Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

America!

I don't know about the 17 thing though. I imagine that precludes combat roles.

in the USA it is 21 to drink, but 18 to get sent to a warzone to get legless anyway (IED joke).

[Deleted]

in the USA it is 21 to drink, but 18 to get sent to a warzone to get legless anyway (IED joke).

And prostitution illegal, unless you record it then it becomes "porn" and the hooker is transformed into an actress and the whole transaction is legal. Loopholes on top of loopholes, that's how US functions.

You needed to pass background checks at a purchase at the gun shop and waiting list, but why do that when your friend arround the corner is legally allowed to sell his guns with no such requirements or even pay tax like the gun shop.

Why repair and make sure your car is ready to pass the MOT when you can register it in that single state where MOT is not required. I'm sure it's a safe option.

And you can spend days wiriting such loopholes.

[smelltheglove]

The rock salts did hurt far more but the .22 cause much more damage as it had to be cut out of my back.

well, and rock salt is literally salt in the wound

[Svifnymr]

I don't know about the 17 thing though. I imagine that precludes combat roles.

Doesn't specify, though I'd imagine even if you enlist right at 17, you'll spend a long time in training and they can shuffle you around a bit before you're in any sort of active combat. That would probably be more of an unofficial thing though.

I had police officers that weren't 21 yet (age to buy a handgun), so had to bring a letter from the department to make the purchase (or could have had their parent or legal guardian purchase it for them).

---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 12:30 PM ----------

Wait - 18 for smokes but 21 for alcohol... And 17 to join the army?

Age for alcohol has fluctuated through the centuries here, but realistically any such age is mostly arbitrary anyway (not like you can test for maturity) and not like minors don't drink or smoke.

[Bimloc]

Guns are nothing more than tools. By themselves they can perform NO action. They require HUMAN interaction to operate.

To prove this point here is an easy example...

Put the most powerful, deadly assault rifle in a room with 100 people, load it with a 100 round magazine, then without anyone touching it watch as it kills everyone in the room. It can't, it requires people to operate it. Rather than making guns the problem, let focus on the real issue at hand. People...

I do believe that everyone who has an opinion on this matter basically just wants to stop the horrific violence that has plagued our country recently. So here are some realistic, real world ideas that may actually help us.

1. Tighten gun control laws by mandating Federal guidelines. Too many guns are purchased legally for illegal purposes at gun shows, then transported over state lines. Make a federal minimum guideline that can actually prohibit this from happening.

2. Require all gun owners to go through a lesser form of the pistol license back round check to be able to possess any firearm at all, pistol, rifle or shotgun. Require all purchases to be processed through the local police station, same as you have to do with pistols right now in NY. This will at first be a very hard pill to swallow, but after the initial problems, maintaining it will be much, much easier.

3. Require all Mental Health professionals to report all dangerous situations regarding their patients to the local police. Immediately, all legally owned guns of all forms need to be removed from that household until the person in question no longer resides there. Too many disturbed children get the weapons used in these killings from their own household.

4. Make the penalty for crimes involving weapons so harsh that no one wants to use a gun in a crime. In NY there is a law that mandates 1 yr in jail should you be caught with an illegal gun. Criminals who use guns do so with premeditation, from purchasing the illegal gun, to carrying it, to using it in the crime. Tougher laws will give criminals a moment of pause on whether the crime is worth the punishment. As it stands now the punishment is laughed at by these people. The best proof is if you look up the percentage of repeat offenders.

Regardless of your position, we as people needs to find realistic ways to stop the violence without infringing on people rights and protecting the public. This is not a time for closed minded positions who don't argue there point but simply keep regurgitating it. Make your point, argue your position, defend it, BUT don't close your mind.

[lockedout]

In most States you can drink and purchase smokes with military ID, regardless of age..same as in Canada

What states will sell you Liquor illegally just because you have a military ID?

---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 06:22 PM ----------

(not like you can test for maturity) and not like minors don't drink or smoke.

You can actually it's called a drivers license/ID.

[Zoranon]

One of the principal reasons why there is so much controversy about this issue is the fact that there is no middle ground in this debate. Neither side gains any benefit by compromising with the other one. Just take a look at the 1994 AWB. Did the pro-control lobbies such as Brady Center stop calling for more regulations? No they did not, since there are too many people on both sides that will campaign until all of their demands have been fulfilled. This really is the answer to those who ask why does not NRA, or other pro-gun lobbies attempt to compromise. The answer is brutally simple, because nothing can be achieved by compromising.

[Svifnymr]

You can actually it's called a drivers license/ID.

I didn't say "verify age", ignoring fake ID's, I said maturity. 18 is old enough to do X, 21 is old enough to do Y, but neither age means the individual is actually mature enough to responsibly drink or smoke. It's just an arbitrary age where society/ government says you're old enough now.

[Daerio]

Prohibition outlawed ALL alcohol.

Assault weapons bans outlaw a SUBSET of guns.

The two are not analogous at all.

Well it's cute that you have one anti-gun person comparing them to alcohol, then another saying, "Oh you can't compare them" after I respond. You can't have it both ways, what I said still stands - and it's true for 'bans' on personal freedoms of all kinds, which was my point.

[lockedout]

If we banned people guns wouldn't kill anyone.

[Catta]

If we banned people guns wouldn't kill anyone.

They would - just wouldnt do it as much with guns and it would be harder for them to kill.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I don't get why people are getting upset about banning certain kinds of guns. Civilians are barred from owning a plethora of guns and other weapons already. An ICBM is technically an armament and should be covered under the right to bear arms given that logic, no? Shouldn't people be getting upset about getting their right to own automatic weapons and tanks back?

[Grizzly Willy]

They would - just wouldnt do it as much with guns and it would be harder for them to kill.

Guns would be sentient without people?

[mistuhbull]

Guns would be sentient without people?

I suppose a chimp or Orangutan could figure out how to work a gun.

Not sure about loading it, but probably shoot it

[Catta]

Guns would be sentient without people?

No - would a bomb? Why not allow everyone to have bombs then?

Guns may not kill people - people kill people. But we don't have to make it easy for them.

[Grizzly Willy]

No - would a bomb? Why not allow everyone to have bombs then?

Guns may not kill people - people kill people. But we don't have to make it easy for them.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this.

[Daerio]

They would - just wouldnt do it as much with guns and it would be harder for them to kill.

I'm pretty sure you misread what he said, and you continue on this train of thought anyway.

[FusedMass]

I didn't think I'd see the day when progressives target people for blocking common sense Gun Reform but there it is. I have to admit the case is quite compelling. He's just repeating the point several, numerous posters have been making. You do not need an AR-15 to go hunting. One Bullet is all it should take. For those who don't know Mitch is up for re-election in 2014.

Article.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is airing a new ad beginning Monday that targets Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over his opposition to gun control. The group is spending at least $25,000 to air the ad in several Kentucky markets and Washington, D.C., for one week.

The ad stars Gary Nutt of Cub Run, Ky., who says, "I am a Vietnam vet and a hunter. I only shot my rifle one time this last season. One shot, one deer. But I'd be a pretty bad hunter if I needed an assault rifle to shoot that buck."

"I support the plan to ban assault weapons and keep 'em out of the wrong hands," he continues. "Because I know these guns. I know what they can do. The NRA and the gun manufacturers have given a ton of money to Senator Mitch McConnell."

"And now he's blocking reform. Senator, whose side are you on?" Run says to close the ad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

[Zoranon]

I didn't think I'd see the day when progressives target people for blocking common sense Gun Reform but there it is. I have to admit the case is quite compelling. He's just repeating the point several, numerous posters have been making. You do not need an AR-15 to go hunting. One Bullet is all it should take. For those who don't know Mitch is up for re-election in 2014.

Article.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is airing a new ad beginning Monday that targets Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over his opposition to gun control. The group is spending at least $25,000 to air the ad in several Kentucky markets and Washington, D.C., for one week.

The ad stars Gary Nutt of Cub Run, Ky., who says, "I am a Vietnam vet and a hunter. I only shot my rifle one time this last season. One shot, one deer. But I'd be a pretty bad hunter if I needed an assault rifle to shoot that buck."

"I support the plan to ban assault weapons and keep 'em out of the wrong hands," he continues. "Because I know these guns. I know what they can do. The NRA and the gun manufacturers have given a ton of money to Senator Mitch McConnell."

"And now he's blocking reform. Senator, whose side are you on?" Run says to close the ad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

What is exactly the point of bringing this up? Hunting forms only part of the second amendment defence as you well know, besides, with a budget of 25 grand, this initiative can at the best be described as irrelevant.

[FusedMass]

What is exactly the point of bringing this up? Hunting forms only part of the second amendment defence as you well know, besides, with a budget of 25 grand, this initiative can at the best be described as irrelevant.

The point is

A: Mitch is up for re-election in 2014. 55 percent of people in his own state do not approve of his is job. It's quite transparent he will lose to a Dem in an upcoming election

B: You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting. One Bullet is all you need. Shooting more into an open area in my humble point of view is reckless.

C: It shows the progressive action now starting to target those who are blocking common sense gun reform. Instead of hoping they will pass something. They are targeting people who are blocking it up

D: Money does not equal how a measure will pass. If that was true. Romney outspent Obama yet still lost the election despite a large gap in money.

I'm not sure why the money matters. But you asked so the purpose of bringing it up.