[OFFICIAL] Gun Control Thread

[SirRobin]

Ok so just to put a couple of things out there. First off the police have an average response time in the US of 30 minutes, this has caused rise to the saying:

"When seconds matter the cops are only minutes away"

Then get a tazer. Not to mention I'm a little curious on the source for the thirty minute thing.

I'm finding everything from three minutes to twelve depending on the type of emergency and location. So I'm starting to suspect that pro-gun claims of thirty minutes are like claiming Yamamoto made the rifle grass quote or that the FAWB is just about rifles that look like assault rifles. Not to mention that if you want better response times? Hire more cops. Probably wouldn't cost more than putting armed guards in every school and law enforcement officers wouldn't just be guards.

[FusedMass]

Ok so just to put a couple of things out there. First off the police have an average response time in the US of 30 minutes, this has caused rise to the saying:

"When seconds matter the cops are only minutes away"

Before someone goes off on a rant about how that needs fixed, even if you use that as an excuse to change gun laws the issue with the police needs fixed first. On top of that I live in an area of the US called Appalachia and while I am not a moonshinin', tobacco chew, clan fuedin' hillbilly the simple suburban neighborhood I grew up in has dear, fox, coyotes and black bear, occasionally you would run into a mountain lion though they're not very common anymore. The police are not who you call to get the black bear off of your back porch. These animals are known for eating pets, plants and destroying property. The best part of this is that I lived under a mile from a fairly major city.

People also have said that guns like the AR-15 is not a hunting gun and I beg to differ. While i know people that hunt dear with .223 rifles I dislike the idea, the bullet is too small and does not have enough expansion (I much prefer bigger bullets and in the woods, where you can't take long shots, big "slow" handgun rounds tend to be very good choices IE the lever action .44 mag is great) I have killed fox, coyotes, skunks and gophers with an AR-15. That gun has a match grade long barrel and is used mostly for long range silhouette shooting but it makes a great varmint gun.

Not really true. I was walking along the road one day with a friend. A car came from behind and nailed my friend before hitting a pole. The response time was three minutes. Generally if you call the police and say someone is breaking in. Its not an average of thirty minutes.. that's just plain silly to say otherwise. For some reason fear and paranoia has gripped this nation. When you check out the news the latest horror story. Its like the conditions for living in the US( Where I live by the way) are designed to make you scared.

In canada its much much more open and realxed. I was surprised watching Michael Moore Bowling for Columbine how the political things worked. Everything was much more smoother. On their news they were not reporting shootings or even really bad stuff. But I'm getting off my point. AR-15 as a hunting weapon. If its true that its a semi automatic you are taking a military like grade weapon to hunting animals.

From my understanding they have hunting weapons. In fact much better then AR-15 that are designed hunt animals. Lets say you are not hunting all the time. Then the gun serves no purpose expect taking up space. People like to say...well I want to defend myself. Is a shotgun or a hand gun not good enough protection. In fact it would be harder to hit people the more close up you are with AR-15 to aim it. Unless you are firing without concern into a crowd.

I truly and sincerely have nothing against weapons at all. This is not a guns right issue because the assault rifle or semi automatic rifle isnt a gun. Its an assault weapon. In fact long ago these weapons were banned and for good reason. Now legal loop holes allow them say in Texas. All you need is to be 21 and pass a background check to own one.

In fact the shootings that left 2 fire fighters dead was from a AR-15. The background check did not help him because he had someone else who was later charged to buy the weapons four him. If 20 kids dead and 7 adults then weeks away two fire fighters. You cannot deny in the most recent attacks these are the weapons used. Banning them will not stop killings but reduce the number of killings a person can do.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Then get a tazer. Not to mention I'm a little curious on the source for the thirty minute thing.

I'm finding everything from three minutes to twelve depending on the type of emergency and location. So I'm starting to suspect that pro-gun claims of thirty minutes are like claiming Yamamoto made the rifle grass quote or that the FAWB is just about rifles that look like assault rifles. Not to mention that if you want better response times? Hire more cops. Probably wouldn't cost more than putting armed guards in every school and law enforcement officers wouldn't just be guards.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02...igilantes-1-5/
http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/ar...cy-calls-slows
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/c...PJIH42QyL3AstJ

30 minutes was high, but right there is times from 9 minutes up to 24 minutes. Either way that is too high. Besides the FAWB WAS(under Clinton) and if it goes into effect WILL BE about things that look like assault rifles. Can you come up with any other explanation of why the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle, Mini 30 and target models are ok but the tactical is not?

Not really true. I was walking along the road one day with a friend. A car came from behind and nailed my friend before hitting a pole. The response time was three minutes.

So you do understand there is a difference between a fact checked study of an average response time and single, uncheckable, anecdote right? Are you being willfully ignorant or do you actually feel they are comparable?

Tons of studies say drunk driving is bad but my buddy got home ok on Christmas so it must be ok.

From my understanding they have hunting weapons. In fact much better then AR-15 that are designed hunt animals. Lets say you are not hunting all the time. Then the gun serves no purpose expect taking up space. People like to say...well I want to defend myself. Is a shotgun or a hand gun not good enough protection. In fact it would be harder to hit people the more close up you are with AR-15 to aim it. Unless you are firing without concern into a crowd.

I truly and sincerely have nothing against weapons at all. This is not a guns right issue because the assault rifle or semi automatic rifle isnt a gun. Its an assault weapon. In fact long ago these weapons were banned and for good reason. Now legal loop holes allow them say in Texas. All you need is to be 21 and pass a background check to own one.

You have proven over and over again that you know nothing about guns, nothing at all. An assault weapon is a semi-auto rifle that looks scary.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/images/index.jpg

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is an "Assault weapon" the other three ARE THE SAME GUN except they are NOT assault weapons. Which is why many people say the following:

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

The links you have posted of fully automatic weapons are ASSAULT RIFLES, they are not available to citizens (new production) and have not been since the 1980s if you want one you need to have a special permit, massive background check and heaps of money. Most fully automatic weapons are in the hands of collectors.

[FusedMass]

So you do understand there is a difference between a fact checked study of an average response time and single, uncheckable, anecdote right? Are you being willfully ignorant or do you actually feel they are comparable?

From Article below it states average response time and it says 11 minutes is the slowest by far. Let me repeat that ..THE SLOWEST..you said 30 minutes which is MORE then double of what is actually truth.

It would be ignorant of me to assume that 30 minutes is the average response time. Because its not. Tons of things factor in like if you live in a big city or town. Some city's take about 5-10 minutes while others may be 20. I respectfully disagree that the average response time in all factors is 30 minutes. From the time you call they are placed on to your location.

One forgotten factor is where they are at. They could be just down the street from you. That blows your 30 minutes away theory. It also doesnt mean the person wants to break in and murder you. Most people if they hear a noise from inside leave. In fact most placed are broken into when no one is at the location rather then sleeping at night.

It makes more sense to go when no one is there rather then at night when everyone is there sleeping. I'm senseing some strong sarcasm from you. Actually if you want AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME. Where is your link saying its 30 minutes. Actually in truth its less then half that..and THAT is considered slow.



According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta police were the slowest to answer high-priority emergency calls among police departments from seven similar-sized cities. The results were part of a survey of police response times. In Atlanta last year it took, on average, 11 minutes and 12 seconds from the time a high-priority 911 call was received until an Atlanta police officer showed up at the scene. The response times reported by the El Paso (Texas) Police Department were only one second quicker than Atlanta’s, with an average of 11 minutes and 11 seconds.

The Denver Police Department posted a response time of 11 minutes flat. According to the Journal Constitution story, police in Tucson, Ariz., responded, on average, in 10 minutes and 11 seconds.

Almost forgot

Edited

My knowing about guns isnt the issue here. I am not the dem pushing for this. In fact many Liberals own guns. The only thing..I have proven if anything. People react very hostile when they believe someone is banning a weapon.

[Extrazero8]

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02...igilantes-1-5/
http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/ar...cy-calls-slows
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/c...PJIH42QyL3AstJ

30 minutes was high, but right there is times from 9 minutes up to 24 minutes. Either way that is too high. Besides the FAWB WAS(under Clinton) and if it goes into effect WILL BE about things that look like assault rifles. Can you come up with any other explanation of why the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle, Mini 30 and target models are ok but the tactical is not?

The new ban is not anything like the old one.

All Mini-14 and Mini-30 would be banned. So would all AR15s and AK47 clones. So would any handgun or shotgun that can take a magazine over 10 rounds.

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as 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.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...d-ebf318d46d02

[mrwingtipshoes]

The new ban is not anything like the old one.

All Mini-14 and Mini-30 would be banned. So would all AR15s and AK47 clones. So would any handgun or shotgun that can take a magazine over 10 rounds.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...d-ebf318d46d02

I've seen the feinstein ban. That's going to fly like taking a shit in a confessional. Shes a radical and way overstepping her boundaries, when will radical tools like her (on both sides) realize that moderation is how you get things passed? The Clinton AWB could probably pass again, this will not. And for what its worth, I WILL NOT be registering my firearms with anyone, I really don't care what demands they make, especially after the NY article the other day.

[Extrazero8]

I've seen the feinstein ban. That's going to fly like taking a shit in a confessional. Shes a radical and way overstepping her boundaries, when will radical tools like her (on both sides) realize that moderation is how you get things passed? The Clinton AWB could probably pass again, this will not. And for what its worth, I WILL NOT be registering my firearms with anyone, I really don't care what demands they make, especially after the NY article the other day.

Thankfully Feinstein's ban has damn near nothing in support. But that doesn't mean the Republicans wont trade a magazine ban for fiscal cliff concessions from the Dems.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Thankfully Feinstein's ban has damn near nothing in support. But that doesn't mean the Republicans wont trade a magazine ban for fiscal cliff concessions from the Dems.

Magazine ban doesn't bother me too much. I can STILL reload 3 10 round mags into a 9mm faster than i can reload an AR15 and so i see the mag ban as useless.

[GreatOak]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned how racism has historically been at the heart of the gun control movement in this country. Being in Chicago, I can definitely see it. Gun laws are becoming more strict and less people are owning guns in major cities where there are lots of minorities, yet violent crime is rising. However, in the majority of the country gun laws are becoming less strict and crime is dropping steadily, and has over te past 10 years. The FBI and CDC both came to the same conclusion.

[mrwingtipshoes]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned how racism has historically been at the heart of the gun control movement in this country. Being in Chicago, I can definitely see it. Gun laws are becoming more strict and less people are owning guns in major cities where there are lots of minorities, yet violent crime is rising. However, in the majority of the country gun laws are becoming less strict and crime is dropping steadily, and has over te past 10 years. The FBI and CDC both came to the same conclusion.

I think gun bans in inner cities (mind you I don't agree with them) and the rise in violent crime have less to do with race and more to do with population density, illegal activity and financial stability, especially of those who are not involved in illegal activity already.

[GreatOak]

Pt.2

http://youtu.be/2g7TbxkJuqA

---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 05:02 PM ----------

I think gun bans in inner cities (mind you I don't agree with them) and the rise in violent crime have less to do with race and more to do with population density, illegal activity and financial stability, especially of those who are not involved in illegal activity already.

Don't forget the drug war. The drug war is the cause of evil, and violence in our inner cities is one of the results.

[vaeevictiss]

Its not an average of thirty minutes.. that's just plain silly to say otherwise.

the show Panic 911 on A&E begs to differ.

I was watching one episode yesterday...guy going around the neighborhood shooting 7 people. 19 911 calls and 20 minutes later the police finally showed up and shot him...why no one in this entire neighborhood had a gun to put this fucker down themselves is beyond me and another issue entirely.

Another episode had a lady home alone, at night, in the middle of nowhere. Her husband was at work and some guy starting kicking her door. She called 911 and they told her police were on their way. She told the dispatcher she had a shotgun and the dispatcher actually said "well you gotta do what you need to to protect yourself" long story short the guy ended up throwing a chair through the window, came im after her and she put a hole in his chest. It was another 5 minutes before police showed up.

So yea...response times can be that long...and actually, there is no legal obligation police even need to report to them.

if you want to be a coward and put your life in someone else's hands so be it...i think this is where the darwin theory comes into play.

[FusedMass]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned how racism has historically been at the heart of the gun control movement in this country. Being in Chicago, I can definitely see it. Gun laws are becoming more strict and less people are owning guns in major cities where there are lots of minorities, yet violent crime is rising. However, in the majority of the country gun laws are becoming less strict and crime is dropping steadily, and has over te past 10 years. The FBI and CDC both came to the same conclusion.

You bring up a very good Point. Did you know when weapons were first made. It was illegal for an African American to own a gun. Some might say they were created as weapons of murder to protect themselves from other people. I had a video that detailed the entire history. I didn't want to seen an insensitive. In fact the NRA was created just about the time guns were being created.

[vaeevictiss]

The new ban is not anything like the old one.

All Mini-14 and Mini-30 would be banned. So would all AR15s and AK47 clones. So would any handgun or shotgun that can take a magazine over 10 rounds.



http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...d-ebf318d46d02

granted this shit wont pass but the one benefit i see of it, is that people will be buying bigger caliber guns...which is always better

still...the scare is pissing me off...i really didnt think it would hit the reloading scene so quickly. i ended up checking with my last vendor yesterday and they were the only ones i found that still had primers. I ordered 10,000 of them. Last time the ban went into effect people were saying it was 9 months before they could get them again.

[Svifnymr]

Isn't there a grandfathering for over 900 different weapons? I assume that people who still own guns would be able to hold on to them.

The ban is a manufacturer ban, so no new ones can be made. Any current ones would be registered via the NFA, the same law that covers machineguns. If you ever interact with the NFA Branch, everything they do takes 5 months minimum. The specifics of the bill are not on Feinsteins site, just her summary, assuming it's like the last bill, it bans most semiatuo rifles by name, while "exempting" some others. Most of the others are guns that would not fall under the ban anyway. (Like listing bolt action rifles as exempt from the ban.)

It says any firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has 1 or more other "military features", though the only one listed is pistol grip/ thumbhole stock. So almost all the target 22's would now be assault weapons.

[SirRobin]

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02...igilantes-1-5/
http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/ar...cy-calls-slows
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/c...PJIH42QyL3AstJ

30 minutes was high, but right there is times from 9 minutes up to 24 minutes. Either way that is too high. Besides the FAWB WAS(under Clinton) and if it goes into effect WILL BE about things that look like assault rifles. Can you come up with any other explanation of why the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle, Mini 30 and target models are ok but the tactical is not?

Looking around it seems to get as low as three or four minutes too. So, to me at least, it looks like both sides like to sensationalize their talking points. Now if police response time is really a valid concern, wouldn't it be better to hire more cops instead? Plus the last FAWB included the TEC-9, a semiautomatic handgun. So it wasn't just about cosmetics.

LaPierre wants congress to put guards in every school. Well that could cost almost eight billion. Probably a better idea to spend that on hiring more cops instead since they wouldn't just be guards and improve response times across the board. Before we even get into who would pay for it of course.

Of course I can come up with an explanation for why they ban one rifle and not another. Its what they can get passed. When it comes to the court of public opinion. "Looks" actually do matter. So if something "looks" more dangerous then well, in a way, it actually is. Whether there is actually any difference in performance, or not, is besides the point.

[Svifnymr]

Don't know much about price history. Does anyone have actual sources to prices before, during, and after, the FAWB?

Hard to say, the Blue Book of Gun Values was a book, back then, possible to find a digitial copy still floating around.

However, the press has been used by both sides of the aisle very effectively before to sway or arouse the public.

Like anything else, the issue is more folks ignoring the bias when it's for them and yelling about how biased the other side is. Like when Hillary used to yell about how the republican congress was being mean because of "bipartisan bickering". Well, that just means they disagreed with her. If the Clintons had simply agreed with them, there would be no bickering. It's not "bipartisan" on one side and not the other!

Not that it matters.

As far as the fearmongering sales? Seriously, that's going to end up biting them in the butt sooner or later.

How about if they don't let rabidly anti-gun folks like Feinstein write a bill? Maybe have a moderate draft something that makes sense and encompasses some knowledge about guns? Then maybe folks wouldn't over react.

They completely ignore the calls to reform the NFA Branch, who is the government agency that handles the transfers of machineguns and such. (Not "allow more machineguns" but "computer the paperwork so that they can find some of the machineguns they've lost"...)

[vaeevictiss]

It says any firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has 1 or more other "military features", though the only one listed is pistol grip/ thumbhole stock. So almost all the target 22's would now be assault weapons.

this is exactly why the ban is bullshit...perfect example.

this would be totally legal under the ban



but my 10/22...same gun...same operation, would be an "assault rifle". (not to mention the suppressor on it is already an NFA item)





that is all the ban really does...ban things that look evil. Nothing in the current ban, as crazy, outlandish, and strict as it is, would have prevented the newtown shooting.

[Svifnymr]

Looking around it seems to get as low as three or four minutes too. So, to me at least, it looks like both sides like to sensationalize their talking points.

Without looking at the links, I'd assume that the range is actually a huge range, not sure what the urban median or rural median would be. There are a lot of factors involved in police response.

There was a shooting in the plaza where I currently work. Guy shot his sister and then himself because of financial matters at their little stand. Police took about 7-8 minutes to arrive, ambulance was there first. Police have a substation not too far away, but were somewhere else at the time.

It does come down to what can be done in say, 5 minutes though. I think it would be safe to say that, as many rounds as you could carry on your person (no matter how many each magazine held) could be used in 5 minutes. When you factor in how an entry team works, it'd take even longer for police to reach a situation in a building.

Though, it does spring to mind what happened at the shooters house. He shot his mother and some other people there, right? (Again, details shift so I may be wrong) He then loaded up a car with guns & ammo and drove to the school. I wonder if anyone called the police for the first shooting. Not sure how far the house was from the school though.

Now if police response time is really a valid concern, wouldn't it be better to hire more cops instead?

It's one of the amusing (well, not really) factors around here, that when a police force is doing their job, crime will lower and they will cut the police budget since we don't need as many since there's less crime...

Plus the last FAWB included the TEC-9, a semiautomatic handgun. So it wasn't just about cosmetics.

I really wish you'd concede the "cosmetic" ban;
The KG-9 was the one that set the rep, along with open bolt mac-10's and some others, of weapons that could be "easily converted to a machinegun" and were redesigned in the 80's.

The tec-9 or DC9 was banned

The AB10 made during the ban


The threads on the barrel are the banned feature, the obviously affect nothing of the actual characteristics of the gun, don't you agree?

Of course I can come up with an explanation for why they ban one rifle and not another. Its what they can get passed. When it comes to the court of public opinion. "Looks" actually do matter. So if something "looks" more dangerous then well, in a way, it actually is. Whether there is actually any difference in performance, or not, is besides the point.

[PhaelixWW]

Do have any idea how many handguns "can accept a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds"?

Maleficus, Extrazero8... Wells is correct on this part. The wording of that particular phrase is almost identical to the existing AWB in California. The only time the magazine size can make the gun itself illegal is when the magazine is "fixed", which is defined as a magazine that's permanently attached to the gun, like a feed tube, or a top-loaded integral magazine, or even a removable magazine that's been permanently soldered into the gun.

Otherwise, it's the magazine itself that's made illegal by being over 10 rounds, and not the gun.

The bulk of the bill refers to "detachable" magazines. Feinstein is upset about the current phrasing of California's AWB, because its definition of detachable magazines allows for the possibility of a bullet button making it be considered fixed instead of detachable. So the proposed FAWB redefines detachable magazines in a way that makes even the bullet button illegal.

I mean, technically, you'd still be able to buy an "assault weapon" after such a ban, but the magazine would have to be a 10-rounder permanently soldered on, which makes it kinda... not worth the effort.