, let alone who's behind it. So that means they can answer those questions with impunity!

Well, actually, you're absolutely right there; the less people have guns, the better. The steps are there to deter people from even wanting to get a gun, and as such it will end up having a cultural impact on people just obviously getting a gun and killing people, which is what it is now.

People shouldn't have guns. They don't need guns. If they want to hunt, or do target practice, they can jump through a million hoops and eventually get there. Right now, it's like guns in the US are accessories like bracelets or earrings, and there's something fundamentally wrong there.

Well, duh, that's why there are background checks.

Great.

It's required for all retail sales, regardless of where. Even at gun shows. And why do you even bring up "assault rifles" here? Even assuming you mean "assault weapons" instead, are you implying that somehow purchasing an assault weapon is subject to less paperwork than other, more common types of firearms?

You can buy a rifle immediately as far as I know, as opposed to having to wait as it is with handguns. An AR15 will kill people much more people much easier than a pistol. Therefore, if you can buy a rifle immediately and you're planning to walk into a school and blow away 50 people and yourself, lying on some irrelevant form makes no difference.

[Mayhem]

Probably. The information is certainly entered.

I thought you knew this stuff.

You're the one who apparently isn't following his own discussion. I was responding to a quote in which you talked about a gun trace. That's enough to spark suspicion. Any benefit in your scenario is due to the hypothetical law requiring stolen guns be reported. It has nothing to do with the hypothetical registry. If you want to support a law requiring people to report stolen guns, I'd be fine with that, provided that it was somehow flexible enough to not punish cases where people legitimately didn't realize their firearm was stolen.

The hypothetical law of requiring stolen guns to be reported relies on a gun registry. And of course, such law must be flexible enough to not punish people that can prove no wrong doing. Just like you have to prove no wrong doing when working with insurance companies.

Updated with what?

With information. Joking aside, is there a federal database that every licensed dealer puts information in for the ATF to look through or not?

Uh, no. Tracing works without a registry. Demonstrably. Decentralized records are just fine; that's how they're done now.

A list that´s linking specific items to specific people, you wouldn´t call that a registry? What would you call a registry?

What, now you're taking a page out of Rukentuts' playbook, imagining some real-time registry? And how exactly is that supposed to happen?

You really have a hard time keeping up. If every gun has to be registered and therefore linked to a person, and every legal sale requires registration to transfer from seller to purchaser (like transfer of car registration), every gun is always registered to the last legal purchaser.

And what exactly is to stop said person from just reporting each one stolen as he sells it? Once again, the best that this can do is give the police a target to investigate. And no real evidence. The ATF has already shown, based on the tools that they already have, that they won't even bother investigating the small fish that they know about.

What you fail to understand is that you then can put penalties on people for repeatedly breaking safety regulations like having to securely storage your firearms. This doesn´t need to go in effect when your first firearm is stolen, the penalties can depend on a number of things, don´t get all up in arms about grandpas gun he forgot to lock up. It´s to target those that actively engage in straw purchasing to such a degree that it´s profitless or high-risk.

And any halfway smart criminal isn't going to purchase 100 firearms himself, he's going to have 5-10 people alternate buying guns and then having them "stolen" in order to blend in more. And as I said earlier, the ATF pretty much ignores the small fish.

The ATF probably even ignores the corrupt licensed dealers. That´s not even the point, the point is that a gun registry would make it alot easier to find, prosecute and make their business profitless. Right now crime guns have to be found and traced, and only if a bunch of crime guns can be traced to the same person one can assume said person is in the business of straw purchasing, but then you´d still have the problem with "they got stolen".

The thing is, as it is right now, the ATF can do nothing but say "stolen? oh". With a registry and a law to report stolen guns, crime guns can be traced to the last legal purchase and see right away if that gun was reported as stolen, if other guns were reported as stolen, if there were earlier reports of crime guns tracing to said person and how many guns that person should still have in his posession. Now if some things don´t add up you can send an officer to just check if the remaining guns the person should still own are in his posession. If other guns not reported as stolen are missing they automatically enter the list of crime guns and when they show up at a crime scene you get more information about how gangs/criminals are in contact with each other, networks and so on.

If i understand the current system how it is in most states. You can purchase guns from private sellers, and the guns can´t be traced to you unless you give out information about you, but you don´t have to do that. Right?

As i see it, a federal gun registry, combined with safe storage and a need to report stolen guns laws would make it a lot harder for criminals to obtain guns, while not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

[PhaelixWW]

People shouldn't have guns.

This says all we need to know about your opinion on the matter. It's all we need to know in order to safely disregard your opinion on the matter, as well.

You can buy a rifle immediately as far as I know, as opposed to having to wait as it is with handguns.

There's no federal requirement to wait for a handgun purchase.

An AR15 will kill people much more people much easier than a pistol.

No, it won't. That's just one of those pesky things that you think is true, but isn't. I'm guessing there are a lot of those for you.

Therefore, if you can buy a rifle immediately and you're planning to walk into a school and blow away 50 people and yourself, lying on some irrelevant form makes no difference.

Lying on the form when a background check is subsequently done and it's found out that you're lying before you take possession of the firearm is, indeed, relevant.

Now, not only do you not have a firearm, but you could (assuming the ATF were to enforce the things that they're supposed to) be arrested for the felony of lying on federal document.

[Eroginous]

There's no hope. People's freedom to own tools of murder is of seeming religious importance to them. They don't care how many bodies pile up in the streets, it's always "mah freedumz".

1. I care equally about my rights and about people dying. Both are equally important subjects and only extreme people such as yourselves would paint a false dichotomy between the two.

2. There's 'no hope' because people like you would rather blame guns for death than blame violent people for death. You keep attacking inanimate objects, blind to the fact that it takes a human being to pick up a rifle and murder another human being.

3. All you're doing here is building a strawman to knock down - there are plenty of people in this thread representing gun rights in a coherent, reasonable manner, completely destroying hyperbolic drivel such as this.

The framers of the Constitution were not gods, incapable of error. IMO, they made two: not banning slavery outright, and allowing anyone to have weapons.

Yeah, let's compare people to gods so we can dismiss any efforts by people to be reasonable or rational around guns. The framers of the constitution had just fought a war against a government who wanted to disarm them. Rather than lay down their arms and comply, they said 'fuck you, thems fitin werds' and proceeded to slaughter every red-coat wearing mummer's boy that dared to swim across the Atlantic. So before you try to use the founding fathers actions in writing the constitution as a means to dismiss firearm ownership, understand that you would have been shot for treason by uttering these words if this was 1787.

But as I said, i don't think there's any hope for change. All I can do is my part: I refuse to continue my father's right -wing nonsense. He has probably 2 dozen guns of various kinds. I've told him if he doesn't give them away before he dies, this is what will happen:

There is little hope for change, not because of 'guns' but because our political leaders refuse to work as a team on anything important. If a dem sits in office with a republican controlled house, the house just masturbates all day long while the rest of the world progresses on major issues. If it's a Republican in the office with a democrat controlled house, the president vetoes any attempt at progressive legislation and then lets his cabinet make all his decisions for him.

pile all of the guns and bullets in the trunk of my car

drive back to the town I live and call the local police dpt

tell them I inherited a bunch of guns and ammo I dont want and i want to turn them over

drive to the station, give the cops the the guns and ammo, and go home

F guns. If you can look at what happened in Orlando or Sandy Hook and not think more of others than of your precious rights, I have no words.

How is becoming a felon your idea of being responsible? You basically just described a felony crime by which you would commit fraud and theft to disarm your father against his will, just so you can feel better about violence. You seem like a very small human being to me, right now.

The world is full of people like you who have no backbone get 'triggered' all the time at every little thing. I care very deeply about this issue because of how it affects society. It could be me or someone I know who dies in the next mass shooting event. But I'm also fully aware of the government's role in making sure the society they govern has what it needs to be a healthy society. If you have a major city in the United States (Detroit) where huge chunks of the city sit abandoned due to failing economies and poor public policy, but your elected officials are still employed, that's corruption. It might not be motivated corruption, or criminal corruption, but that's definitely the result of a corrupt system of politics present within a community.

The reality is your government has a long way to go on many social issues (many of which have nothing to do with firearms) before you can expect a decrease in violence. If it weren't for a privatized health care sector, privatized housing markets, and banks having unfettered access to as much nonexistent money as they can loan out, people might not be so quick to shoot others in the face. If you lived in a society that made sure you were taken care of with the basic necessities of life, you'd probably have very little reason to ever want to get a gun and hurt someone, right?

I'm not justifying violence by any means, but I can see where these people who commit violent acts are coming from. I can have empathy for people who are every bit as human as me, feeling forced to act out against a society that really never seems to care about the individual until something bad happens. It's unfortunate and I hope things change for the better.

No, they're not. First of all, that question on that paperwork asks if you've ever been "adjudicated", or "committed", not if you're crazy. If you're crazy and nobody has ever determined that, the question there does absolutely nothing. Secondly, you can lie. Self-reporting doesn't work. Thirdly, is that paperwork even required everywhere, such as gun shows, and with assault rifles? Because as far as I know, it's not.

What world do you live in where 'crazy' is a useful term? If someone walks into a gun store exhibiting signs of 'crazy' any responsible FFL is going to deny the sale without even running a background check. The same goes for anyone who walks in drunk, high, agitated, highly emotional, ect. That's part of the job, determining the apparent demeanor of the person you're selling a gun to, reserving the right to deny them service if you don't like the cut of their jib.

As for the question on the form, it's perfectly adequate in its current form. It stops anyone suffering from just about any diagnosable violent mental illness in their attempts to by a firearm.

The only way you could do 'better' is to broaden it to anyone diagnosed with any mental illness (just to cover all possible scenarios, you know, 'just in case' *wink*). But then no one can buy a firearm because I'm sure everyone has a diagnose-able thing wrong with them mentally.

Also, proper, thorough background checks are just one of the ways I listed earlier how you can stop just anyone from having a gun, let alone assault weapons.

Are you advocating for... magic, here? Because the current system checks multiple factors to determine if you are eligible to buy a firearm. How much more 'proper' or 'thorough' can a background check system get? You're basically still relying on the honor system for people to decide to not buy a gun if they intend on harming themselves or others.

No matter what, it's always going to be an honor system, where you have to take the buyer at their word as long as the system isn't rejecting them.

[Zoldam]

Pro-gun person here... and I see little wrong with an assault gun ban. The guns are specifically designed for killing humans and thus not needed by "normal" people, they are inefficient at hunting, and are overkill for self-defense. The only time they would be useful in a non-military fashion is if the owner lived in an extremely dangerous place, I'm talking where riots and mobs are a regular occurrence.

That said, I am not for the ban either.

[Tasttey]

Pro-gun person here... and I see little wrong with an assault gun ban. The guns are specifically designed for killing humans and thus not needed by "normal" people, they are inefficient at hunting

I'm assuming by "assault gun" you're attempting to reference the infamous AR variants or "modern sporting rifles."

Now the most common calibres for these .223, 5.56mm, 300 Blackout and 7.62x39 (AK variants.)

All 4 are quite efficient for and often used for hog hunting. (the South East has quite the problem with feral hogs in some parts.)

.223 and 5.56 are go-to calibres for coyotes, foxes, ground hogs, racoons and other medium sized game

[Ghostpanther]

But what if your house is being attacked by like, 100+ armed assailants wearing body armor?!

But some think a zombie holocaust could happen. So they feel a need to be prepared.

[TITAN308]

Pro-gun person here... and I see little wrong with an assault gun ban. The guns are specifically designed for killing humans and thus not needed by "normal" people, they are inefficient at hunting, and are overkill for self-defense. The only time they would be useful in a non-military fashion is if the owner lived in an extremely dangerous place, I'm talking where riots and mobs are a regular occurrence.

That said, I am not for the ban either.

- - - Updated - - -

But some think a zombie holocaust could happen. So they feel a need to be prepared.

Well according to MM AR-15 bullets spin and explode now.

[Zoranon]

Pro-gun person here... and I see little wrong with an assault gun ban. The guns are specifically designed for killing humans and thus not needed by "normal" people, they are inefficient at hunting, and are overkill for self-defense. The only time they would be useful in a non-military fashion is if the owner lived in an extremely dangerous place, I'm talking where riots and mobs are a regular occurrence.

That said, I am not for the ban either.

Assault gun? As in something like a stug?


I would assume those are banned already, if their cannon is working anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Well according to MM AR-15 bullets spin and explode now.

You cant fix stupid.

Someone should also tell him that Geneva conventions apply only to warfare. Which is why police can for example use tear gas.