Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

I'd love to get a duplicate (semi-auto) M3 or Sten gun, but copies run $1200+ and that just seems excessive to me. Economy of scale, sure, but they're still guns made to be as cheap as possible during war, but now I can buy a Thompson for cheaper than either? Bleh. Heck, there's a ton of much better 9mm carbines for less than half the price of the sten.

If I could weld, I'd make my own, but no thanks!

I'm not sure when the M3 fell out of use, there may even still be a few in the system. I did see that they've selected a new SMG (I think B&T got it) but not sure if they'll use it where the M3 was or if M4 variants already did. (I don't think the Mk18 is general use.)

I'm not really a history buff or military buff, I'm more of a tinkerer and prefer unique mechanisms that work more than common stuff. M1 Garands are the best because of it's spot in time & mechanisms, and vz58's are much better than any AK ever!

- - - Updated - - -



https://machineguncentral.com/ViewDe...0-98a9aff09aa3

For $16,995 (+$200 stamp + ammo) you can practice all you want.

"At least it's under $17k" could be the justification!

Lol! No thanks. I would love to own one, but not at that price.

[Svifnymr]

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/..._PsGiB_VKj4HtE

All of the weapons had been sent to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' National Firearms and Ammunition Destruction Branch in Martinsburg, West Virginia, to be shredded, according to court documents and congressional letters.

A longtime guard at the ATF facility has admitted to carting off thousands of firearms, gun parts and ammunition and selling them over several years.

[Ghostpanther]

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/..._PsGiB_VKj4HtE

Oh gheeze. This is why the ATF needs to have proper funding and leadership to help prevent crap like that happening. Seems security within it's own facilities is lacking. The shooter in the Texas church case, was able to get firearms because the authorities failed to do their job. Which I feel just enforcing the laws we already have on the books, would help to reduce crimes with firearms.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article. https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/k...bi-statistics/

Knives kill far more people in the United States than rifles do every year.

According to the FBI, 1,604 people were killed by “knives and cutting instruments” and 374 were killed by “rifles” in 2016.

Yet the outrage over rifles such as the AR-15, does not match the more likely cause of a death in the US than they cause. Basically we do not hear the call for bans or stricter laws for knives.

[Citizen T]

Some recent defensive gun uses

https://crimeresearch.org/2019/06/de...-two-months-3/

[Ghostpanther]

Some recent defensive gun uses

https://crimeresearch.org/2019/06/de...-two-months-3/

Yep. It happens far more often than some think. Having a firearm can and does give a weaker person a more equal chance of defending themselves. And you do not need to be a soldier level trained person for it to be successful. Thanks for these examples.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article on gun free zones.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/rep-...eyre-dangerous

The tragedy at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center fits an all too familiar pattern—yet another mass shooting in a place the victims were banned from carrying guns. The most lives are claimed in places where people can’t defend themselves on equal footing. It’s not a coincidence the attack occurred in a public building filled with public employees prohibited from carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise.

This pattern of attacks at gun-free zones isn’t limited to workplace shootings: 98 percent of all mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in places where the average citizen was banned from possessing guns.\

Banks, churches, sports stadiums, and many members of Congress are protected with firearms. Yet children inside the classroom are too frequently left vulnerable. To combat this, Rep. Thomas Massie, co-author of this op-ed, introduced H.R. 3200 last week, a bill that repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990.

Utah, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and parts of Oregon allowed all permitted teachers and staff to carry without any additional training requirements. Other states left it to the discretion of local superintendents or school boards. As of December 2018, teachers carried handguns in more than 30 percent of Texas school districts. And in September 2018, Ohio teachers were carrying in over 200 school districts

Of course the bill introduced by Rep. Massie, will never make it out of the House. And seems Ohio has increased significantly the number of schools were teachers are armed. Last time I had checked, was only about 40 districts which did.

[Ghostpanther]

Another interesting article on gun control ....https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mar...ghts-activists

A Democratic Party leader in Maryland is facing criticism for last month posting on Facebook a call to “dox” gun rights activists.

Maryland Democratic Party Secretary Robbie Leonard took to social media to post photos from a Maryland House Judiciary Committee meeting in late February, where gun rights activists wore “We Will Not Comply” shirts during the hearing on additional gun control measures, along with a message calling the advocates “homegrown terrorists” and calling on his followers to “dox” them.

“I hope the FBI runs the name of every witness who is wearing a t-shirt that says ‘We Will Not Comply,’ Leonard said in one Facebook message. “They’re a bunch of terrorists in the making.”

In another message, Leonard posted a photo of a protestor along with the comment: “Time to dox some homegrown terrorists.”

Doxing is a practice of researching and broadcasting over the Internet the personal and private information of an individual or organization, normally with malicious intent.

Gun rights groups and lobbyists were quick to condemn Leonard for his comments on social media, pointing out that Maryland’s criminal code prohibits doxing and that the gun rights activists are protected under the First Amendment.

In a statement sent to Fox News, the executive director of the Maryland Democratic Party, Ben Smith, condemned the call to dox activists and said that gun regulation debates "require sober and calm deliberation, not escalated conflict."

"When activists wear shirts stating 'We will not comply' with new firearm regulations, that action escalates the conflict and a willingness to flout the rule of law," Smith said. "Calling for doxxing also escalates the conflict and violates rights to privacy. The Maryland Democratic Party respects the rule of law and asks that advocates on both sides participate peacefully in the legislative process."

It is dumb for these guys to walk around telling everyone they will not comply with a law. But is it also good to see this guy get called out for his call to do something which is illegal to do in his state anyway. This is how far some will stoop to push their anti-gun agenda.

[Svifnymr]

It is dumb for these guys to walk around telling everyone they will not comply with a law. But is it also good to see this guy get called out for his call to do something which is illegal to do in his state anyway. This is how far some will stoop to push their anti-gun agenda.

I mean, the shirts are dumb, IMO, but it's not like a t-shirt slogan is legally binding. It's all well and fine to bury your bump stocks in the backyard to spite the alphabet gang, but what good does that do you? You going to take your (now)illegal machinegun to a public range and risk arrest?

The flip side of course is that they didn't say "we're going to overthrow Maryland!". Segregation was ended by people that would not comply, and if 1000 people refuse to comply and get arrested and fight it, then maybe something could be done. In the end, you have a group of people arguing against a law (or group of laws) and another person going to personally attack those people rather than arguing FOR the law(s).

[Galactis]

This is not a gun control problem, it's a people problem. If people are raising kane for gun bans, why not just ban all weapons period.....

[Ghostpanther]

This is not a gun control problem, it's a people problem. If people are raising kane for gun bans, why not just ban all weapons period.....

Good point and I agree. However some do not come across with the message to ban them. The issue is those who wish to continue chipping away the rights we have under the Second Amendment to keep and carry firearms for self defense to the point, it is no longer a representation of what the founding fathers intended it to be. In other words, to get a dam to break, just keep chipping away at it's wall. Eventually the crack will become large enough for it to fail.

[Svifnymr]

So NRA TV was cancelled along with everyone who appeared on it. Thoughts and prayers.

It's sort of amusing that folks use "thoughts and prayers" to mock people. Not like you really care if any of those fired find other jobs or anything, they're not in your thoughts, no prayers for them. Sure, plenty of the politicians that post "You're in our thoughts and prayers" probably don't mean it, but lots of folks do. I'm not even sure the NRA ever actually used the phrase since they generally have a policy of not commenting on shootings, but maybe they did.

"We don't want your thoughts and prayers, we just want you to post a bunch of kneejerk laws that would not have prevented the shooting so we can feel better at the expense of the rights of the majority!" doesn't have the same ring as the mocking tone suggest, alas.

[Svifnymr]

It’s almost like we’re mocking their response to mass shootings while blocking any attempts to prevent them in the future. Common sense gun control isn’t knee jerk, it’s basic logic that the majority of gun owners agree should be in place.

"Common sense" gun control has already been done, attacking capacity of magazines or threaded barrels under the auspice of saving people and ignoring the 99% of folks that use them responsibly doesn't fall under "common sense". You're mocking their response (*them being politicians that are not generally located in the area affected, not the NRA) because they haven't taken arbitrary attempts to restrict people, yet ignoring any actual solution to increase actual security at soft targets.

[petej0]

It’s almost like we’re mocking their response to mass shootings while blocking any attempts to prevent them in the future. Common sense gun control isn’t knee jerk, it’s basic logic that the majority of gun owners agree should be in place.

"Common Sense Gun Control" is such a vague term. It means different things to different people while not saying anything. Its basically a gun control advocates way of saying "we must do something, but I dont know enough about firearms or the firearm buying process to give specifics"

[Draco-Onis]

"Common Sense Gun Control" is such a vague term. It means different things to different people while not saying anything. Its basically a gun control advocates way of saying "we must do something, but I dont know enough about firearms or the firearm buying process to give specifics"

But they have given specifics those policies haven't changed close loopholes such as the boyfriend loophole, universal background check, actively try to keep guns from the mentally ill (screening, more united database) and funding for mental health. It really hasn't changed most of this stuff has 85%+ support with the public so not sure what the hell you are talking about.

[petej0]

Universal background checks are already a thing? Weird, I must have missed that. The NRA's people who got fired ALL respond with thoughts and prayers after a mass shooting while blocking any and all legislation that would place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Or punish those who are negligent with their firearms. Good luck with the alternate reality though. Clearly you don't care any more for the victims than these assholes do.

Here's the thing about universal background checks. I am assuming by that you mean background checks for private sales. It all sounds good on paper, problem is these problems don't exist on paper. They exist in the real world. In the real world there is no way to enforce this law because by definition , these transactions are private. Now you can make the law and punish people for not following, but by the time we find out they haven't followed the law some other crime has occurred in which case those individuals can be punished with other charges.

I won't say it's a moot topic, but it doesn't really solve the issue and won't have the outcome you think it will have.

Punishing those who neglect safe storage is an easy issue go after those responsible with child endangerment its like the stupid cellphone driving laws. We don't need cellphone driving laws just enforce the distracted driving laws.

[Svifnymr]

Universal background checks are already a thing?

Universal background checks are a buzzword by those that don't understand what laws are already in place. You want background checks for private transfers, examine their effectiveness in the states that have it where it hasn't done anything. As said though, blocking private transfers would have stopped how many of the shootings the law is in reply to?

The NRA's people who got fired ALL respond with thoughts and prayers after a mass shooting while blocking any and all legislation that would place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Or punish those who are negligent with their firearms. Good luck with the alternate reality though. Clearly you don't care any more for the victims than these assholes do.

Reasonable restrictions are already in place. Calling every new legislation "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense" when the folks drafting said laws have no clue what is already illegal.

"Punish those who are negligent"? What an odd accusation.

Caring about the victims doesn't mean passing knee jerk laws that have no bearing on the crimes being committed, but then I already said that. Declaring some emotional appeal and assigning evil to people that disagree with you is pretty standard fare, but it doesn't really matter when policy needs to be made.

[Ghostpanther]

But they have given specifics those policies haven't changed close loopholes such as the boyfriend loophole, universal background check, actively try to keep guns from the mentally ill (screening, more united database) and funding for mental health. It really hasn't changed most of this stuff has 85%+ support with the public so not sure what the hell you are talking about.

What is the boyfriend loophole? And it depends on how you actively try to keep guns from the mentally ill. If it is by due process of respecting a citizen's constitutional rights, such as getting a court order before action is taken, which has complete endorsement from a mental doctor, then that is fine. But we are not going to go confiscate someone's guns because a family member got pissed at them and claims they are nuts. We shouldn't at least.

[Draco-Onis]

What is the boyfriend loophole? And it depends on how you actively try to keep guns from the mentally ill. If it is by due process of respecting a citizen's constitutional rights, such as getting a court order before action is taken, which has complete endorsement from a mental doctor, then that is fine. But we are not going to go confiscate someone's guns because a family member got pissed at them and claims they are nuts. We shouldn't at least.

How about tough screening for when you get your license by a medical professional? we've already discussed things like the boyfriend loophole it is one of many holes in the system obviously not something you care about. I was thinking more about it from the before they get the license afterwards it's a bit tricky on how to proceed, I can see the wisdom of taking the guns away if they are flagged by doctors as being unstable but that is a nuance argument which is irrelevant since we aren't doing the basics.

[Ghostpanther]

How about tough screening for when you get your license by a medical professional? we've already discussed things like the boyfriend loophole it is one of many holes in the system obviously not something you care about. I was thinking more about it from the before they get the license afterwards it's a bit tricky on how to proceed, I can see the wisdom of taking the guns away if they are flagged by doctors as being unstable but that is a nuance argument which is irrelevant since we aren't doing the basics.

No way. Tough screening sends up a red flag. I would not want a biased, liberal doctor making a decision if I should have a firearm. :P How about just enforcing the laws we already have on the books? I am not against Universal back ground checks if that is all it is about.

Do a background check before a person buys a firearm, which should check to see if the applicant was ever committed to a mental hospital and if a cure was successful and check the court records to see if the applicant has committed any crimes which would bar them from getting one. Like they do here when I got my conceal carry license.

[Svifnymr]

What is the boyfriend loophole?

The law currently prohibits you from buying a gun if you've been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. This requires that the act of violence involved was "committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. "

So, if you have a casual girlfriend (no living with, no kids) and are convicted of such, it doesn't bar you from ever possessing a gun again like if you lived with the person and the same happened. There is still the fact that a restraining order bars you from gun purchase/ possession in general.

The main issue with the domestic violence stuff really is that a lot of cases are no-contest/ adjudication withheld plea deals that do not result in the violent person getting an actual conviction.

And the main counter is that a lot of domestic situations are weighted against the guy and it's not like court cases for a misdemeanor are something that gets fought when there's an easy plea deal to be made.

[Ghostpanther]

The law currently prohibits you from buying a gun if you've been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. This requires that the act of violence involved was "committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. "

So, if you have a casual girlfriend (no living with, no kids) and are convicted of such, it doesn't bar you from ever possessing a gun again like if you lived with the person and the same happened. There is still the fact that a restraining order bars you from gun purchase/ possession in general.

The main issue with the domestic violence stuff really is that a lot of cases are no-contest/ adjudication withheld plea deals that do not result in the violent person getting an actual conviction.

And the main counter is that a lot of domestic situations are weighted against the guy and it's not like court cases for a misdemeanor are something that gets fought when there's an easy plea deal to be made.

Ahh. Thanks for the explanation. Well thought out response. I appreciate it.