Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Altrec]

It wouldn't make the cut in my gun control world. But I hear what you're saying - and this kind of mass policy shift would start messy and only get worse. But the AR-15 is a perfect example of what we don't need - even though they are insanely fun to shoot.

AR-15 is a pretty effective and commonly used hunting rifle for coyotes and wild boar in addition to being fun to shoot. It just looks scary to some people.

[cubby]

AR-15 is a pretty effective and commonly used hunting rifle for coyotes and wild boar in addition to being fun to shoot. It just looks scary to some people.

I think it looks scary to people because it's essentially the M-14/16 for civilian use. At least it looks that way to people.

Hunting would be the toughest thing to regulate, imo, because for something animals that are necessary to hunt but also dangerous to hunt, you'd want a semi-auto for safety. Wild boars are nuts. So yeah - the legislation would start murky and just get worse.

[petej0]

Of course - I'm one of them. That was just a specific answer to Ghost - he gets his jibes in and I get mine.

Fair enough.

But they are the biggest. I really don't believe you on the gun control advocates holding up legislation. Maybe you don't think it's meaningful . . . . Do you have any examples to back up that claim?

Look at the laws that have been tried to pass. After sandy hook it was all about increased background checks, closing the "gun show loophole". Those are items I have no problem discussing but has no merit or solves the issue of the tragedy that just happened. So when you look at it with a critical eye, its like they are jumping on a tragedy just to get legislation passed. Any legislation to gain political points.

I'm having trouble, at this point, in taking you seriously any more. A computerized database is logical - they already have one in paper form, the NRA just prevents it from being computerized. I'm not sure, again at this point in our conversation, that you know what you're talking about.

Of course it is logical, but ask yourself why the NRA and other gun rights groups are against it. Then you have your answer.

No guns, no gun violence. Not a difficult concept - but one a LOT of people have trouble with. When was the last elementary school shooting, by a citizen, in Europe? That's what we should emulate.

I thought you werent for banning guns? I am confused as to what you are talking about then. Switzerland has lots of guns but no violence. How do you explain that concept?

So I guess we've established that you don't know what you're talking about. Great.

In what way?

- - - Updated - - -

I think it looks scary to people because it's essentially the M-14/16 for civilian use. At least it looks that way to people.

Hunting would be the toughest thing to regulate, imo, because for something animals that are necessary to hunt but also dangerous to hunt, you'd want a semi-auto for safety. Wild boars are nuts. So yeah - the legislation would start murky and just get worse.

I think you have to throw out terms like "Semi-Auto" because the public and even some politicians dont even know what that means.

[Casterbridge]

Of course it is logical, but ask yourself why the NRA and other gun rights groups are against it. Then you have your answer.

Personally I think the NRA is against it because they know a registration system like this will lower sales on guns, and since the NRA is pretty much a lobby group for gun manufactures they would be against such a thing.

I thought you werent for banning guns? I am confused as to what you are talking about then. Switzerland has lots of guns but no violence. How do you explain that concept?

Switzerland has a lot of guns but they also have incredibly strict gun control laws, even purchasing ammo is tracked over there, to the point where you can only buy ammo for guns you legally own and that's tracked and recorded almost like purchasing a gun. Guns over there don't flow nearly as freely as they do over here, even though they are still quite popular to my understanding. You also have a completely different economic and social system in Switzerland, it's also smaller as well, the country is quite a bit different than the US at the end of the day.

However it does show that a country can embrace firearms and be relatively safe with it.

I think you have to throw out terms like "Semi-Auto" because the public and even some politicians dont even know what that means.

Personally there's nothing wrong with owning an AR style weapon as opposed to any other semi-auto rifle at the end of the day, the main issue with these guns is the modifications that can be made to them, which can make them quite a bit more dangerous, easier increased mag capacity, bump stocks etc. Of course the question then becomes how big of a problem if the person is someone who has properly gone through the system and been vetted and can legally and proficiently own a gun with those modifications. As for people not liking them simply because they don't like how they look well that's a bit silly.

Sorry random thoughts injected into the conversation.

[petej0]

Switzerland has a lot of guns but they also have incredibly strict gun control laws, even purchasing ammo is tracked over there, to the point where you can only buy ammo for guns you legally own and that's tracked and recorded almost like purchasing a gun. Guns over there don't flow nearly as freely as they do over here, even though they are still quite popular to my understanding.

Yes, thats not the issue though. You dont have the mass shootings ending in suicide over in Switzerland because they, for some reason or another, have more value for life. Someone intent on shooting a bunch of people and then turning the gun on themself isnt worried about tracking and recording of purchases. So why is that the mentality we have in the US, but not in other countries?

Personally there's nothing wrong with owning an AR style weapon as opposed to any other semi-auto rifle at the end of the day, the main issue with these guns is the modifications that can be made to them, which can make them quite a bit more dangerous, easier increased mag capacity, bump stocks etc. Of course the question then becomes how big of a problem if the person is someone who has properly gone through the system and been vetted and can legally and proficiently own a gun with those modifications. As for people not liking them simply because they don't like how they look well that's a bit silly.

Any modifications to make any firearm more dangerous should be illegal. I wouldnt have issue with that. The problem isnt in making a law like that, its with enforcement. Someone who is intent on shooting up a busy McDonalds doesnt care if altering his handgun magazine to accept more rounds is illegal.

Sorry random thoughts injected into the conversation.

No need to be sorry, that is what this thread is for.

[BuckSparkles]

AR-15 is a pretty effective and commonly used hunting rifle for coyotes and wild boar in addition to being fun to shoot. It just looks scary to some people.

Plus the fact that main use in crime is a handgun, which is easier to hide transport, easier to maintain, and can often times be deadlier.

[cubby]

Look at the laws that have been tried to pass. After sandy hook it was all about increased background checks, closing the "gun show loophole". Those are items I have no problem discussing but has no merit or solves the issue of the tragedy that just happened. So when you look at it with a critical eye, its like they are jumping on a tragedy just to get legislation passed. Any legislation to gain political points.

Those are both very good and reasonable legislative paths. No idea why you would think otherwise. The goal isn't to immediately pass legislation that magically prevents another Sandyhook - the goal is to move forward, in any way, with reasonable rules to modernize our gun control laws. Increased background checks and closing gun show loopholes are both great starts.

Why do you think otherwise?

Of course it is logical, but ask yourself why the NRA and other gun rights groups are against it. Then you have your answer.

Lol - good point.

I thought you werent for banning guns? I am confused as to what you are talking about then. Switzerland has lots of guns but no violence. How do you explain that concept?

You haven't read what I've put out. We can't ban all guns - just the majority of them. European laws are good examples of how to do that. Switzerland and Europe have extremely reasonable gun laws with no gun violence.

That's how I explain it. They do it.

I think you have to throw out terms like "Semi-Auto" because the public and even some politicians dont even know what that means.

You could be correct - however, the difference between a 30.06 and an AR-15 is pretty clear, outside of them both being rifles. First is fine, the other has to go. However, I'm usually immediately ready to admit when I could use more information. Gimmie some help on exacting the definition of semi-auto/conversion.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus the fact that main use in crime is a handgun, which is easier to hide transport, easier to maintain, and can often times be deadlier.

Fuck me running if we aren't agreeing for the second time in a row. Have the planets aligned? Full moon? Run!

I think hand guns are the most used firearm in gun violence. That's why a national computerized tracking system is needed. Not that it would solve it - but it would help.

[lockedout]

You could be correct - however, the difference between a 30.06 and an AR-15 is pretty clear,

[Ghostpanther]

And there are plenty of people out there that feel gun-toting cleetus is so back-water stupid that any point of view they have isn't worth discussing because cleetus doesn't care about facts or logic. That point of view is still both accurate and valid - we see it almost daily. Of course the 2nd will never be repealed - it would take a monumental effort, and to what end? 37 states have to say yes, and I can name 20 right now that, at least for the next 10-20 years, will never rise to that level of intelligence.

So for now, we discuss alternate methods.

If the NRA could be stymied we'd have a chance at some real gun control legislation. Not necessarily "getting all the guns" but at least some chance at proper gun control - like every other civilized country.

- - - Updated - - -


- - - Updated - - -



You realize that what the 2nd Amendment means is entirely up to the Supreme Court, right? Not what you think it means, but what they say it means. They could easily rule that it doesn't include anything above [insert rule].




The NRA is not what you think it is - they are a horrific organization preventing the US from entering even the 20th century for gun control. The US doesn't even have a computerized database of guns used in crimes - because of the NRA.




An example we should emulate.

Level of intelligence is measured by those who agree or disagree with you? lol! You are better than that line of thinking.

I do not always agree with the NRA, but overall, they are a important advocate for gun rights.

Of course. Which is why they decided the right to keep and bare arms under the Second Amendment can be used as also the right to self defense using arms apart from a militia.

Na. I am for each country to decide how they want the laws to be in their country. They do not have a Second Amendment in their Constitution or Bill of rights, whatever they call it. So it is a mute comparison.

[Dextroden]

Those are both very good and reasonable legislative paths. No idea why you would think otherwise. The goal isn't to immediately pass legislation that magically prevents another Sandyhook - the goal is to move forward, in any way, with reasonable rules to modernize our gun control laws. Increased background checks and closing gun show loopholes are both great starts.

Why do you think otherwise?




Lol - good point.




You haven't read what I've put out. We can't ban all guns - just the majority of them. European laws are good examples of how to do that. Switzerland and Europe have extremely reasonable gun laws with no gun violence.

That's how I explain it. They do it.




You could be correct - however, the difference between a 30.06 and an AR-15 is pretty clear, outside of them both being rifles. First is fine, the other has to go. However, I'm usually immediately ready to admit when I could use more information. Gimmie some help on exacting the definition of semi-auto/conversion.

- - - Updated - - -



Fuck me running if we aren't agreeing for the second time in a row. Have the planets aligned? Full moon? Run!

I think hand guns are the most used firearm in gun violence. That's why a national computerized tracking system is needed. Not that it would solve it - but it would help.

No guns, no gun violence.

So, which is It? This is you very clearly stating no guns. Not less guns. No guns.

[Altrec]

Those are both very good and reasonable legislative paths. No idea why you would think otherwise. The goal isn't to immediately pass legislation that magically prevents another Sandyhook - the goal is to move forward, in any way, with reasonable rules to modernize our gun control laws. Increased background checks and closing gun show loopholes are both great starts.

Why do you think otherwise?

Probably because those legislative paths just make things more complicated, expensive, and time consuming for law abiding citizens while not doing anything to prevent similar events that spawned these legislative attempts. Had laws like the above been in effect and fully enforced Sandyhook still would have happened. Basically it boils down to trying to prevent house fires by making it more difficult to buy matches. Stupidly pointless and cumbersome laws are not the way to fix things in a reasonable way(assuming they can even be fixed).

[Ghostpanther]

It wouldn't make the cut in my gun control world. But I hear what you're saying - and this kind of mass policy shift would start messy and only get worse. But the AR-15 is a perfect example of what we don't need - even though they are insanely fun to shoot.

The Ar-14, 15 are nothing but a semi-auto rifle. Just because a weapon may look scary, does not mean it is any more effective than other weapons. I have shot them both, plus the M1, M14 and the SKS , Savage , rifles, and there are some nice benefits over some in terms of comfort, there is not much difference in their overall functions.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it looks scary to people because it's essentially the M-14/16 for civilian use. At least it looks that way to people.

Hunting would be the toughest thing to regulate, imo, because for something animals that are necessary to hunt but also dangerous to hunt, you'd want a semi-auto for safety. Wild boars are nuts. So yeah - the legislation would start murky and just get worse.

See, you admit it. They look scary. lol! Should we ban stuff because they appear to be scary? Halloween would be pretty boring if we do.

[Altrec]

You could be correct - however, the difference between a 30.06 and an AR-15 is pretty clear, outside of them both being rifles. First is fine, the other has to go. However, I'm usually immediately ready to admit when I could use more information. Gimmie some help on exacting the definition of semi-auto/conversion.

Wait.. Why is a 30.06 fine but an AR-15 not fine? My M1 Garand is a semi-auto 30.06 and was literally a military issue rifle whereas my AR-15 is not. At least you are willing to admit you need more information.

[Martymark]

I voted no on the poll even though I support an assault weapon ban. I'm OK with citizens owning pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

[Svifnymr]

The NRA is not what you think it is - they are a horrific organization preventing the US from entering even the 20th century for gun control. The US doesn't even have a computerized database of guns used in crimes - because of the NRA.

I'm having trouble, at this point, in taking you seriously any more. A computerized database is logical - they already have one in paper form, the NRA just prevents it from being computerized. I'm not sure, again at this point in our conversation, that you know what you're talking about.

They have a database for crime guns, the prohibition is on records related to purchase/ background checks.

[lockedout]

Wait.. Why is a 30.06 fine but an AR-15 not fine? My M1 Garand is a semi-auto 30.06 and was literally a military issue rifle whereas my AR-15 is not. At least you are willing to admit you need more information.

I think he meant bolt action with a 4 round mag or w/e they come with.

[Casterbridge]

Level of intelligence is measured by those who agree or disagree with you? lol! You are better than that line of thinking.

I do not always agree with the NRA, but overall, they are a important advocate for gun rights.

Of course. Which is why they decided the right to keep and bare arms under the Second Amendment can be used as also the right to self defense using arms apart from a militia.

Na. I am for each country to decide how they want the laws to be in their country. They do not have a Second Amendment in their Constitution or Bill of rights, whatever they call it. So it is a mute comparison.

I always find the Second Amendment defense weak as though it's some enshrined scripture that cannot be touched.

The Constitution is a living document, it is suppose to evolve with society, that's one of it's greatest strengths, it's the reason it has been changed throughout the years and not tossed out the window completely.

The document was created in such a way that it can be amended and changed, as long as the original principles hold true.

Saying that the Second Amendment can't be changed is silly it can, it probably should, we've changed things before and we will do so again, doesn't mean it needs to be thrown out the window completely though.

[Svifnymr]

Those are both very good and reasonable legislative paths. No idea why you would think otherwise. The goal isn't to immediately pass legislation that magically prevents another Sandyhook - the goal is to move forward, in any way, with reasonable rules to modernize our gun control laws. Increased background checks and closing gun show loopholes are both great starts.

Why do you think otherwise?

Your use of the phrase "gun show loophole" means you do not understand the actual law and are simply buying what the anti-gun crowd says. Or perhaps you're intentionally misrepresenting facts.

European laws are good examples of how to do that. Switzerland and Europe have extremely reasonable gun laws with no gun violence.

That's how I explain it. They do it.

The example of "European" gun laws is actually very different when compared to UK or Aus gun laws. While both UK and Aus have had near total bans, the rest of Europe's laws vary and in general are easier to own firearms than those two. No gun laws changed when Norway had a mass shooting, for instance. Comparing UK to other European nations, the extra restrictions the UK has don't offer any extra safety.

You could be correct - however, the difference between a 30.06 and an AR-15 is pretty clear, outside of them both being rifles. First is fine, the other has to go. However, I'm usually immediately ready to admit when I could use more information. Gimmie some help on exacting the definition of semi-auto/conversion.

30-06, 223, 308, these are calibers. 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, et cetera.
An AR15 is a style of semi-automatic rifle. It is available in 22lr, 9mm (the handgun rounds), 5.56, 7.62X39, 300blk, and larger variations under the AR10 labels and others.

A semi-auto 30-06 isn't common because the round is old. 308 is the replacement and is available in the AR10 version of the AR15. More recoil because it is a more powerful longer distance round. It is more powerful in every way than the 223 of an AR15.

- - - Updated - - -

The Ar-14

Stop saying AR14!!!!!

See, you admit it. They look scary. lol! Should we ban stuff because they appear to be scary? Halloween would be pretty boring if we do.

And yet, he's probably one of the guys that says a scary looking air-soft gun is no excuse for a cop to shoot... :-p

- - - Updated - - -

Wait.. Why is a 30.06 fine but an AR-15 not fine? My M1 Garand is a semi-auto 30.06 and was literally a military issue rifle whereas my AR-15 is not. At least you are willing to admit you need more information.

Let me tell ya, if you want to assault a guy, you need the big wooden stock and long ass bayonet of a Garand. You can't be smacking someone with an AR15!

Plus, the Garand uses clips! Almost all the gun-ban crowd want to get rid of clips, right?

(sidenote: I really want an International Harvester but don't have $ right now.

[cubby]

Level of intelligence is measured by those who agree or disagree with you? lol! You are better than that line of thinking.

I do not always agree with the NRA, but overall, they are a important advocate for gun rights.

Of course. Which is why they decided the right to keep and bare arms under the Second Amendment can be used as also the right to self defense using arms apart from a militia.

Na. I am for each country to decide how they want the laws to be in their country. They do not have a Second Amendment in their Constitution or Bill of rights, whatever they call it. So it is a mute moot comparison.

No - not all that disagree with me are stupid - far from it. However, there are many issues that have some pretty obvious solutions and points of view. But, let's not dive in that discussion here.

We appear to disagree on whether having a second amendment is important to comparing different country's laws. Let's just agree to disagree since there seems to be no ground for compromise.

- - - Updated - - -

They have a database for crime guns, the prohibition is on records related to purchase/ background checks.

But it's not computerized. It's 1970's technology using paper files and microfiche. It's embarrassing - and we have the most guns in the civilized world. Ridiculous. Thanks NRA!

- - - Updated - - -

So, which is It? This is you very clearly stating no guns. Not less guns. No guns.

Less guns. To be clear.

That quote was just a logic statement - no guns would equate with no gun crime - but it's a throwaway statement, because, well duh.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait.. Why is a 30.06 fine but an AR-15 not fine? My M1 Garand is a semi-auto 30.06 and was literally a military issue rifle whereas my AR-15 is not. At least you are willing to admit you need more information.

At this point I'm out of my league on guns. I don't know enough to advocate for this part of the policy. I think if you and I sat down, we'd disagree a LOT, but could maybe at least find some common ground. My bad on this point. Thanks for being civil - you could have raked me.

- - - Updated - - -

I think he meant bolt action with a 4 round mag or w/e they come with.

Something like this - yes. But again - ignorance prevails for me on the details of this issue.

- - - Updated - - -

I always find the Second Amendment defense weak as though it's some enshrined scripture that cannot be touched.

The Constitution is a living document, it is suppose to evolve with society, that's one of it's greatest strengths, it's the reason it has been changed throughout the years and not tossed out the window completely.

The document was created in such a way that it can be amended and changed, as long as the original principles hold true.

Saying that the Second Amendment can't be changed is silly it can, it probably should, we've changed things before and we will do so again, doesn't mean it needs to be thrown out the window completely though.

And I agree completely with you on this - saying it's untouchable is ridiculous. Saying not having one makes other country's law incomparable is likewise silly. You can always compare.

- - - Updated - - -

Your use of the phrase "gun show loophole" means you do not understand the actual law and are simply buying what the anti-gun crowd says. Or perhaps you're intentionally misrepresenting facts.

Then please explain how I do not understand. Because I'm pretty sure I do.

The example of "European" gun laws is actually very different when compared to UK or Aus gun laws. While both UK and Aus have had near total bans, the rest of Europe's laws vary and in general are easier to own firearms than those two. No gun laws changed when Norway had a mass shooting, for instance. Comparing UK to other European nations, the extra restrictions the UK has don't offer any extra safety.

The point still stands, however - better laws than the U.S. and less gun crime. Hence the emulation.

- - - Updated - - -

So, don't kill me on this question - but if I understand that's a 30.06 on an AR-15 platform. Could you eliminate the AR-15 platform altogether?

[Altrec]

So, don't kill me on this question - but if I understand that's a 30.06 on an AR-15 platform. Could you eliminate the AR-15 platform altogether?

30.06 is the type of ammo(caliber). The AR-15 is a type of rifle that can be made to fire different types of ammo. For example that one was setup to use 30.06
Technically speaking you could eliminate the AR-15 platform(not that there is a good reason to), but there are plenty of other rifles out there that can do similar things that nobody bats an eye at because they don't "look scary". The biggest hurdle gun control advocates have in getting what they want is a complete lack of understanding on the topic which leads to very arbitrary rules and regulations, and by the time they get all of the relevant info and experience to make logically consistent laws they are often times are less assured of their position.