Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wells]

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.

I swear to god I lose brain cells every time I read this shit.

yes let's only pass laws that criminals will obey.

That makes sense.

[Svifnymr]

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.

There is no loophole, that is straight up illegal, but since it's also made up, it's not really important. No dealer signs guns out to himself, goes to a gunshow and sells them privately as a general practice, or ATF would shut them down in a heart beat. There is no loophole, that's a work of fiction. The article you linked doesn't even make the claim that a licensed dealer is selling guns as private sales, unless it's in the video I didn't watch. In point of fact, a dealer that "signs a gun out to himself" cannot legally sell it privately for a year.

So yeah, as I said before, there are private sales at a gunshow, but it is nothing to do with a licensed dealer. An "unlicensed dealer" is in violation of the law.

[Grizzly Willy]

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.

I don't see how that answer is as clear as you perceive it to be, since reloading is a trivial movement. If you can show me that reloading would provide a sufficient amount of time to react, or show how it would help, I would be interested in seeing this information.

[Templar 331]

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 ----------



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.

I do agree with what your saying. We do need guns in our country. And government isn't doing this the right way. But in my opinion we don't need to be able to buy an arsenal if we wanted. We don't need weapons that can hold/fire more bullets. What do we need guns for? Protection and hunting. We don't need them for "fun". We don't need 30+ mags to protect ourselves or to hunt with. If you can't shoot the deer in the first few shots, you don't need 30 to hit him with. If you can't shoot an intruder with 10 rounds, your in some serious trouble. I'm not sure where you stand on these, I just poped in a few pages ago. But this is my view.

[Wells]

No dealer signs guns out to himself, goes to a gunshow and sells them privately as a general practice, or ATF would shut them down in a heart beat.

You are hilariously overestimating the ATF's reach.

[alturic]

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.

Wait a minute... regardless of it being a gun, that's the silliest thing I have heard. So I can sell you a gun for cash, wait a few hours and call the police stating my gun was stolen? You (buyer) then lose out on your money, probably goto jail and get a few citations. Hell, I'm assuming you (the seller) could even then sue the buyer for burglary or something as well. That's insane.

[Wells]

I don't see how that answer is as clear as you perceive it to be, since reloading is a trivial movement. If you can show me that reloading would provide a sufficient amount of time to react, or show how it would help, I would be interested in seeing this information.

Where you are sitting right now, what could you do in 10 seconds?

I could run to a room with a rather heavy door. I could grab my phone. I could actually leave the building. I could grab a knife from my kitchen (though that would be rather stupid).

I'm not saying its a huge thing. But its a minor level of control for a minor gain. As part of a greater package of changes it has its place.

[Laize]

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.

So you would willfully limit the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens in an effort to mildly inconvenience 2-3 mass shooters a year? An effect which might save 1 life per mass shooting? And that's assuming your assumption is based on evidence that magazine limitations help?

And to point out all "the things you could do in 10 seconds" is incredibly disingenuous as they're not 10 consecutive seconds and you know that.

So tell me... if there were 11 people in a room and a shooter bursts in and kills 10 of them, what could you do in the 1 second it takes him to change the mag?

[Wells]

So you would willfully limit the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens in an effort to mildly inconvenience 2-3 mass shooters a year? An effect which might save 1 life per mass shooting? And that's assuming your assumption is based on evidence that magazine limitations help?

Yeah I'm not going to get exactly broken up that you might have to reload after 10 rounds at the range instead of 30.

[Grizzly Willy]

Where you are sitting right now, what could you do in 10 seconds?

I could run to a room with a rather heavy door. I could grab my phone. I could actually leave the building. I could grab a knife from my kitchen (though that would be rather stupid).

I'm not saying its a huge thing. But its a minor level of control for a minor gain. As part of a greater package of changes it has its place.

Fair point. I still wonder how much of a difference reloading twice as often would be, but I suppose that would add up.

[alturic]

I swear to god I lose brain cells every time I read this shit.

yes let's only pass laws that criminals will obey.

That makes sense.

The one law criminals will obey is an outright ban on guns, although it would probably take 50+ years before you see any results form the ban considering very few people are going to give up something they own for free to the government.

[gr4vitas]

If this administration was really concerned with children dying and not just using them to push an agenda, they'd be looking at the real shit killing kids.

http://rehydrate.org/facts/child-deaths.htm

[Templar 331]

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.

Cyber bulling is becoming more of a crime to commit. So that is being taken care of. One person dieing from playing too much WoW is his own fault. And instead of banning cars, find out why people died in them. There are more and more safty features in cars today than years ago. I'm not saying ban guns. I'm just saying limit the availability of some guns and mags so it's more difficult to use them on people. You can't make a gun nonlethal. You can make a car safer.

[Svifnymr]

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.

I think CA does have a private-party transfer requirement, actually. Not 100% sure though.

Also note that it IS illegal to buy a gun for someone to avoid the background check for them (Straw Purchase), so accessory or not, you'd be going to jail if they actually prosecuted.

[Wells]

The one law criminals will obey is an outright ban on guns, although it would probably take 50+ years before you see any results form the ban considering very few people are going to give up something they own for free to the government.

That doesn't really address what I was saying. Its a stupid talking point that he spouted claiming that a law is no good because criminals will ignore it.

If we're actually operating under that logic then no law is a good law.

[alturic]

I do agree with what your saying. We do need guns in our country. And government isn't doing this the right way. But in my opinion we don't need to be able to buy an arsenal if we wanted. We don't need weapons that can hold/fire more bullets. What do we need guns for? Protection and hunting. We don't need them for "fun". We don't need 30+ mags to protect ourselves or to hunt with. If you can't shoot the deer in the first few shots, you don't need 30 to hit him with. If you can't shoot an intruder with 10 rounds, your in some serious trouble. I'm not sure where you stand on these, I just poped in a few pages ago. But this is my view.

The only thing I disagree with is why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen be able to shoot their gun for "fun". I'm unsure (I really laugh at people who on a whim say they will shoot someone who breaks into their house) if I could shoot someone with a gun, but if I ever bought one, I definitely would want to goto a range and shoot it... for fun and practice.

[Mwat1676]

I do agree with what your saying. We do need guns in our country. And government isn't doing this the right way. But in my opinion we don't need to be able to buy an arsenal if we wanted. We don't need weapons that can hold/fire more bullets. What do we need guns for? Protection and hunting. We don't need them for "fun". We don't need 30+ mags to protect ourselves or to hunt with. If you can't shoot the deer in the first few shots, you don't need 30 to hit him with. If you can't shoot an intruder with 10 rounds, your in some serious trouble. I'm not sure where you stand on these, I just poped in a few pages ago. But this is my view.

I agree, but to me its really not the point of if we NEED them, its that its our right to have them. Why willingly through that away?

[Grizzly Willy]

That doesn't really address what I was saying. Its a stupid talking point that he spouted claiming that a law is no good because criminals will ignore it.

If we're actually operating under that logic then no law is a good law.

Better legalize murder!

[Svifnymr]

You are hilariously overestimating the ATF's reach.

No I'm not, I've dealt with them before and I know how they operate. If you think ATF agents don't go to gunshows and don't know what's going on, then you should be campaigning to shut such an incompetent agency down, rather than just pulling random one-liners out of your ass.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Cyber bulling is becoming more of a crime to commit. So that is being taken care of. One person dieing from playing too much WoW is his own fault. And instead of banning cars, find out why people died in them. There are more and more safty features in cars today than years ago. I'm not saying ban guns. I'm just saying limit the availability of some guns and mags so it's more difficult to use them on people. You can't make a gun nonlethal. You can make a car safer.

But, people might still kill themselves due to the anonymous nature of the internet, and how accessible facebook is. So to save that one life, we should just ban facebook.

See, the real question is, how far are you willing to go to save that one life?