Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Could you give a link of any this because I never heard of it sounds like paranoia. They don't need to pull AR15 owners databases to do ballistic testings

They knew folks were getting shot with a 5.56, they had bullets but no gun. So they went through the records to find who had guns and then took them for testing. Recall that they were busy looking for a white man because that's what their profile said it should be.

second going from house to house in search of suspect is standard police procedure not sure what you mean pulling people out of their houses. They were searching for armed suspects they asked people to step out and help in the search yes with guns pointed out like you do when you are looking for dangerous people.

Did you really not see the Boston marathon bombing aftermath when they thought the guy was in this neighborhood, so they pulled everyone out, house by house and searched? He was in a boat in a backyard, someone called and told them I believe. In the meantime they did random searches of private residences with no real direction or evidence.

[Draco-Onis]

They knew folks were getting shot with a 5.56, they had bullets but no gun. So they went through the records to find who had guns and then took them for testing. Recall that they were busy looking for a white man because that's what their profile said it should be.

Again source you think the entire security apparatus couldn't get their hands on guns? really now? Also if you recall they did not identify their race until later and they had pictures of the suspects so they weren't just looking for a white guy as you said.

Did you really not see the Boston marathon bombing aftermath when they thought the guy was in this neighborhood, so they pulled everyone out, house by house and searched? He was in a boat in a backyard, someone called and told them I believe. In the meantime they did random searches of private residences with no real direction or evidence.

Do you not understand or know how manhunts work?

[Svifnymr]

Your dark repulsive fear is that guns will be taken away and anyone protecting that regardless of their views is a net good. I withhold judgement until something passes we have been through this before and nothing got done the NRA made sure those died.

Understand that the gun control agenda is generally pushed by politicians from NY and CA. Look at their laws. Look at the statements of Schumer/ Feinstein, they want to ban most guns, they even publicly admit to feeling they can't ban everything so they will chip away at everything they can.

Yes, the NRA is always pushing this idea that more laws are coming, so renew your membership NOW! But, when the gun control advocates are also always pushing for gun control anytime they can get a spotlight and weave their rhetoric into the public domain (look at Anytown for Gun Safety's oft-quoted "18 school shootings" narrative), the NRA is not wrong that there is a constant threat.

[misterpuk]

Even the ACLU was ok with the Boston sweeps. That's a key distinction here - a sweep of a residence does not constitue a search, much less an illegal one.

Good read on the subject here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/201...nter_your.html

[Svifnymr]

Again source you think the entire security apparatus couldn't get their hands on guns? really now? Also if you recall they did not identify their race until later and they had pictures of the suspects so they weren't just looking for a white guy as you said.

security apparatus? They didn't take guns to use, they took them to run ballistics tests to determine if any were the one used in the shootings.

I can't find that part, but I can't believe you didn't remember they figured it was a white guy?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ed-search.html

Do you not understand or know how manhunts work?

Yes I do, they may lock down an area, they may pull dogs out and follow a trail.

Generally, they do not go door to door through a city that they think maybe the guy is in, pulling every resident out at gun point, making them stand in the street while they search their house, yard, garage and everything. They did not track the guy to a house and look in that house. They knew he headed in a direction so they just started random searches.

And as I said, the guy was found via a guy that noticed blood on his boat and called it in, the searches produced nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Even the ACLU was ok with the Boston sweeps. That's a key distinction here - a sweep of a residence does not constitue a search, much less an illegal one.

Good read on the subject here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/201...nter_your.html

Everyone consented to being searched as far as I know, so there's nothing to debate about it, really. The simple fact is, you can't "sweep" a house with no actual information that the sweep might be needed for immediate safety concerns. I love the line in there "a warrant could be gotten quickly", and I don't doubt it, but what is the CAUSE. "Guy said we couldn't search his house" isn't probably cause to search a house. A sweep is a search when you're entering someones house without permission. If you're chasing someone into a structure and you're looking for him with immediate cause, that's when a "sweep" vs a "search" comes into play.

My point is, the system is supposed to be targeted. Not random or all encompassing. Both cases I mentioned were very stressful public events, so it shows.

[Draco-Onis]

security apparatus? They didn't take guns to use, they took them to run ballistics tests to determine if any were the one used in the shootings.

I can't find that part, but I can't believe you didn't remember they figured it was a white guy?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ed-search.html

You are basically saying that the police, FBI and all those 3 letter agencies running around couldn't get their hands on guns in a country with more gun shops than McDonalds.

Yes I do, they may lock down an area, they may pull dogs out and follow a trail.

Generally, they do not go door to door through a city that they think maybe the guy is in, pulling every resident out at gun point, making them stand in the street while they search their house, yard, garage and everything. They did not track the guy to a house and look in that house. They knew he headed in a direction so they just started random searches.

And as I said, the guy was found via a guy that noticed blood on his boat and called it in, the searches produced nothing.

Door to door searches have been done in the past and there is procedure for it not sure why you are shell shocked by this. They followed the law and this is not a new law owners have the right to refuse except in exigent circumstances such as a terrorist attack. The ACLU looked into this and found no fault also it is not clear anyone refused or felt wrong that were involved.

[misterpuk]

I think we just really need funding to secure the schools. It won't be cheap, but we need to do it.

Good starting point here:
https://us.allegion.com/content/dam/...ure_109078.pdf

[Ghostpanther]

It always appears to only be open minded from one direction. People opposing gun control seem not open to any new idea - killed before it can even be tried out.

That is not true cubby. I was even wiling to agree to a same type of system for driver's license/car ownership and firearm license/gun ownership and you went beyond it and wanted to make it harder than it is for owing a car. Don't you remember when I bought up the fact if I only use my car on my property, then I do not need a driver's license, you wanted to make it so I had to still have a firearm license if I only kept my firearm on my property?

What compromise did you ever suggest?

- - - Updated - - -

I think we just really need funding to secure the schools. It won't be cheap, but we need to do it.

Good starting point here:
https://us.allegion.com/content/dam/...ure_109078.pdf

I agree those are good starting steps to take. But what are you going to do if a shooter infiltrate's a school's system?

[Svifnymr]

You are basically saying that the police, FBI and all those 3 letter agencies running around couldn't get their hands on guns in a country with more gun shops than McDonalds.

You're not understanding what I'm typing...
The CIATFBI didn't need to get a rifle for their use, they brought their own. They went to the records of those who had purchased a 223 rifle, then went to these peoples houses to get that gun to test it for ballistics to match it against the recovered bullets from the victims. They had no clues, so they went for the wide net of accusing everybody and asking innocent people for alibis.

Door to door searches have been done in the past and there is procedure for it not sure why you are shell shocked by this. They followed the law and this is not a new law owners have the right to refuse except in exigent circumstances such as a terrorist attack. The ACLU looked into this and found no fault also it is not clear anyone refused or felt wrong that were involved.

The ACLU had nothing to fight, no one as far as I know refused or was coerced directly. Just asked politely to exit the house with their hands up by a team of armored guys with guns, and can they look around for a few minutes.

Maybe this does happen more often and I've just not heard of such a broad, non-targeted random approach to such a thing. I certainly don't view it as normal, but oh well.

[cubby]

That is not true cubby. I was even wiling to agree to a same type of system for driver's license/car ownership and firearm license/gun ownership and you went beyond it and wanted to make it harder than it is for owing a car. Don't you remember when I bought up the fact if I only use my car on my property, then I do not need a driver's license, you wanted to make it so I had to still have a firearm license if I only kept my firearm on my property?

I do, and I remember it was like pulling teeth, and in the end we didn't agree, because you rejected the idea that people use their cars almost always off property. What we'd be looking to do is for anyone that wanted to operate a firearm, they would have to go through the same general requirements as operating a vehicle.

And not just CWL - I mean getting a firearm - period.

Are you saying you're now ok with that?

What compromise did you ever suggest?

All of them, Ghost - every single one. What compromise did you ever suggest?

[Ghostpanther]

I do, and I remember it was like pulling teeth, and in the end we didn't agree, because you rejected the idea that people use their cars almost always off property. What we'd be looking to do is for anyone that wanted to operate a firearm, they would have to go through the same general requirements as operating a vehicle.

And not just CWL - I mean getting a firearm - period.

Are you saying you're now ok with that?




All of them, Ghost - every single one. What compromise did you ever suggest?

I rejected the idea that people always use their cars off property. Because it is not true. In the great majority of the cases they would of course and if I was to take my firearm off my property, I would expect more limitations. What I accepted was the agreement if I only keep and use my firearm on my property , then no firearm use license would be needed.

I have no issue with registering a firearm when you buy one, just like you have to have a title for a car. But you do not need plates for the car unless you drive it on public roads. A driver's license would be required if I drive the car on public roads. Not if I do not. That is how it is now. But trying to require all 300+ million firearms to be registered now would be a failed project. I mean, how would you enforce it? New purchases, yeah.

The one we are discussing now and have in the past. lol!

[cubby]

I rejected the idea that people always use their cars off property. Because it is not true. In the great majority of the cases they would of course and if I was to take my firearm off my property, I would expect more limitations. What I accepted was the agreement if I only keep and use my firearm on my property , then no firearm use license would be needed.

I have no issue with registering a firearm when you buy one, just like you have to have a title for a car. But you do not need plates for the car unless you drive it on public roads. A driver's license would be required if I drive the car on public roads. Not if I do not. That is how it is now. But trying to require all 300+ million firearms to be registered now would be a failed project. I mean, how would you enforce it? New purchases, yeah.

Then we're talking about regulations for anyone purchasing a firearm, right? I just want to be clear.

If so, then let's use the same requirements:

Test
Training
Current license (and updating as necessary)

What would you add?

I agree that one of the biggest issues we face as a country are the existing, unregistered firearms. I don't even know where to begin on that.

[misterpuk]

There's no such requirements to buy a car.

I am free to purchase a car currently and place it in my home. I do not need a test, training, nor a license to purchase a car. I don't even need a background check

So as long as I don't use it, you're ok if I buy a gun and keep it at home? No test. training or license required? No check either?

[Ghostpanther]

Then we're talking about regulations for anyone purchasing a firearm, right? I just want to be clear.

If so, then let's use the same requirements:

Test
Training
Current license (and updating as necessary)

What would you add?

I agree that one of the biggest issues we face as a country are the existing, unregistered firearms. I don't even know where to begin on that.

I do not have any objections to those. Test, Training, Registering,etc. for new firearm purchases. But you do not need those to purchase a car. You do if you are getting a driver's license and in my state, if I want to carry a firearm concealed, ( in public ) my training is much more involved than it is for a driver's license. And much more expensive. :P Cost me 125 dollars to get my CHL license. I think the last time I got a driver's license when I first got one here was less than 30 dollars.

So if you agree with this and understand there is a different requirements concerning cars, in what we have to by law, depending on how we use one. Then the same principle could be applied to firearms. With the exception of taking a safety and training instructions for first time buyers of firearms. No need if you just bought one, say a few months ago. Registering it, yeah. Like we need a title to a car even if we never plan on driving it on the road.

[cubby]

I do not have any objections to those. Test, Training, Registering,etc. for new firearm purchases. But you do not need those to purchase a car. You do if you are getting a driver's license and in my state, if I want to carry a firearm concealed, ( in public ) my training is much more involved than it is for a driver's license. And much more expensive. :P Cost me 125 dollars to get my CHL license. I think the last time I got a driver's license when I first got one here was less than 30 dollars.

So if you agree with this and understand there is a different requirements concerning cars, in what we have to by law, depending on how we use one.

We're never going to entirely agree on this particular point - mainly because these two examples don't match up perfectly. The problem is that most people use their cars off property, while most people have their firearms on property - rarely taking them off. Am I getting that right, from your perspective - even if a little bit?

Then the same principle could be applied to firearms. With the exception of taking a safety and training instructions for first time buyers of firearms. No need if you just bought one, say a few months ago. Registering it, yeah. Like we need a title to a car even if we never plan on driving it on the road.

We have found some agreement, in the sense that purchasing a firearm for the first time would require instructions for first time purchasers, along with anyone who currently owns one - unless they've already taken a class. And certainly after taking instructions for one, you would not have to take further instruction for a second/third/etc.

I would also suggest that to operate a firearm, and for you I'll add this, off your own property, would require a license. Not just a CWL - but anytime: range, hunting, etc. How does that sound to you?

[Ghostpanther]

We're never going to entirely agree on this particular point - mainly because these two examples don't match up perfectly. The problem is that most people use their cars off property, while most people have their firearms on property - rarely taking them off. Am I getting that right, from your perspective - even if a little bit?




We have found some agreement, in the sense that purchasing a firearm for the first time would require instructions for first time purchasers, along with anyone who currently owns one - unless they've already taken a class. And certainly after taking instructions for one, you would not have to take further instruction for a second/third/etc.

I would also suggest that to operate a firearm, and for you I'll add this, off your own property, would require a license. Not just a CWL - but anytime: range, hunting, etc. How does that sound to you?

First sentence. It makes no difference if the same rules are applied.

I have no objections to that with the exception of going to a range or hunting on private property. The firearm in that case in Ohio, the firearm and ammo has to be stored separately in a vehicle , with one of them locked up for transporting to a range anyway. The one exception is if you have a CHL ( Conceal Handgun License ) a handgun does not have to. But rifles still do.

I mean think about it. How you going to get your firearm to your property after you buy it if you only plan on keeping it on your property? And what if you want to hunt at a family or friends private property someplace? I mean now, I need a hunting license to hunt even on my own property. But that is easy to get as getting a fishing license.

[cubby]

First sentence. It makes no difference if the same rules are applied.

I have no objections to that with the exception of going to a range or hunting on private property. The firearm in that case in Ohio, the firearm and ammo has to be stored separately in a vehicle , with one of them locked up for transporting to a range anyway. The one exception is if you have a CHL ( Conceal Handgun License ) a handgun does not have to. But rifles still do.

Well we need people to take instructions and get certified (in some way) to safely use the firearm, so they are already going to have to do something. Registering the firearm, and then verifying class/instructions would do it - so people would still be able to purchase a firearm and take it home the same day, so to speak.

Btw - where are we on background checks? Required for everyone purchasing a firearm? If we do that, I would also suggest that we step up the time frame, and modernize the database, so the background check takes 3 minutes instead of 3 days/weeks. What say you?

I mean think about it. How you going to get your firearm to your property after you buy it if you only plan on keeping it on your property? And what if you want to hunt at a family or friends private property someplace? I mean now, I need a hunting license to hunt even on my own property. But that is easy to get as getting a fishing license.

The same way you get your vehicle to your property, if you only plan on driving it on your own property.

[misterpuk]

What are you talking about "If we do background checks" ? That's already the law. We do background checks.

Step up and modernize the database so that it only takes 3 minutes vs. 3 days/weeks? Any purchase I've made is much closer in time frame to the minute mark than the day mark. Nics lookups are usually pretty quick. Last purchase I made took probably 15 minutes or so, give or take. I suspect part of that wait was the guy stepping out for a smoke before coming back with everything.


So check and check, next ?

[Ghostpanther]

Well we need people to take instructions and get certified (in some way) to safely use the firearm, so they are already going to have to do something. Registering the firearm, and then verifying class/instructions would do it - so people would still be able to purchase a firearm and take it home the same day, so to speak.

Btw - where are we on background checks? Required for everyone purchasing a firearm? If we do that, I would also suggest that we step up the time frame, and modernize the database, so the background check takes 3 minutes instead of 3 days/weeks. What say you?




The same way you get your vehicle to your property, if you only plan on driving it on your own property.

Sounds good. Improving the back ground checks would be great and yes, back ground checks for all firearm purchases. Which we already do for handguns now. Raising the min age to purchase to 21, even for rifles, would be another thing I would support.

I still oppose having to get a license to simply go to the range to shoot or for hunting on private property which you may have to travel to. Having them and the ammo separate and one of them locked up as you travel would be good enough.

But see, we have made some progress and I have compromised some.

[Guy4123]

I'd support common nationwide gun regulations that can't be superseded by states so California can stop making completely brain dead gun laws that do nothing but annoy people and make the state more money through fees while deterring 0% of crime. Things like a universally recognized concealed carry permit for all states and same magazine/gun features laws (which are all "assault weapon" bans are anyway) so you're not breaking the law taking your gun to another state.

In return I'd even support making the minimum age 25 for both handguns and long guns, background checks required for private sales (I'd prefer an NICS be accessible to everyone to make following this law easy), and a specific tax on new gun purchases to fund a better NICS system.