Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Guy4123]

It happened in New York.

[Mayhem]

It happened in New York.

What happened in New York?

[Ghostpanther]

It happened in New York.

What did?....I can not see the posts of those on my ignore list, if you where answering a post without a quote.

[Spectral]

Given that any purchase of more than 1 handgun in a week gets a notification sent to ATF, this actually means a gun trafficker will have less tracking on his purchases, it'll just take longer between buys. Assuming there's no exemption for a license or something and of course that they don't just swap to a different method.

I'm not sure of the specifics of the law in Virginia, so I wonder if you bought a gun, didn't like it and traded it for another gun, if you'd have to wait a month since the second gun is in the same month. Similarly if the first gun is defective so you swap it.

Realistically, there are approximately zero people trafficking guns for illegal purposes who are going to licensed FFL dealers and doing the standard background checks in order to procure weapons for illegal sales. This is just not a real problem at all. I'm sure some of the people that go on about "common sense" regulations really don't realize this, so I don't want to impugn anyone's integrity, but the people that write these bills only have antagonizing legal gun owners in mind when they write these sorts of things up. This is simply a way to hit a political enemy while sounding totally reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -

What did?....I can not see the posts of those on my ignore list, if you where answering a post without a quote.

A ludicrously brazen gun ban/confiscation act with the Orwellian name "NY SAFE Act". Check out some of the provisions. This was clearly written by someone that either didn't know the first thing about firearms or (my guess) wanted to create de facto bans across wide swaths of totally normal weapons. There's a ban on muzzle brakes on rifles and on threaded barrels even if you remove said brake. Cool, so a totally stock Browning hunting rifle is banned as a "military weapon" because someone might want to practice with heavy caliber hunting ammunition without shocking their shoulder into submission.

The pistol banned features is even more ridiculous; my favorite is "capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol grip outside the pistol grip". Or maybe my favorite is a "manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded". I have no idea my little Mark IV Hunter was such a dangerous weapon of war! Obviously this is also a de facto ban on all normal personal defense firearms - pretty much every Sig or Glock could fit an extended magazine.

[petej0]

Yeah, gun nuts have a problem with democracy too, that's obvious to anyone giving their arguments a minute of thought.

What gun buyback programs are you talking about that firearm owners base their fears on?

So the cycle continues, can't implement something that would actually help fight criminal firearm ownership because it maybe could at some point lead to something that has never happened before and is very unlikely to ever happen in the US, therefore, civilians feel the need to own firearms because criminals can get them too easily.

Did you not read what I wrote? Four candidates for 2020 election all supported some form of buy back. That is beside the fact that police departments and cities hold buy back programs across the country. All you need now is an actual list of owners and weapon types to now target a specific firearm or owner.

A mandatory buy back is useless without a registry, so you create a registry and then push through a buy back to ensure you get every weapon.

Why dont we have registries that track who people have voted for?

[Mayhem]

Did you not read what I wrote? Four candidates for 2020 election all supported some form of buy back. That is beside the fact that police departments and cities hold buy back programs across the country. All you need now is an actual list of owners and weapon types to now target a specific firearm or owner.

And where are those 4 candidates now? There's a difference between supporting something and actually doing something. The buyback programs I was able to find were voluntary.

A mandatory buy back is useless without a registry, so you create a registry and then push through a buy back to ensure you get every weapon.

Right, so gun owners fear for something to happen that has not happened, not even in the states that have a gun-registry.

Why dont we have registries that track who people have voted for?

That's comparing apples and screwdrivers.

[petej0]

And where are those 4 candidates now?

They are still sitting members of congress or the senate which is the bigger point. How many others support them as well but have not publicly stated it or dont have enough popularity to make news.

Right, so gun owners fear for something to happen that has not happened, not even in the states that have a gun-registry.

Its a rational fear. If there was another federal assault weapons ban (which is something that keeps being fought) and there was also a national registry you dont think at some point there would be a push to confiscate those weapons?

During the debate Beto said "Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." and the crowd cheered. This isnt just a few kook people, there are millions who support a ban If you implement a ban on something millions have vilified as a "weapon of war" and claim that nobody should have and you have a list where every single one of those "weapons of war" reside the next logical step would be to force those users to turn them in.

That's comparing apples and screwdrivers.

Not really, what is the reason why we dont keep a registry of a persons voting record?

[zenkai]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...rally-updates/

[Mayhem]

They are still sitting members of congress or the senate which is the bigger point. How many others support them as well but have not publicly stated it or dont have enough popularity to make news.

Well, your guess is as good as mine.

Its a rational fear. If there was another federal assault weapons ban (which is something that keeps being fought) and there was also a national registry you dont think at some point there would be a push to confiscate those weapons?

No, I don't. Now show me examples that there would.

During the debate Beto said "Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." and the crowd cheered. This isnt just a few kook people, there are millions who support a ban If you implement a ban on something millions have vilified as a "weapon of war" and claim that nobody should have and you have a list where every single one of those "weapons of war" reside the next logical step would be to force those users to turn them in.

So if a supermajority of the country wanted this you'd still be against it?

Not really, what is the reason why we dont keep a registry of a persons voting record?

So that the currently in power can't target you and keep you from voting against them?

[petej0]

No, I don't. Now show me examples that there would.

Thats not the point. My point is that would be the next logical step. If there was a national registry and there was enough support (and there are polls to show there is) that people dont need "weapons of war" all it would take is another Sandy Hook to push a Democrat controlled house and senate to pass confiscation. And it would be massively effective because there is a list of where they can be found.

So if a supermajority of the country wanted this you'd still be against it?

If a supermajority of the country wanted what, an "assault weapons" ban? Yes, I would be against it, for a few reasons, the previous "assault weapons" ban had little to no measurable affect. Some of the weapons subjected to the ban are functionally equivalent to non banned weapons (due to having features qualifying them) and that rifles constitute a small portion of the deaths from guns. Handguns make up 90% of the deaths from firearms.

So that the currently in power can't target you and keep you from voting against them?

Exactly.

[Draco-Onis]

Thats not the point. My point is that would be the next logical step. If there was a national registry and there was enough support (and there are polls to show there is) that people dont need "weapons of war" all it would take is another Sandy Hook to push a Democrat controlled house and senate to pass confiscation. And it would be massively effective because there is a list of where they can be found.

I hate to break it to you but the list already exist it's just not in the hands of the federal government, facebook and other social media affiliates along with credit card companies already know if you have a gun or not. The only way you wouldn't be on a list made up of that data is if you made your own bullets, gun accessories, buy guns only with cash never post or communicate on any form of social media mentioning weapons or visit any gun related sites.

[Zan15]

Thats not the point. My point is that would be the next logical step. If there was a national registry and there was enough support (and there are polls to show there is) that people dont need "weapons of war" all it would take is another Sandy Hook to push a Democrat controlled house and senate to pass confiscation.

.

LOL Obama's gunna take ur gunzzzzz

wait didn't he have a democratic controlled house and senate...but you still have your guns??? hmmmm….

Guess this is right up there with Fema camps the democrats were going to use, that now Trump and Co. are actually using and not a peep out of anyone

[Spectral]

LOL Obama's gunna take ur gunzzzzz

wait didn't he have a democratic controlled house and senate...but you still have your guns??? hmmmm….

Guess this is right up there with Fema camps the democrats were going to use, that now Trump and Co. are actually using and not a peep out of anyone

Can you speak plainly about what your actual stance is? I'm not clear on whether you think trying to prevent people from owning certain subsets of firearms is a good idea or a bad idea.

[Zan15]

Can you speak plainly about what your actual stance is? I'm not clear on whether you think trying to prevent people from owning certain subsets of firearms is a good idea or a bad idea.

Simplistic summary:

Dream - Complete ban of firearms is my dream. Where no guns are present and ammo has disappeared.

Maybe one day - Make it harder to own a gun and almost impossible to own anything outside of a handgun unless you can prove a specific need related to occupation/safety.

Realistically - . Expanded background checks, mental health checks and expanded red flag laws. Lower the "criminal bar" when it comes to whom can own a gun to include lower level violent offenders.

Anyone owning a weapon would be required to register and have insurance for liability So when 20 3rd graders are gunned down they have some restitution. When a few dozen people are dealing with up to a few million each in medical bills from gun shot wounds they have some way of paying for it all.

[Spectral]

Simplistic summary:

Dream - Complete ban of firearms is my dream. Where no guns are present and ammo has disappeared.

Maybe one day - Make it harder to own a gun and almost impossible to own anything outside of a handgun unless you can prove a specific need related to occupation/safety.

Realistically - . Expanded background checks, mental health checks and expanded red flag laws. Lower the "criminal bar" when it comes to whom can own a gun to include lower level violent offenders.

Anyone owning a weapon would be required to register and have insurance for liability So when 20 3rd graders are gunned down they have some restitution. When a few dozen people are dealing with up to a few million each in medical bills from gun shot wounds they have some way of paying for it all.

So this is why when you make suggestions about small changes, people that own firearms say, "fuck you, your goal is to take my firearms". I don't really get how you can simultaneously make the No One Is Trying To Take Your Guns argument while also argue that we should definitely take all of your guns in the long run. There's really no reason to compromise with people whose terminal goal is the antithesis of what I want.

Combative takes aside though, I do appreciate the candor or clarity rather than avoidance. I know it's hard to tell tone on the internet, not trying to be snarky.

[Kellhound]

So if a supermajority of the country wanted this you'd still be against it?

So long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, yes I would object to it.

[pionock]

Simplistic summary:

Dream - Complete ban of firearms is my dream. Where no guns are present and ammo has disappeared.

Maybe one day - Make it harder to own a gun and almost impossible to own anything outside of a handgun unless you can prove a specific need related to occupation/safety.

Realistically - . Expanded background checks, mental health checks and expanded red flag laws. Lower the "criminal bar" when it comes to whom can own a gun to include lower level violent offenders.

Anyone owning a weapon would be required to register and have insurance for liability So when 20 3rd graders are gunned down they have some restitution. When a few dozen people are dealing with up to a few million each in medical bills from gun shot wounds they have some way of paying for it all.

I would think of all the types of firearms that anti gun nutters want to ban, handguns would be the one. They're easily carried, used, and concealed. They're the type of gun that's involved in almost all shootings; the big scary rifles you sweat over don't even come close. Hell, if you ban handguns, all those upstanding citizens in crime ridden cities won't be able to shoot each other. Not sure what they'll kill each other with, but at least it's not guns !

[Elegiac]

I would think of all the types of firearms that anti gun nutters want to ban, handguns would be the one. They're easily carried, used, and concealed. They're the type of gun that's involved in almost all shootings; the big scary rifles you sweat over don't even come close. Hell, if you ban handguns, all those upstanding citizens in crime ridden cities won't be able to shoot each other. Not sure what they'll kill each other with, but at least it's not guns !

*sips wine*

You do realise this completely negates the argument that more guns = safer community, yes?

[Masark]

Maybe one day - Make it harder to own a gun and almost impossible to own anything outside of a handgun unless you can prove a specific need related to occupation/safety.

That needs to be the other way around. Handguns should be the most restricted, as they are up here.

[Mayhem]

So long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, yes I would object to it.

That's a very weird take on democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats not the point. My point is that would be the next logical step. If there was a national registry and there was enough support (and there are polls to show there is) that people dont need "weapons of war" all it would take is another Sandy Hook to push a Democrat controlled house and senate to pass confiscation. And it would be massively effective because there is a list of where they can be found.

How is it a rational fear when it's based on nothing that ever happened?

If a supermajority of the country wanted what, an "assault weapons" ban? Yes, I would be against it, for a few reasons, the previous "assault weapons" ban had little to no measurable affect. Some of the weapons subjected to the ban are functionally equivalent to non banned weapons (due to having features qualifying them) and that rifles constitute a small portion of the deaths from guns. Handguns make up 90% of the deaths from firearms.

Are we forgetting the las vegas incident (and pretty much every other mass shooting in recent history)? 10 minutes, 58 lives, 22 assault rifles. According to your logic, banning assault rifles like AR 15s and AR 10s would be more than rational.

Dayton, 30 seconds (!!), 9 dead, 27 injured.

So let me get this straight, fear is rational if something maybe could happen based on some slippery slope argument that has not even happened in states with a registry, but it's not rational to prevent something that people fear from happening again?

Exactly.

What do you mean exactly? Do you think this is some kind of gotcha? Because it surely isn't.