Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

Sounds like a bullshit red flag law. What do you guys who live in California think of it?

I actually moved out of California a little over a year ago. I'm in Seattle, now, so I guess it was about as close to a lateral move as possible, policy-wise.

[LastRide]

Weapons that can kill many people very quickly, such as assault rifles, need to be better regulated. Guns that are not automatic are not the issue.

[Ghostpanther]

I actually moved out of California a little over a year ago. I'm in Seattle, now, so I guess it was about as close to a lateral move as possible, policy-wise.

Still sounds better than California.

- - - Updated - - -

Weapons that can kill many people very quickly, such as assault rifles, need to be better regulated. Guns that are not automatic are not the issue.

The evil looking AR-15's are not automatic. And are no more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle in the same caliber. They are just easier for weaker people to defend themselves with. The ones who have not been mass shooters.

[Roxinius]

Weapons that can kill many people very quickly, such as assault rifles, need to be better regulated. Guns that are not automatic are not the issue.

an ar-15 isnt an automatic rifle ffs have some knowledge on the subject before you just spew leftist garbage

[Spectral]

Weapons that can kill many people very quickly, such as assault rifles, need to be better regulated. Guns that are not automatic are not the issue.

Guns that are not automatic are pretty much the only issue. Automatic weapons are used in something pretty close to zero murders annually. The vast majority of gun murders are handguns (FBI data here). Rifles and shotguns together account for less than half the murders of knives and less than unarmed murder. Among those rifle murders, the vast majority are going to be with semi-automatic rifles with a few from bolt-action or lever action rifles, but pretty much none are automatic weapons.

Not really knowing anything about firearms or crime is a bad place to start if you're going to have any position at all.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I don't let anyone know I have firearms.

I should move to Texas. Cali hates on all my hobbies.

I think if there's ever a national registry or aggressive approach like California is taking on a broader scale it's going to turn out that quite a few weapons were lost in boating accidents...

[Svifnymr]

An interesting story to demonstrate the effect a lack of knowledge about guns can mean, when writing laws:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/th...rious-trouble/

To summarize, in the USA, there is one central part of a firearm that is considered the firearm, legally speaking. The frame is the gun, needing a background check to buy, everything else is just parts. You can buy replacement barrels or grips or triggers, the frame is the gun.

The definition of the frame/receiver in law is:
"Frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel. "

So this guy in California was making receivers with folks and was arrested for it, and his defense is that the receiver as ATF decided it, does not fit the actual legal definition above. ATF made a deal and dropped prosecution when the judge agreed with him, so that this debate would not become official.

The problem really is that almost no firearm fits the definition. Sure, AR15's were the firearm in this instance, but almost no semi-auto handgun frame contains the barrel. The frame is generally the part that houses the trigger/firing mechanism, but that is also not universal.

Even the multitude of rifles that the receiver was ruled as the upper which contains the barrel, generally do not also contain the trigger group within the upper. The definition does say "usually threaded" for the barrel, so the barrel isn't really required I'd think for the definition, but the judge ruled otherwise. I'm not even sure if the "firing mechansim" is the firing pin assembly or the trigger group assembly for most things. Also a lot of guns don't have a hammer, so there's that.

ATF cannot change the definition, only Congress can. If Congress actually figured out a rule for which part is the receiver/ frame, it might change the status of some current guns. They could give ATF the ability to mandate which part is the frame, with certain rough guidelines, but I don't see any real bi-partisan effort to be likely.

[Zan15]

That is going to happen. And a lot of people are leaving California. Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the nation.

the outflow of CA is roughly the same as its been for years there has been no increase in the exodus and most of it is absorbed by population increases.

Not sure what this has to do with GControl since the vast majority of people leaving are for economic reasons not GC.


Texas is growing, but not the way you would like. the majority of people are of the "liberal type" and their support of guns is not at the level of the rest of TX.

[Ghostpanther]

An interesting story to demonstrate the effect a lack of knowledge about guns can mean, when writing laws:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/th...rious-trouble/

To summarize, in the USA, there is one central part of a firearm that is considered the firearm, legally speaking. The frame is the gun, needing a background check to buy, everything else is just parts. You can buy replacement barrels or grips or triggers, the frame is the gun.

The definition of the frame/receiver in law is:
"Frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel. "

So this guy in California was making receivers with folks and was arrested for it, and his defense is that the receiver as ATF decided it, does not fit the actual legal definition above. ATF made a deal and dropped prosecution when the judge agreed with him, so that this debate would not become official.

The problem really is that almost no firearm fits the definition. Sure, AR15's were the firearm in this instance, but almost no semi-auto handgun frame contains the barrel. The frame is generally the part that houses the trigger/firing mechanism, but that is also not universal.

Even the multitude of rifles that the receiver was ruled as the upper which contains the barrel, generally do not also contain the trigger group within the upper. The definition does say "usually threaded" for the barrel, so the barrel isn't really required I'd think for the definition, but the judge ruled otherwise. I'm not even sure if the "firing mechansim" is the firing pin assembly or the trigger group assembly for most things. Also a lot of guns don't have a hammer, so there's that.

ATF cannot change the definition, only Congress can. If Congress actually figured out a rule for which part is the receiver/ frame, it might change the status of some current guns. They could give ATF the ability to mandate which part is the frame, with certain rough guidelines, but I don't see any real bi-partisan effort to be likely.

That is interesting. Not sure what the answer would be ether. Maybe the barrel? And Congress at the moment is too busy with it's witch hunt fights to make much progress on gun legislature.

[Zan15]

Yeah, and they'll have the same problem Florida has - a bunch of libs moving from states they've made insufferable to get away from the consequences of their own politics, voting the same way, and wondering why it's starting to happen there too. The problem is you, guys.

Odd Florida has more registered democrats then republicans but because they are not "insufferable" to you...they are not a liberal state.....and all the credit should go to conservatives?

2019 4,727,674 v 4,969,590

Florida is running a 2-2.3 billion dollar deficit and CA is running a 10+ surplus. Florida's budget spending growth has far outpaced CA. Florida is facing a huge problem with their aging population and the cost of the poor. They are basically CA light at this point but are heading in the same direction.

If it wasn't for the increased amount of federal funding and Medicaid allowances Florida gets over CA they would be in even more trouble. If CA was given the same rates they would have another 15-20 billion in federal funding each year.

[zenkai]

No I fully understand the concept of taking credit for the good things that happen with gun owners and ignoring and distancing from the bad things that also happen with gun owners.

So you understand we should support legal law abiding gun owners and that they are the fast majority and condemn the few owners who are not responsible gun owners? Congrats! You're growing as a person!

[Zan15]

So you understand we should support legal law abiding gun owners and that they are the fast majority and condemn the few owners who are not responsible gun owners? Congrats! You're growing as a person!

No, because no one has a crystal ball... every gun owner is a risk.
the same guy who they were congratulating as a "legal law abiding gun owners" for years leading up to something happening....they then dismiss as being "not responsible".



if they are all so awesome why would they not support additional checks to find the "not responsible gun owners"?
Why would they not support gun insurance requirements so that "not responsible gun owners" are held financially responsible??
etc etc etc. (insert the not so stupid gun regulations that have been proposed)

[zenkai]

No, because no one has a crystal ball... every gun owner is a risk.
the same guy who they were congratulating as a "legal law abiding gun owners" for years leading up to something happening....they then dismiss as being "not responsible".



if they are all so awesome why would they not support additional checks to find the "not responsible gun owners"?
Why would they not support gun insurance requirements so that "not responsible gun owners" are held financially responsible??
etc etc etc. (insert the not so stupid gun regulations that have been proposed)

Everyone's a risk, how many people did Timothy Mcveigh kill with guns?

Also who said I am against common sense gun control? I sure wouldn't trust most a lot of anti gun people here with a gun.

[Zan15]

Everyone's a risk, how many people did Timothy Mcveigh kill with guns?

Also who said I am against common sense gun control? I sure wouldn't trust most a lot of anti gun people here with a gun.

So you are for insurance requirements?
National registry?
All sales tracking?
Mental health screening?
Random owner screenings/updates?
Red flag reporting and investigation?




Took them very little time to actually change a lot of things around the OK city bombing.


Funny you mention the bombing.

There is more regulation around ammonium nitrate, registration, registry, requirements on tracking sales and to whom the stuff is sold too, stolen product reporting requirements, laced product for tracking, etc etc.

[Stormdash]

So you are for insurance requirements?
National registry?
All sales tracking?
Mental health screening?
Random owner screenings/updates?
Red flag reporting and investigation?.

All non-negotiable 'no'.

[Tasttey]

All non-negotiable 'no'.

Only one I'd even consider would be a red flag law, and even then, only if due process occurred prior to the suspension of the party's constitutional rights.

[Ghostpanther]

Only one I'd even consider would be a red flag law, and even then, only if due process occurred prior to the suspension of the party's constitutional rights.

Same. They have tried to push such unconstitutional red flag law seizures here in Ohio recently, but the governor with his latest proposal, has it more in line with respecting the due process rights of the citizens before firearms can be seized. The fact the legislature here is controlled by the Republicans is why.

[Saucexorzski]

Same. They have tried to push such unconstitutional red flag law seizures here in Ohio recently, but the governor with his latest proposal, has it more in line with respecting the due process rights of the citizens before firearms can be seized. The fact the legislature here is controlled by the Republicans is why.

That's only because republicans recognise gun ownership rights...other rights they don't really do so well with.

[Svifnymr]

Only one I'd even consider would be a red flag law, and even then, only if due process occurred prior to the suspension of the party's constitutional rights.

I think my main problem with Red Flag laws is the idea that you have a person so violent or such a danger that you're going to go into their home and remove their guns, but... meh, let them roam the streets. They're no problem without guns, so lets not do anything? They certainly won't gain some other weapon or drive their car over a parade, right?

If someone threatens someone and it's a credible threat, a restraining order already removes their guns.
If someone is mentally ill and a threat to themselves or others, having them committed already removes their guns.

Most circumstances where a person should be "red flagged" are also cases that already would fall under some other restriction if enforced.

[Zan15]

All non-negotiable 'no'.

Only one I'd even consider would be a red flag law, and even then, only if due process occurred prior to the suspension of the party's constitutional rights.

interesting.. since at least half of those do not impede on your right to arms....

What is the harm in a registry?
Tracking all sales?
Red flag reporting and investigation (nothing about taking away anything till due process is completed)?


the other two I can see people being wary of without strict controls.

- - - Updated - - -

Another day another good "guy" with a gun....killed by another good guy with a gun....


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shooting.html


Black woman pointed her gun out the window fearing white cop who killed her in her own home was a trespasser

Jefferson was playing video games with her eight-year-old nephew when they heard a noise outside and she got up to investigate, assuming it was a prowler
The warrant quoted the nephew as saying his aunt had picked up a handgun and was pointing it out the window when she was shot by Dean
Bodycam footage showed Dean - who did not identify himself as police - shining a flashlight into the home as Jefferson approached the bedroom window
He shouted at her to show her hands and fired the fatal shot a split-second later
The video indicated that he could not have seen the gun in her hand before firing

He said Jefferson behaved as any Texas homeowner would have if they thought someone was stalking around their home




Of course this is now where people are going to come in and say "he wasn't a good guy with a gun"....

[Ghostpanther]

That's only because republicans recognise gun ownership rights...other rights they don't really do so well with.

This is the gun control thread. Which some Democrats, liberals ( not all ), would prefer those be taken away as far as a Constitutional right.

- - - Updated - - -

I think my main problem with Red Flag laws is the idea that you have a person so violent or such a danger that you're going to go into their home and remove their guns, but... meh, let them roam the streets. They're no problem without guns, so lets not do anything? They certainly won't gain some other weapon or drive their car over a parade, right?

If someone threatens someone and it's a credible threat, a restraining order already removes their guns.
If someone is mentally ill and a threat to themselves or others, having them committed already removes their guns.

Most circumstances where a person should be "red flagged" are also cases that already would fall under some other restriction if enforced.

That is a excellent point.