Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

The round ejected on the video was much larger, I am pretty certain is was a semi auto shotgun, hence the reason they were working the cocking handle on the side. Also look at 15 seconds in on the video, pretty sure those are shotgun cartridges.

Didn't they say they found a Saiga 12 in the trunk of his car ?

[Deleted]

Didn't they say they found a Saiga 12 in the trunk of his car ?

They still have not confirmed anything, the story keeps changing. I am 100% certain that the weapon in the videos posted was not an AR though.

[Extrazero8]

Its interesting. The Deadline for said Cliff expires this upcoming Tuesday. I never said a ban on guns. I said a ban on assault weapons.

Now look whos playing word games.

In either case they will try.

Well we tried guys. If it wasn't for those evil conservatives we would have won. Vote for me so they don't keep winning.

The Dems control the White House. A majority of the senate.

They don't have a filibuster proof majority.

If they were somehow to win the House they would be able to sign any bill they want.

How many pro-gun rights Dems in the house can't afford to support something like this? Why would any republican support something like this and risk a primary challenge?

Republicans lost badly in the last election. Losing both Flordia and Ohio states that have went red in the past.

meaningless.

I only state that because even according to a CNN Poll Obama has the highest approval rating in years. People re-elected him knowing his position. You keep saying Liberals when Mitt Romney in his state as Gov signed a bill that would ban assault weapons. Its not like no dems own guns either. They do. This isn't a liberal issue. Its an American issue.

I agree. I'm a liberal Democrat. I voted for Obama. I didn't vote for him to take away even a part of my gun rights. A lot of pro-gun rights Dems voted for Obama. Many of us are switching sides next election.

If you don't believe me then look up what happened in 1994 and 1996. They got their asses kicked last time they tried a gun ban and this time its going to be worse.

[GreatOak]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gun...2/27/id/469205



Important to note for anyone who wants to know the attitude of the nation

I'm inclined to agree. Bans aren't the answer and are fucking stupid and impractical.

More background checks, training, enforced locks, harsher punishments for not reporting stolen guns, and eliminating private loopholes

Switzerland is a good model

[SirRobin]

But I don't want the bad with the good. Just like I wouldn't vote for a bill that gave money to schools if it had an addendum that let corporations dump toxic waste in city sewers. I'd want to wait for a bill that had only good, or at least one that had a small enough level of bad that I could stomach. The FAWB isn't that, even if they add the items that I'd want.

The FAWB can be though. It can be updated and improved. We've passed the point where "wait" is anywhere near as big an option anymore. Whether you are a democrat or a republican or neither? Pro-gun has had eight years of "wait." The cost of waiting is just getting too high.

Yes, well, I'm as ticked off with Republican politicians with pro-gun blinders as I am with Democratic politicians with anti-gun blinders. Like I said before, I'm a Democrat. I voted for Obama. I just don't agree with a FAWB.

Then get another democrat to stand up. LaPierre certainly didn't helping your case.

Honestly, the legality of how these weapons were obtained is largely irrelevant. Nobody is really trying to argue that mass killings are commonly the work of hardened criminals. Mass killings are are the work of the insane. You never see it coming. And if the people around the gunman don't see it coming, then a background check can't, either. We've covered this territory.

How they obtained the firearms is completely relevant. That is part of what makes mass shootings so outrageous. We have covered this territory. Over and over again. The result is always the same. We cannot make mass shootings impossible. Yet we can make it harder for mass shooters to kill as many as they do. One option is more guards in schools. However, since mass shootings don't just happen in schools? Well, we would need a lot of guards. Talk about turning this country into a police state. Put an armed cop or security guard on every corner and see where that leads us.

Another option is to restrict the mass shooters' access to the kinds of weapons that make it easier for them to kill people. Automatics have been tightly controlled since the thirties. Maybe it actually is time for semiautomatics to join them. Its pretty obvious that the gun controls we have are not sufficient. Nothing says that Federal Assault Weapons Ban can only be semiautomatic rifles with cosmetic similarities to assault rifles either. The TEC-9 was in the FAWB and it is a semiautomatic handgun after all.

And I'm sure they do. You know, the normal thing you'd want to see when someone does something horrible: accountability for the perpetrator. Only in most of these cases, the perpetrator commits suicide, leaving nobody to blame. So people tend to blame the tool instead, and talk about blanket bans.

Not just accountability, but responsibility as well. If you keep seeing people do something wrong, you not only want them punished, you want to make it harder for them to keep doing it.

Funny, I don't remember the part of the Constitution that says "Death to the Brits!"

Emotion definitely had its place in how this country came to be, but the writing of the Constitution came later. In fact, for such a time, right after a massive revolution, the Constitution is a remarkably sober, forward-thinking piece of reason and logic. The framers of the Constitution didn't let themselves be driven by fear.

Not sure why you're saying that since you know the Constitution came after this country was born. "Give me liberty or give me death," ring a bell? Emotion-driven hardly needs fear. Anger works quite well too and there was a lot of anger going on around this country's birth.

The proposed ban, against which I'm arguing, happens to be an assault weapons ban, not a semi-automatic weapons ban. The statement I made was relevant to that argument.

However, the FAWB also included the TEC-9, a semiautomatic "handgun." Nor does your statement include casualties from each. Bringing a firearm is no guarantee that it will actually be fired. Sandy Hook is a perfect example. The MotherJones website shows two semiautomatic handguns, a shotgun, and an assault weapon. However, Adam Lanza left the shotgun in the car. Just as, last I recall, we don't know how much the handguns were used. So while your statement is relevant as far as which weapons show up at the mass shootings. Yet wouldn't it be more helpful to know which are actually used the most during the mass shootings.

As I said, we have no idea how accessible the firearms really were. Being committed doesn't necessarily mean you're a psycho killer. Just because she tried to have her son committed doesn't mean she expected him to be a significant danger to himself or others. Or maybe she really was just a horribly negligent person and we should blame her for the deaths. If you think that she utterly failed to protect the gun, then the weak link in this blame-chain should be her, not the weapon itself.

The allowed accessibility to the weapon is the weak link. I keep my tools sufficiently secured not only because I don't want anyone walking off with them without my permission. I also don't want anyone even getting to them without my permission either. If she were required to keep the weapon secured to a degree that kept Adam from accessing them, either through some sort of security system or keeping them offsite, then as a law abiding gun owner she would have done that.

I know we don't require that nationally, part of the problem in my opinion. Does Connecticut?

Your repeated arguments imply that you don't think anything short of an outright ban will be at all effective. Seems awfully defeatist to me.

Since I've brought up other options and mentioned, repeatedly, that an "outright ban" may not be required. I'm not sure where you are getting defeatist from.

Understand the difference between "limiting" and "eliminating". If the argument was for banning all firearms, then the word would be "eliminating". What you're talking about, a selective ban, is "limiting". Whether it's a legal limitation or not is up to the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but it's still a limitation.

Its still not limiting because the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the type or number of arms you are allowed. Unless you are comparing it to the strict controls on automatics of course. In that case, well, your 2nd Amendment rights are already limited.

The only thing worse than ignoring is a smoke-screen, making you think that something is going to help control gun crime when it won't. For the only significant federal gun control legislation to come about to be an ineffective AWB is just... insulting. It punishes too many of the wrong people and doesn't significantly hamper the ones it should; all while making the average Joe think that the right thing is being done.

Its hardly a smokescreen. We actually have significant federal gun control legislation besides the FAWB. Its just become tragically obvious that what we have is insufficient. So we are looking for sufficient.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 02:31 PM ----------

From an outside perspective what I have the hardest time wrapping my head around is why anyone think they need a semi automatic rifle based on a military grade assault rifle.
Self defense, hunting kinda flies out the window. Target shooting? Hmm sure, I would think it was fun too but at the cost of having these easily modified weapons getting into the wrong hands or in the hands of criminals no-no.

It has nothing to do with need. It has everything to do with want. That is what makes it all the more, well, embarrassing.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 02:32 PM ----------

Not sure if anyone has seen this or not. since there are so many pages on this I could have missed it.

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495

Outdated, we know he used the semiautomatic rifle by now.

[FusedMass]

Now look whos playing word games.

Its not word games. People mistakenly believe we are out to take away all their weapons. When its just one and its for safety of the public.

Well we tried guys. If it wasn't for those evil conservatives we would have won. Vote for me so they don't keep winning.

You are predicting the outcome. Can we at least wait for them to file the papers and see where it lands up. Or should we take your good word that nothing will happen. I like to see at least what happens. Not just Dems but some Republicans also support the measure.

They don't have a filibuster proof majority.

Actually..they do. Harry Reid has said on Jan 1st. Hes reforming the senate rules.

Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2088767.html

How many pro-gun rights Dems in the house can't afford to support something like this? Why would any republican support something like this and risk a primary challenge?

meaningless.

I agree. I'm a liberal Democrat. I voted for Obama. I didn't vote for him to take away even a part of my gun rights. A lot of pro-gun rights Dems voted for Obama. Many of us are switching sides next election.

If you don't believe me then look up what happened in 1994 and 1996. They got their asses kicked last time they tried a gun ban and this time its going to be worse.

Hes not taking away your gun rights. This was a weapon that was banned in the past and it should have stayed that way. Its a legal loophole for example to buy guns at a gun show with virtually nothing expect cash changing hands to address that. These weapons are of murder. No hunters I know takes a few of these in the woods.

They were used in high profile mass killings. You know the one that killed 20 kids. 7 Adults. I would almost say thats worst mass murder in American History because it involved children. The kid who did those shootings used AR-15. Had that weapon not been in place. Those fire fighters. Those kids and some people in movies might still be alive.

[SirRobin]

I looked at every, absolutely every post here... 225 pages. Wow... dont know what to say, I'm no american but I have a question.

Why do you need a gun ? You have police in the USA.

I guess a Hunter would need a gun, atleast if he wants to shoot something and not wrestle with it... but ... is there any other reason for you ?

I dont fear to be "stripped" of my rights, even without a gun, I wouldn't know what to do with this piece of metal.

There are various reasons why some Americans want to own a firearm. We have tazers now so its hardly like we have to have them for self defense or anything. Hunting is a reason but its hardly a big one. The biggest reason some Americans want to have guns is because, well, they want to have guns. Its a tradition, so to speak, dating back over two centuries. Not exactly the best reason, perhaps, but its still a valid one.

[Wells]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gun...2/27/id/469205



Important to note for anyone who wants to know the attitude of the nation

I'm inclined to agree. Bans aren't the answer and are fucking stupid and impractical.

More background checks, training, enforced locks, harsher punishments for not reporting stolen guns, and eliminating private loopholes

Switzerland is a good model

Switzerland also conscripts their army.

[SirRobin]

the average time of arrival to the scene is roughly 30 minutes, better have a firearm.

Source? Better get a tazer.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 02:51 PM ----------

if i could figure out how to post pics >.< i would so ill will just link you my rifle which also has cartridges on the stock. just about any rifle can do it.

http://s1154.beta.photobucket.com/us...tml?sort=3&o=6

Here: http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/s...hmaster-ar-15/

[Kalyyn]

These weapons are of murder. No hunters I know takes a few of these in the woods.

1. Do you actually know anyone who frequently hunts for sport?

2. I own two semi-automatic rifles which your lot would (incorrectly) label as assault weapons. Now I don't much care for hunting, but I've certainly never murdered anyone with my "weapons of murder".

[SirRobin]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gun...2/27/id/469205



Important to note for anyone who wants to know the attitude of the nation

I'm inclined to agree. Bans aren't the answer and are fucking stupid and impractical.

More background checks, training, enforced locks, harsher punishments for not reporting stolen guns, and eliminating private loopholes

Switzerland is a good model

I like their healthcare too.

[Elian]

a clear example of a city with gun bans

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-regist...135713086.html

[FusedMass]

1. Do you actually know anyone who frequently hunts for sport?

2. I own two semi-automatic rifles which your lot would (incorrectly) label as assault weapons. Now I don't much care for hunting, but I've certainly never murdered anyone with my "weapons of murder".

I call them weapons of murder. Because some people hate the term Military Assault Rifle. Even though Obama himself said those exact words in the video on the first page of the thread. Also because besides hunting that's what they are used for?

Pause for a moment. Does a hunter bring an AR-15 or a Long Ranged Rifle with a Scope to hunt. I was under the impression noise scares away animals. So AR-15 releasing more bullets in more time..equals..more noise.

You pretty much openly admitted besides hunting you do not use that weapon. Mind if I ask why you need an AR-15 for again then?

[xylophone]

The round ejected on the video was much larger, I am pretty certain is was a semi auto shotgun, hence the reason they were working the cocking handle on the side. Also look at 15 seconds in on the video, pretty sure those are shotgun cartridges.

Looks like a Saiga 12g to me.

[Kalyyn]

Pause for a moment. Does a hunter bring an AR-15 or a Long Ranged Rifle with a Scope to hunt. I was under the impression noise scares away animals. So AR-15 releasing more bullets in more time..equals..more noise.

Like any other semi-automatic weapon, an AR-15 only fires as many rounds as you want it to fire. You squeeze the trigger, you fire one shot. It fires exactly as fast as any hunting rifle.

You pretty much openly admitted besides hunting you do not use that weapon. Mind if I ask why you need an AR-15 for again then?

I don't think you actually understand the difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-automatic hunting rifle. To be fair, most of the politicians in Washington don't know the difference either, so that's understandable.

I'm going to try to clear up your misconception, so please keep an open mind here. This is the sort of hunting rifle you were talking about.


This is the "military assault rifle" you're trying to get banned.



Now, a gun enthusiast could give you an entire list of differences between the two models like fps, bullet drop, chamber size, and that sort of thing, but for practical purposes, these rifles only have 3 main differences.

1. Wooden finish / black matte finish (purely aesthetic)
2. No pistol grip / pistol grip (for comfort)
3. fixed stock / collapsible stock (for easy storage and comfort)

The both have the same rate of fire (however fast you can pull the trigger). One is no more deadly than the other.

So you can see why I would be confused when you tell me that I can own one, but not the other, right?

[SirRobin]

Which is why semiautomatics are questionable. Its hardly like you can't hunt with a bolt-action.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 03:15 PM ----------

Switzerland also conscripts their army.

I don't actually see that as a particularly bad thing. Would probably do this country of more people had to serve.

[xylophone]

Which is why semiautomatics are questionable. Its hardly like you can't hunt with a bolt-action.

Good luck with that. Semi-automatic ban is never going to happen.

[FusedMass]

Like any other semi-automatic weapon, an AR-15 only fires as many rounds as you want it to fire. You squeeze the trigger, you fire one shot. It fires exactly as fast as any hunting rifle.



I don't think you actually understand the difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-automatic hunting rifle. To be fair, most of the politicians in Washington don't know the difference either, so that's understandable.

I'm going to try to clear up your misconception, so please keep an open mind here. This is the sort of hunting rifle you were talking about.


This is the "military assault rifle" you're trying to get banned.



Now, a gun enthusiast could give you an entire list of differences between the two models like fps, bullet drop, chamber size, and that sort of thing, but for practical purposes, these rifles only have 3 main differences.

1. Wooden finish / black matte finish (purely aesthetic)
2. No pistol grip / pistol grip (for comfort)
3. fixed stock / collapsible stock (for easy storage)

The both have the same rate of fire (however fast you can pull the trigger). One is no more deadly than the other.

So you can see why I would be confused when you tell me that I can own one, but not the other, right?

In the picture above. I can see a massive difference. For example a rifle doesn't have a magazine clip that can hold lets say that many rounds. It looks pretty certain that an AR-15. An Assault Rifle does. I know some gun fanatics do not really agree with that term. However the President has said it and most of the websites even selling the product boast about it the term.

You still really never answered my question on what exactly you NEED the weapon for. You have a right to a rifle but not the other one. I'm sure you are aware most assult rifles you can easily modify almost everything about them which why makes them so dangerous. If you would please be so kind to answer my question why you need this weapon.

And I personally am not trying to get it banned. Like everyone else. I watched the news and simply reported the facts on here.

[Kalyyn]

Which is why semiautomatics are questionable. Its hardly like you can't hunt with a bolt-action.

The gun control lobby is asking for required training for gun licenses, right? Something I actually support by the way. But I eight weeks of training where I learned more than I ever wanted to know about rifles when I joined the reserve. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to own a few just because I enjoy them.

[Deleted]

Source? Better get a tazer.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 02:51 PM ----------



Here: http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/s...hmaster-ar-15/

So he used the AR for the bulk of the killing, but kept the shotgun in the trunk? Explains the video's being posted.