Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Dacien]

Nobody ever said CNN was perfect, but even at their worst they still had a hell of a lot more credibility than Fox News, nevermind the Breitbarts and WNDs of the world. For Christ's sake, just look at the other headlines on that page you linked:

I don't really see any fake news in what you quoted. Biased toward a right-wing point of view, but nothing dishonest. One of them looks like an opinion piece.

[Macaquerie]

I don't really see any fake news in what you quoted. Biased toward a right-wing point of view, but nothing dishonest. One of them looks like an opinion piece.

This has always been Fox's MO though, just posted blatantly misleading headlines and then claim that they were just quoting the opinions of guests. e.g. You know, a lot of people have been telling me that @Dacien is actually a deep cover liberal feminazi posing as a gun owner to discredit the NRA with his silly and uninformed arguments, I'm not saying that's true or if that's what I think, that's just what people have been saying.

[Dacien]

This has always been Fox's MO though, just posted blatantly misleading headlines and then claim that they were just quoting the opinions of guests. e.g. You know, a lot of people have been telling me that @Dacien is actually a deep cover liberal feminazi posing as a gun owner to discredit the NRA with his silly and uninformed arguments, I'm not saying that's true or if that's what I think, that's just what people have been saying.

That's a terrible example.

[Naiattavain]

Democratic PRICKS you fucking FAGGOTS ******* DEMOCRATS FIND THE LITTLE CHILDREN ON IRC, SOCIAL MEDIA! THEN MAKE CONTACT WITH THEM TO GIVE THEM THE GUNS TO SHOOT UP THE SCHOOL!***************** FAGGOT DEMOCRAT PRICKS! LIARS!!!!!

[Ghostpanther]

Impressive shooter. http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/0...nce-woman.html former KGB agent. lol!

Another self defense shooting during a home invasion. Thankfully, no one was harmed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thVhVjn59mg

[Laerrus]

The Zodiac Killer's proposal does nothing to help solve the problem. The problem is that would be killers can still easily get a hold of a firearm.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...sts/cpac-2018/

I don't want to take away your guns, hell I used to enjoy firing my old M16A2 when I was enlisted. However, I want my kids to be able to go to school each day and not have to worry that it will be their last.

We have to be licensed to drive a car, why can't we be licensed to own a firearm?

1. Require extensive background checks, to also include mental health history (I know that would be in violation of HIPAA, but it can be changed)
2. Mandatory weapons safety, maintenance and anger management classes.
3. People must renew their licence every 4 years, to include all the above.
4. Applicants must be age 21 or older

All retailers must comply with the following.

1. Require proof of license and ID from the buyer.
2. Waiting period of 30 days from the time of the order and purchase to transferring the gun to the buyer for ownership. This would give a would be killer time to "cool down". Need a new gun for a time sensitive matter like competition or hunting trip? Then plan ahead.
3. Train employees to look for warning signs, people acting nervous and flighty, etc. and instruct them to refuse to sell weapons to that individual.
4. Extensive background checks.

[Svifnymr]

Here is a prediction. AR-15's are not going to be banned. Min. age limits raised to 21 to buy one may happen. Which it should. In fact what is being looked at is raising the min age limit to 21 to buy any semi-auto rifle. I am talking on the federal level. Some states already ban the sale of AR-15s.

As I said in another thread, I note they don't say "semiauto rifles" they say all long guns, so no 22 rifles or hunting rifles until 21? Meh. Won't accomplish much. I'd personally have prefered no semiauto's until 21, but manual actions (handgun/longgun) at 18, which means an 18 year old could also buy a revolver. My opinion doesn't matter much though.


Also, CNN was the Clinton News Network before the turn of the century, they've been a joke a long time now. :-p

- - - Updated - - -

I think the NRA is wrong if they oppose Trump's suggestions on raising the age min on restricting semi-auto rifles sales. They may be snubbed no matter if they oppose it. I hope they are. I need to write my senators and tell them to support such.

All I know is, if they want to raise the age to 21, it better be taked onto the bill that holds the Hearing Protection Act. All these "compromise" speechs never result in me getting MORE rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Banning high capacity magazines should be something all gun owners support, because it's exactly the sort of thing that should be no obstacle to a responsible shooter tr to handle firearms correctly, but would hinder a crazed gunman who just wants to shoot up a bunch of civilians.

A magazine ban is an artificial limitation without real justification. We've had the discussion before in this thread, so it won't sway anyone either way, but no one is rushing the shooter in between magazine changes, so it means little to have 30 small mags instead of 10 larger or 3 drums. Heck, the drums jam so much it's not a big deal.

But really, the problem is a "high capacity magazine" is not anything above 10 rounds. Normal magazines hold 15-17 for handguns. The AR15 started at 20, going to 30 later, but 10 rounds is just an arbitrary amount based on "fuck you, you don't need more". Need is meaningless when trying to restrict people. To restrict something, you need to demonstate that having that will be dangerous in the majority of situations.

Hence, no private nuke's. Normal course of use, very dangerous. Explosives, anything over X amount is regulated because normal use it's dangerous. Firearms, normal use... not dangerous when used as directed.

[Jellybear14]

The Zodiac Killer's proposal does nothing to help solve the problem. The problem is that would be killers can still easily get a hold of a firearm.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...sts/cpac-2018/

I don't want to take away your guns, hell I used to enjoy firing my old M16A2 when I was enlisted. However, I want my kids to be able to go to school each day and not have to worry that it will be their last.

We have to be licensed to drive a car, why can't we be licensed to own a firearm?

1. Require extensive background checks, to also include mental health history (I know that would be in violation of HIPAA, but it can be changed)
2. Mandatory weapons safety, maintenance and anger management classes.
3. People must renew their licence every 4 years, to include all the above.
4. Applicants must be age 21 or older

All retailers must comply with the following.

1. Require proof of license and ID from the buyer.
2. Waiting period of 30 days from the time of the order and purchase to transferring the gun to the buyer for ownership. This would give a would be killer time to "cool down". Need a new gun for a time sensitive matter like competition or hunting trip? Then plan ahead.
3. Train employees to look for warning signs, people acting nervous and flighty, etc. and instruct them to refuse to sell weapons to that individual.
4. Extensive background checks.

Think this maybe a step in the right direction imo. Something needs doing, president Trump's idea of arming teachers with guns is scary.... I understand you have a constitutional right to bear arms, but does that apply to people with mental issue's.... All the points Laerrus made will not affect your rights aslong as your fit to own a gun...

To many people are dying because crazy folk are allowed to have guns, i can't imagine what its like to loose a child but my heart goes out to those people that have lost someone.

[Svifnymr]

Random video about buying a gun in Canada, it's from 2016, but doubt anything has changed.

[Ghostpanther]

The Zodiac Killer's proposal does nothing to help solve the problem. The problem is that would be killers can still easily get a hold of a firearm.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...sts/cpac-2018/

I don't want to take away your guns, hell I used to enjoy firing my old M16A2 when I was enlisted. However, I want my kids to be able to go to school each day and not have to worry that it will be their last.

We have to be licensed to drive a car, why can't we be licensed to own a firearm?

1. Require extensive background checks, to also include mental health history (I know that would be in violation of HIPAA, but it can be changed)
2. Mandatory weapons safety, maintenance and anger management classes.
3. People must renew their licence every 4 years, to include all the above.
4. Applicants must be age 21 or older

All retailers must comply with the following.

1. Require proof of license and ID from the buyer.
2. Waiting period of 30 days from the time of the order and purchase to transferring the gun to the buyer for ownership. This would give a would be killer time to "cool down". Need a new gun for a time sensitive matter like competition or hunting trip? Then plan ahead.
3. Train employees to look for warning signs, people acting nervous and flighty, etc. and instruct them to refuse to sell weapons to that individual.
4. Extensive background checks.

I do not have any major issues with your proposals. Only a couple nick picks if I may...

3. 5 years is what driver's license renewals are.

2. 14 day waiting period would be enough.

Other than those 2 minor ones, I could live with those suggestions you made. Well done.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said in another thread, I note they don't say "semiauto rifles" they say all long guns, so no 22 rifles or hunting rifles until 21? Meh. Won't accomplish much. I'd personally have prefered no semiauto's until 21, but manual actions (handgun/longgun) at 18, which means an 18 year old could also buy a revolver. My opinion doesn't matter much though.


Also, CNN was the Clinton News Network before the turn of the century, they've been a joke a long time now. :-p

- - - Updated - - -



All I know is, if they want to raise the age to 21, it better be taked onto the bill that holds the Hearing Protection Act. All these "compromise" speechs never result in me getting MORE rights.

- - - Updated - - -



A magazine ban is an artificial limitation without real justification. We've had the discussion before in this thread, so it won't sway anyone either way, but no one is rushing the shooter in between magazine changes, so it means little to have 30 small mags instead of 10 larger or 3 drums. Heck, the drums jam so much it's not a big deal.

But really, the problem is a "high capacity magazine" is not anything above 10 rounds. Normal magazines hold 15-17 for handguns. The AR15 started at 20, going to 30 later, but 10 rounds is just an arbitrary amount based on "fuck you, you don't need more". Need is meaningless when trying to restrict people. To restrict something, you need to demonstate that having that will be dangerous in the majority of situations.

Hence, no private nuke's. Normal course of use, very dangerous. Explosives, anything over X amount is regulated because normal use it's dangerous. Firearms, normal use... not dangerous when used as directed.

I did hear them speak specifically about the semi-auto rifles raising the age to 21. So this would not include any changes for the others such as bolt action or break downs.

Sometimes it does take some compromises to accomplish some good. But I understand your point. And it depends on what the compromises are. I would have no issue with raising the min age to purchase any firearm to 21.

I agree about the magazines. It is so easy to swap them out and fast with little practice. However, such a ban on them over 10 rounds would not effect me personally, so I would not get all up in arms over it. lol. But I do not think they will ban any magazines over 10 round ones.

[Svifnymr]

2. 14 day waiting period would be enough.

Florida has a 3-5day if you lack a CWL, it's worthless really. In theory maybe someone got so mad, they drove to the store, went in to buy a gun to murder the family, found out there was a waiting period and said "well, I'll just rethink things", but in practice no. Average time between purchase at retail and use in crime is 10.88 years as of 2014, with the vast majority being over 3 years.

It's just pointless restrictions.

I did hear them speak specifically about the semi-auto rifles raising the age to 21. So this would not include any changes for the others such as bolt action or break downs.

They say that, but the actual details are "all long guns" when it's spelled out.

Sometimes it does take some compromises to accomplish some good. But I understand your point. And it depends on what the compromises are. I would have no issue with raising the min age to purchase any firearm to 21.

The problem with the compromise is that even if passed, 5 or 10 years from now, we'll be having the same discussion about new common sense gun laws and why won't gun owners compromise as they add more restrictions. There have been many compromises through the decades, but it doesn't end...

[Tasttey]

Sometimes it does take some compromises to accomplish some good. But I understand your point. And it depends on what the compromises are. I would have no issue with raising the min age to purchase any firearm to 21.

Two issues with this:

1. Moving the legal age limit to 21 means you can have people who have completed a 2 year active duty enlistment within the military who are still legally prohibited from owning a weapon. We'll willingly assign them one at 18, ship them across the globe and have them "use" them on a daily basis but we won't allow them to own one themselves.

2. Your idea of compromise, isn't a compromise, is an appeasement. A compromise requires both sides to make concessions, in this case one side "pro 2A" is making all the concessions while the "anti 2A" group reaps the benefits. Then again this is a problem dating back to the 1930's in regards to firearm legislation.

Compromise would look more like this:

You want mandatory training/licensing that needs to be renewed every 5 years? Fine, include national reciprocity with it; a nationwide standardized training should grant a license which is honored nationwide.

You want an increased age limit to 21? Fine, then remove state specific regulations that essentially make the possession of a specific firearm unlawful when crossing state lines, aka no more NY, CA, MD crazy "assault weapon" bans.

You want a 14-30 day waiting period? Fine, remove suppressors from the NFA, if one has to wait 2-4 weeks after purchase to take possession of a firearm, you shouldn't have to wait an additional 3-6 months to take possession of hear protection.

You want to make gun safes mandatory? Fine, let me deduct the value of said safe from my federal income taxes, every fucking year.

You want to ban bump stocks? Fine, remove SBRs/SBSs from the NFA. The ATFE has already released a letter pertaining to "shouldering an arm brace." Why not just clear up the confusion and cut out the 3-6 month wait.

[Ghostpanther]

Two issues with this:

1. Moving the legal age limit to 21 means you can have people who have completed a 2 year active duty enlistment within the military who are still legally prohibited from owning a weapon. We'll willingly assign them one at 18, ship them across the globe and have them "use" them on a daily basis but we won't allow them to own one themselves.

2. Your idea of compromise, isn't a compromise, is an appeasement. A compromise requires both sides to make concessions, in this case one side "pro 2A" is making all the concessions while the "anti 2A" group reaps the benefits. Then again this is a problem dating back to the 1930's in regards to firearm legislation.

Compromise would look more like this:

You want mandatory training/licensing that needs to be renewed every 5 years? Fine, include national reciprocity with it; a nationwide standardized training should grant a license which is honored nationwide.

You want an increased age limit to 21? Fine, then remove state specific regulations that essentially make the possession of a specific firearm unlawful when crossing state lines, aka no more NY, CA, MD crazy "assault weapon" bans.

You want a 14-30 day waiting period? Fine, remove suppressors from the NFA, if one has to wait 2-4 weeks after purchase to take possession of a firearm, you shouldn't have to wait an additional 3-6 months to take possession of hear protection.

You want to make gun safes mandatory? Fine, let me deduct the value of said safe from my federal income taxes, every fucking year.

You want to ban bump stocks? Fine, remove SBRs/SBSs from the NFA. The ATFE has already released a letter pertaining to "shouldering an arm brace." Why not just clear up the confusion and cut out the 3-6 month wait.

First off. There could be exceptions for military and those recently discharged. For example here in Ohio, you need to be 21 and have a CHL License to carry a handgun concealed. But current active military members only need to be 18 and they need no license to carry concealed as long as they carry on them their military ID.

I do not think safes should be mandatory.

And I do not think one should have to retake training once every 5 years when you renew your license. We do not have to here in Ohio.

But what Trump has called for, I fully support and have no objections to.

[Tasttey]

But what Trump has called for, I fully support and have no objections to.

I'd like to see an expansion of the "red flag laws" that some (its only 5) states have to a federal level.

I don't believe moving the legal age limit to 21 for purchasing long guns will have a measurable impact on firearm violence. Hell so few violent crimes are committed with long guns in the first place its almost a statistical abnormality, but its feel good legislation.

Bump stocks are shit anyways, they're a terrible gimmick that up until Las Vegas nobody was concerned about because anyone who'd actually used one realized that you'd need to be spraying into a massive crowd to actually hit anything with them; broad side of a barn might not have even cut it. But that tufted Cheeto in the White House and the rest of the "swamp" better leave my binary fire systems alone.

That said, I still have a hard time backing any new "gun control" laws because they've done a terrible job enforcing existing ones, basically relying on law abiding citizens not to break the law and rarely punishing those that do (straw purchase) and because its been a constant stream of appeasement by the 2A side since 1934 with nothing benefiting firearm owners except part of the 1986 FOPA dealing with "safe travel."

[Ghostpanther]

I'd like to see an expansion of the "red flag laws" that some (its only 5) states have to a federal level.

I don't believe moving the legal age limit to 21 for purchasing long guns will have a measurable impact on firearm violence. Hell so few violent crimes are committed with long guns in the first place its almost a statistical abnormality, but its feel good legislation.

Bump stocks are shit anyways, they're a terrible gimmick that up until Las Vegas nobody was concerned about because anyone who'd actually used one realized that you'd need to be spraying into a massive crowd to actually hit anything with them; broad side of a barn might not have even cut it. But that tufted Cheeto in the White House and the rest of the "swamp" better leave my binary fire systems alone.

That said, I still have a hard time backing any new "gun control" laws because they've done a terrible job enforcing existing ones, basically relying on law abiding citizens not to break the law and rarely punishing those that do (straw purchase) and because its been a constant stream of appeasement by the 2A side since 1934 with nothing benefiting firearm owners except part of the 1986 FOPA dealing with "safe travel."

Good idea on the red flag laws expanded to other states on a federal level.

It would be a feels good change overall. But feels good laws can help lead to other good laws.

Bumpstocks must be somewhat useful to some, with millions of them in existence. I have read, they are esp. good for assisting the handicap. So if that is true. Then banning them would suck. Maybe make it so you need a permit for them. *shrugs.

Enforcing the laws we have now on the books would be the most effective measures to take I think.

[Tasttey]

Bumpstocks must be somewhat useful to some, with millions of them in existence. I have read, they are esp. good for assisting the handicap. So if that is true. Then banning them would suck. Maybe make it so you need a permit for them. *shrugs.

The whole "assisting the disabled" bit is more like manufacturer BS to get it past BATF. The original patent makes no mention of handicapped or disabled shooters and even the original inventor said it was for "people, like me, who love full auto."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6101918

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/sli...#axzz4uYktG1Ot

Honestly they could just have the BATF reverse the initial ruling on it (like they did with the AutoGlove) and not even have to pass a new law. Although even if they do, not sure how they'll deal with the millions already in circulation or if it will just be for new purchases.

But having fired a number of different bump/slide fire stock set-ups, they're range toys at best, you get better accuracy than belt loop firing but nowhere near what you have with an actually designed full auto firearm since you lack the static points of contact required to maintain good aim.

[Stormdash]

Honestly they could just have the BATF reverse the initial ruling on it (like they did with the AutoGlove) and not even have to pass a new law. Although even if they do, not sure how they'll deal with the millions already in circulation or if it will just be for new purchases.

They made the initial ruling they did because it was the truth; remember the rule-making authority of any executive agency comes exclusively from statute. It has no independent authority to make novel law.

[Ghostpanther]

The whole "assisting the disabled" bit is more like manufacturer BS to get it past BATF. The original patent makes no mention of handicapped or disabled shooters and even the original inventor said it was for "people, like me, who love full auto."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6101918

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/sli...#axzz4uYktG1Ot

Honestly they could just have the BATF reverse the initial ruling on it (like they did with the AutoGlove) and not even have to pass a new law. Although even if they do, not sure how they'll deal with the millions already in circulation or if it will just be for new purchases.

But having fired a number of different bump/slide fire stock set-ups, they're range toys at best, you get better accuracy than belt loop firing but nowhere near what you have with an actually designed full auto firearm since you lack the static points of contact required to maintain good aim.

Yeah. I am well aware of what a fully automatic firearm can do. Having fired several different types while I was in the Army. I knew from watching the videos of shooters using a bumpstock, it was no match for a fully automatic machine gun. Never used one myself. But I have seen enough , that I have no issues with them being banned.

[THE Bigzoman]

Michael Knowles bringing absolute fire, using stronger language than I did.

"Adults who prostitute traumatized teenagers to advance their political agenda should be ashamed of themselves, and those at CNN who do it should be fired."

I try to be direct yet diplomatic, but I understand his frustration in this article.

And here lies the problem.

You can't be diplomatic with these fucks. Just can't,

- - - Updated - - -

I'd like to see an expansion of the "red flag laws" that some (its only 5) states have to a federal level.

I don't believe moving the legal age limit to 21 for purchasing long guns will have a measurable impact on firearm violence. Hell so few violent crimes are committed with long guns in the first place its almost a statistical abnormality, but its feel good legislation.

Bump stocks are shit anyways, they're a terrible gimmick that up until Las Vegas nobody was concerned about because anyone who'd actually used one realized that you'd need to be spraying into a massive crowd to actually hit anything with them; broad side of a barn might not have even cut it. But that tufted Cheeto in the White House and the rest of the "swamp" better leave my binary fire systems alone.

That said, I still have a hard time backing any new "gun control" laws because they've done a terrible job enforcing existing ones, basically relying on law abiding citizens not to break the law and rarely punishing those that do (straw purchase) and because its been a constant stream of appeasement by the 2A side since 1934 with nothing benefiting firearm owners except part of the 1986 FOPA dealing with "safe travel."

Hell, I don't even think it'll impact mass shootings much.

The Vegas shooter, Omar Mateen, Gabby Giffords shooting, San Berandino shooting, Fort Hood, the republican baseball game recently, and countless others i'm sure.

Why are we singling out and demonizing young people here?

[Tasttey]

Hell, I don't even think it'll impact mass shootings much.

The Vegas shooter, Omar Mateen, Gabby Giffords shooting, San Berandino shooting, Fort Hood, the republican baseball game recently, and countless others i'm sure.

Why are we singling out and demonizing young people here?

The red flag laws might have helped in a few, it would have helped in this last one, hell law enforcement in general not failing at every possible turn would have helped.

The age limit thing is half bullshit feel good laws and half treating the symptoms instead of the problem. They can't seem to figure out how to stop bullying, so rather than teaching the victims how to process it and not end up suicidal/homicidal they're just putting in another road block to attempt to curb their desire to end a life or 2.