Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Compromise is not something the anti gun rights crowd even entertain. They ether want more restrictions, or better yet, a total repeal of the Second Amendment and at the best they might let you have a shotgun, which would be their best attempt at a compromise. So yeah, your point is well founded.

- - - Updated - - -

For those interested in a 1911 Army issue .45 pistol. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/01/...stockpile.html

They're still at least a year out, I'll most likely get one but I think they'll be over priced. I'm currently trying to justify an International Harvester M1, $1060 is a good price, but more than I want to spend. But, I really want a rifle built by a tractor company...

I do wish they'd not run articles, the DCM is low key and too much of the wrong attention could ruin everything.

- - - Updated - - -

Lack of enforcement is a huge thing. I'd like to see a federal level of the "Lie and Try" laws some states have implemented. For those that don't want to Google, some states have laws requiring FFL's to contact local LEOs (in some cases immediately, like PA, and in some cases in less than a week like WA) if someone fails a NICS check. Basically it takes the initial investigation out of the hands of the FBI/ATF and puts it on local LEOs to start the process. Heck they could even tie it into some of the funding earmarked by the Fix NICS Bill to fund it.

There is an appeal process, so my suggestion was always that if the appeal fails (finding cause), that letter should be delivered by the cops. Truthfully though, most of the non-approvals are stupid crimes that would be embarassing to prosecute a potential buyer for. The main one I remember was a guy in his 70s that got a nonapproval, did the appeal, found out he was disqualified due to the time he was arrested for a joint when he was 16. It was a felony at the time in his jurisdiction and he just never knew. He could get it removed from his record, but figured it wasn't worth the time/ expense.
They need to prosecute straw purchasers. It's a very rare thing unless there's a lot of guns involved. ATF likes big newspaper-worthy busts, not 1-2 guns. The 1-2 guns is the problem though, and at the very least success in 1-2 gun flips results in someone doing it more.

As far as the private sales and background checks, I'd still make it "semi-optional" basically making it available and encouraged but putting the onus on the seller. Alleviates the additional steps in instances where one shouldn't have to do a background check (like selling one of your firearms to a buddy who's not prohibited) while still putting pressure on people reselling for profit or as a supplier for prohibited persons. That or having a system like NICS for private sellers, because honestly the easier they make the system the better received it will be.

Right, I suggested it years ago in this thread. Have a simple call in system, maybe a website or app or all three. Type in info or scan an ID and get a unique code showing approval or a message saying "sorry, this transaction must be completed through a dealer" for conditionals/ non approvals or whatever. Make it optional, but it's easy enough for a seller to do.

What would eventually happen is the lack of such a background would open someone to liability when a firearm is sold to a felon or something. It'd be a simple "why didn't you do this?" "well, I didn't have to, so I didn't care" "well, you're partly responsible for this due to negligence, so give us money". Meanwhile, as you say, if you're selling to your buddy or family member that you know, no need for a BGC.

The walking back of certain restricted items, my particular beef being with the inclusion of suppressors in the NFA. Frankly they're hearing protection, they take the volume down to hearing safe levels, they don't silence shit. In real life Keanu Reeves and Cotton wouldn't be able to have a shoot out with suppressed 9mm in subway without anyone noticing. About the closest you get to the movie level of "silencers" would be a bolt action or single shot .22LR suppressed, and even then one would have to use subsonic ammo to remove the actual "sonic boom" (ok its more akin to a whip cracking) down range.

Yeah, this is my biggest thing. Silencers (sound suppressors) should be easy to get, not god damn 5 months or more. It's ridiculous. Nobody is shoving a silencer down their pants, and it is not silent. Could it make it harder to locate mass shooter? It's possible, though unlikely. More likely of course is that the silencer's overheating would reduce the short term power of a shooter like a giant fuse. The bump fire guy wouldn't have done 600 rounds through most silencers without issue.

SBRs/SBSs (short barrelled rifles/shotguns) are a clusterfuck atm anyways. Between the ruling on shouldering arm braces on pistols and the classifications of "other firearm" being denoted to some pistol style shotguns, and the LLC/Trust bypass system, its becoming a convoluted mess in a lot of regards.

Short barrels are sort of amusing. I'm not sure why they think it matters. Give a length requirement, above it it's a rifle, below that it's a handgun. Who cares about the stock one way or another? But I'm not as concerned with this, silencers are a higher priority.

Then again this is all in the concept of compromise. Pro 2A people concede to Universal Background Checks; Anti 2A people concede to some things as well. Sadly this is something that hasn't really taken place in the past, Pro 2A have been giving up chunks of their 2A rights for nearly 100 years while getting nothing in return, this is what has led a lot of these supporters digging their heals in on every gun issue.

Machineguns should be possible to make, but maybe raise the tax on them to $1000 instead of $200, or whatever. I can't afford to shoot full auto, ammo wise, but it still seems stupid to ban them. But no, compromise means "give me what I want".

[Ghostpanther]

They're still at least a year out, I'll most likely get one but I think they'll be over priced. I'm currently trying to justify an International Harvester M1, $1060 is a good price, but more than I want to spend. But, I really want a rifle built by a tractor company...

I do wish they'd not run articles, the DCM is low key and too much of the wrong attention could ruin everything.

- - - Updated - - -

Short barrels are sort of amusing. I'm not sure why they think it matters. Give a length requirement, above it it's a rifle, below that it's a handgun. Who cares about the stock one way or another? But I'm not as concerned with this, silencers are a higher priority.


Machineguns should be possible to make, but maybe raise the tax on them to $1000 instead of $200, or whatever. I can't afford to shoot full auto, ammo wise, but it still seems stupid to ban them. But no, compromise means "give me what I want".

Harvester firearm? Lol! Never heard of those. Will have to do a search and see what they are.

Edit: Ahh, the MI Garand which International Harvester was awarded a contract to produce them, when Springfield could not keep up with the demand. Interesting. They must be expensive?

I was thinking I read once, they limit how short a barrel can be on say Shotguns, because if they are real short, they are easy to hide under a trench coat. I may be wrong however.

Machine guns such as the Thompson's was used often by the mobs during the 1930's esp. So they wanted to make them much harder for private citizen Joe, down in some high crime area, from getting one.

[Kellhound]

Harvester firearm? Lol! Never heard of those. Will have to do a search and see what they are.

Edit: Ahh, the MI Garand which International Harvester was awarded a contract to produce them, when Springfield could not keep up with the demand. Interesting. They must be expensive?

I was thinking I read once, they limit how short a barrel can be on say Shotguns, because if they are real short, they are easy to hide under a trench coat. I may be wrong however.

Machine guns such as the Thompson's was used often by the mobs during the 1930's esp. So they wanted to make them much harder for private citizen Joe, down in some high crime area, from getting one.

Still not as interesting as the IBM or Rock-Ola (jukebox) produced M-1 Carbines.

[gaymer77]

There is absolutely no reason why your average citizen needs a gun that is capable of semi-automatic or automatic firing other than to kill people and cause major destruction. A handgun or even a hunting rifle is sufficient enough to protect yourself against harm. There should also be tougher restrictions in place to be able to get a gun in the first place. Mentally ill should not have access to guns.

[Maneo]

There is absolutely no reason why your average citizen needs a gun that is capable of semi-automatic or automatic firing other than to kill people and cause major destruction. A handgun or even a hunting rifle is sufficient enough to protect yourself against harm. There should also be tougher restrictions in place to be able to get a gun in the first place. Mentally ill should not have access to guns.

Do you even know what semi-automatic means?

You do realize the majority of handguns (even most revolvers now) are semi auto right?... or did you mean to say Full Auto?

[gaymer77]

Do you even know what semi-automatic means?

You do realize the majority of handguns (even most revolvers now) are semi auto right?... or did you mean to say Full Auto?

Handguns that hold more than 6 bullets are unnecessary. I realize that you just pull the trigger over & over again with most handguns but you actually have to have fast fingers to do a semi-automatic firing. Guns that you pull the trigger and multiple bullets come out over time or guns that hold more than 6 shots are an overkill. After you've fired 6 shots at someone, you're no longer defending yourself. At that point you are shooting to make sure someone is dead.

[Maneo]

Handguns that hold more than 6 bullets are unnecessary. I realize that you just pull the trigger over & over again with most handguns but you actually have to have fast fingers to do a semi-automatic firing. Guns that you pull the trigger and multiple bullets come out over time or guns that hold more than 6 shots are an overkill. After you've fired 6 shots at someone, you're no longer defending yourself. At that point you are shooting to make sure someone is dead.

Ok you obviously have no experience with firearms, so let me correct you.

Semi-Automatic means every time you pull the trigger the gun will fire one projectile.. A firearm that isn't semi automatic means you cock then fire, cock then fire etc etc, fully auto that you are eluding to you hold the trigger down and it repeatedly fires till the trigger is released, or ammo is depleted (or it jams lets be honest here)

As far as 6 bullets is unnecessary I disagree. For as long as the bad guys have that type of firepower so will I.

However I would like to comment how the majority of people who are anti firearm, always seem to have zero or no experience with them. Why do you think that is?

[Tasttey]

Handguns that hold more than 6 bullets are unnecessary. I realize that you just pull the trigger over & over again with most handguns but you actually have to have fast fingers to do a semi-automatic firing. Guns that you pull the trigger and multiple bullets come out over time or guns that hold more than 6 shots are an overkill. After you've fired 6 shots at someone, you're no longer defending yourself. At that point you are shooting to make sure someone is dead.

Ok, so you don't know what semi-automatic means.

Semi-auto = 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet

Doesn't matter how fast or how slow you pull the trigger, 1 bullet comes out at a time, its considered semi-auto.

Now weapons that have the capability to fire more than one round per trigger pull are identified as select fire weapons (either fully automatic or burst fire.) These weapons have been restricted heavily since 1934 and have been illegal to manufacture for civilian sale since 1986. Legal select fire weapons range in price from $5k to $150k, are heavily restricted and registered by the ATF/FBI, and only 2 have ever been used to murder someone since the NFA's inception.

As to your comment that firing more than 6 rounds means your trying to kill someone. Rule# 2 "Never let your muzzle cover anything you aren't willing to destroy." If you fire 1 round you should be shooting to make sure someone is dead.

[Ghostpanther]

There is absolutely no reason why your average citizen needs a gun that is capable of semi-automatic or automatic firing other than to kill people and cause major destruction. A handgun or even a hunting rifle is sufficient enough to protect yourself against harm. There should also be tougher restrictions in place to be able to get a gun in the first place. Mentally ill should not have access to guns.

What tougher restrictions than there is already in place? Mentally ill already are restricted. Example, in Ohio, those who have deemed to be mentally ill by a doctor or have been court ordered to get mental treatment are not allowed to possess firearms. The other posters have already answered your points in the rest of your post.

[PhaelixWW]

After you've fired 6 shots at someone, you're no longer defending yourself.

Why on earth are you assuming you've hit your target with any of those six rounds, let alone all six?

I'm seeing murder rates but not gun crime rates.

I'll just drop this here for you:

[Svifnymr]

Still not as interesting as the IBM or Rock-Ola (jukebox) produced M-1 Carbines.

My dream Carbine is the National Postal Meter.

- - - Updated - - -

Harvester firearm? Lol! Never heard of those. Will have to do a search and see what they are.

Edit: Ahh, the MI Garand which International Harvester was awarded a contract to produce them, when Springfield could not keep up with the demand. Interesting. They must be expensive?

During WW2, we needed more guns. Almost any company that COULD make guns, DID make guns (or other war materials). So yeah, International Harvester and a few others made Garands, while National Postal Meter, International Business Machine (IBM), Rock-Ola and a bunch others made M1/M2 carbines. Remington Rand made 1911a1 handguns, but "Remington" the gun maker didn't do it. It was Remington Rand the typewriter company. It's an interesting part of history.

I was thinking I read once, they limit how short a barrel can be on say Shotguns, because if they are real short, they are easy to hide under a trench coat. I may be wrong however.

Sure, short barrel shotguns can be hidden easier than regular shotguns. But handguns are smaller still, hold more rounds and are much easier to shoot.

Machine guns such as the Thompson's was used often by the mobs during the 1930's esp. So they wanted to make them much harder for private citizen Joe, down in some high crime area, from getting one.

Yeah, in 1934 they restricted ownership of machineguns because criminals were using them. Didn't stop criminals from using machineguns, arresting folks did. Since 1934 though, the number of legal registered machineguns used in crime is tiny. I don't know the actual number, but there's only been 2 confirmed when the discussions arise. So between 1934 and 1986 you had 2 crimes (though I think 1 was in the late 80s so wouldn't count anyway), but they still chose to ban further manufacture. Since 1986, you cannot make new machineguns except for LE use. You can still buy/sell those made before 1986, but supply goes down and demand goes up, so price it through the roof.

So why ban manufacture of machineguns when they're already registered?

[Ghostpanther]

My dream Carbine is the National Postal Meter.

- - - Updated - - -


During WW2, we needed more guns. Almost any company that COULD make guns, DID make guns (or other war materials). So yeah, International Harvester and a few others made Garands, while National Postal Meter, International Business Machine (IBM), Rock-Ola and a bunch others made M1/M2 carbines. Remington Rand made 1911a1 handguns, but "Remington" the gun maker didn't do it. It was Remington Rand the typewriter company. It's an interesting part of history.


Sure, short barrel shotguns can be hidden easier than regular shotguns. But handguns are smaller still, hold more rounds and are much easier to shoot.


Yeah, in 1934 they restricted ownership of machineguns because criminals were using them. Didn't stop criminals from using machineguns, arresting folks did. Since 1934 though, the number of legal registered machineguns used in crime is tiny. I don't know the actual number, but there's only been 2 confirmed when the discussions arise. So between 1934 and 1986 you had 2 crimes (though I think 1 was in the late 80s so wouldn't count anyway), but they still chose to ban further manufacture. Since 1986, you cannot make new machineguns except for LE use. You can still buy/sell those made before 1986, but supply goes down and demand goes up, so price it through the roof.

So why ban manufacture of machineguns when they're already registered?

I really liked the M14. Was accurate and much preferred the clip loading compared to the "blue thumb" method with the Garand. If someone was to offer me ether one at a cheap price, I would not hesitate to pick the M14. Even knowing the M1 would be worth more maybe. But for my own personal use, no question which I would pick.

Very interesting. Learned some stuff. Thanks!

I would not have any issues using a sawed off 20 ga. shotgun. But your point is still a good one.

Because they can I guess.

[Svifnymr]

I really liked the M14. Was accurate and much preferred the clip loading compared to the "blue thumb" method with the Garand. If someone was to offer me ether one at a cheap price, I would not hesitate to pick the M14. Even knowing the M1 would be worth more maybe. But for my own personal use, no question which I would pick.

Surplus M1 Garands range from $700 up, the International Harvester is $1060, but depending on condition they're worth more. What it's worth on resale only really matters if you sell it though, so it's still coming up with $1k for something to sit in a safe...

M1a's are the civie copy of the M14 machinegun and are nice enough, but way over priced. $1300+ nowadays I think. And that's for a new manufacture, no history gun, vs an original issue WW2/ Korea era rifle.

Don't get me wrong, if I'm going to war or something, I'd take the M14 over the M1. Of course I'd take the FAL or AR10 over the M14, if we're sticking with the 308. (I've never really played with the FN SCAR H, way overpriced so don't want to arouse interest!) The Garand is just a very interesting piece of history, a semi-auto in a world of bolt guns, most of them Mauser 98's. it used the enbloc clips that just make no sense overall, but are such a neat note in time. The lessons of WW2 (StG's and sub guns and such) went in the direction of the current plethora of M16's and similar, the M1 Garand was a dead end (after the M14), but it did what it needed to do at the time...

Same way the 1911 was such a great gun, but the entire world said "hey, lets use the Browning Hipower path instead". Least the toggle/Mauser died out, the P38 lives on in the Beretta M9 (for now).

[Ghostpanther]

I found this interesting and I must admit, some pleasure http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...backfires.html

[Zoranon]

I found this interesting and I must admit, some pleasure http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...backfires.html

Yeah saw that today, quite hillarious i must say.

But I would not worry that the anti-gun nuts will take any notice. They will lay low for a few days and then they will start pretending the study does not exist.

[Ghostpanther]

Oh yeah. They are like rats.They never give up. Will keep doing their thing of pushing a false narrative.

[Flarelaine]

Well, the Second Amendment would be the biggest reasons what they did in Australia is not going to work here. But it not realistic to compare the US to Australia. Much, much smaller population for one.

Beyond that, just three words:

No land borders.

[Ghostpanther]

Beyond that, just three words:

No land borders.

Excellent point. But they rarely want to mention that.

The Second Amendment is also pretty unique in the world. There is only one other country, which has in it's constitution, the right to keep and bare arms. Guatemala. But also a country which has borders with very high crime rated countries.

[Flarelaine]

Excellent point. But they rarely want to mention that.

The Second Amendment is also pretty unique in the world. There is only one other country, which has in it's constitution, the right to keep and bare arms. Guatemala. But also a country which has borders with very high crime rated countries.

Make no mistake, I also believe the gun situation has gotten out of hand and I would be all for some degree of control. (Dsiclaimer: I do not live in the US, so I technically have no stake in the game beyond not wanting to see another Sandy Hook ever again.) But that does not stop me from pointing out the futility of wanting to implement the Australian solution.

I think the real problem over there is not the number of guns alone - it's also the culture that makes taking a life such a casual act of violence. I think the US is alone among developed countries with that. Finding the roots of this wanton disrespect to human life in the American psyche would be a quest comparable to finding the Holy Grail.

[Ghostpanther]

Make no mistake, I also believe the gun situation has gotten out of hand and I would be all for some degree of control. (Dsiclaimer: I do not live in the US, so I technically have no stake in the game beyond not wanting to see another Sandy Hook ever again.) But that does not stop me from pointing out the futility of wanting to implement the Australian solution.

I think the real problem over there is not the number of guns alone - it's also the culture that makes taking a life such a casual act of violence. I think the US is alone among developed countries with that. Finding the roots of this wanton disrespect to human life in the American psyche would be a quest comparable to finding the Holy Grail.

I agree. That is the root cause. To kill some plants, you need to kill the roots. A Southern Border also which for decades, has had several drugs and such pouring across them. A lot of the gun death's here is caused by drug/gang wars.