Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Fahrenheit]

Seriously though, what does your average person need a weapon that's capable of putting several dozen rounds down range in less than a min for? Certainly not hunting, and if you care about home defense you'd be using a shotgun anyways, not a handgun that's going to be shoot through several walls (unless it hits some studs) and into your neighbors house.

[PhaelixWW]

I don't think people should have access to semi automatic weapons, handguns included. Your average dip shit person shouldn't have the ability to fire off 30-40-50 rounds in less than a min. Bolt action rifles for hunting, breech and pump shotguns for hunting/home defense.

You can fire off 30-50 rounds a minute easily with a bolt-action rifle...

Heck, you can even fire off 30 rounds a minute with a pump-action shotgun.

[Stormdash]

The distinction between a "gun ban" or "banning some guns" isn't terribly interesting to me. Again, the term "ban" gets thrown around by pro-gun advocates as a scare tactic, so using it, in my opinion, is disingenuous.

Kinda like the term "assault weapon"? Except "ban" actually means something.

- - - Updated - - -

You can fire off 30-50 rounds a minute easily with a bolt-action rifle...

Heck, you can even fire off 30 rounds a minute with a pump-action shotgun.

You're clarifying this as though the little twerp doesn't ultimately want to prohibit any and every semi-automatic firearm.

[TITAN308]

Seriously though, what does your average person need a weapon that's capable of putting several dozen rounds down range in less than a min for?

Why does the average person need a vehicle that can travel 120mph?

[Fahrenheit]

You can fire off 30-50 rounds a minute easily with a bolt-action rifle...

Heck, you can even fire off 30 rounds a minute with a pump-action shotgun.

Show me one clip of anyone doing either with civilian legal weapons. With the aim, action plus having to reload I doubt anyone but the best trained and experienced people could do more than 20 if that with several preloaded mags for the rifle.

[Stormdash]

Seriously though, what does your average person need a weapon that's capable of putting several dozen rounds down range in less than a min for? Certainly not hunting, and if you care about home defense you'd be using a shotgun anyways, not a handgun that's going to be shoot through several walls (unless it hits some studs) and into your neighbors house.

The 2nd Amendment is not limted to or defined by utility in hunting. It's very well settled that the individual liberty therein is related to defense of self, of home, and of community. And as a general principle of constitutional law, it's not the burden of the individual to prove why they "need" that to which they are presumed to have a civil right. It's up to the government to sufficiently prove they can justify prohibiting it. There's no actual evidence that magazine capacity or trigger system bans serve any use at all, let alone to satisfy heightened scrutiny required by the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't, but a car that can travel 120 mph can't easily kill 50 people. It's only slightly more dangerous to have a car that can travel 120 mph than one that can travel 65 mph, and I think we can agree that having 65 mph cars is pretty useful to society and worth the extra danger of having those cars around.

It... absolutely can easily kill 50 people.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me one clip of anyone doing either with civilian legal weapons. With the aim, action plus having to reload I doubt anyone but the best trained and experienced people could do more than 20 if that with several preloaded mags for the rifle.

I have little doubt that I could fire off 30-50 aimed shots in a minute with a 10+1 capacity bolt action like a Ruger GSR or Savage 11. Do you think the possibility of a hand crap is substantially related to an important government interest?

[Fahrenheit]

The 2nd Amendment is not limted to or defined by utility in hunting. It's very well settled that the individual liberty therein is related to defense of self, of home, and of community. And as a general principle of constitutional law, it's not the burden of the individual to prove why they "need" that to which they are presumed to have a civil right. It's up to the government to sufficiently prove they can justify prohibiting it. There's no actual evidence that magazine capacity or trigger system bans serve any use at all, let alone to satisfy heightened scrutiny required by the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -




It... absolutely can easily kill 50 people.

Why are fully automatic and select fire rifles essentially banned in that case?
Pro gun folks need to stop bringin up cars, one is a tool for transportation, one that humans won't be able to drive in another decade or so, one is a tool for killing at range.

[Auxora]

There has to be some sort of line drawn for where weapons cross the threshold into military weapons that shouldn't be in civilian possession. I guess that's what it comes down to in the AR debate. Otherwise if we go with the blind *any* gun ban on any type of gun is an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights (which is the stance nearly all pro-gun folks have very firmly it seems) than what exactly is an acceptable threshold? Can I go buy a 155mm Howitzer? It's technically a gun, and a military combat weapon just like an AR-15. I would bet a frightening number of pro-gun supporters would actually say owning the Howitzer should be legal.

My preference would not be a total gun ban, but at least an AR ban. But I've talked with gun folks today and had them even argue with me that they don't consider an AR-15 to be an assault rifle, which shows how entrenched the position is. It doesn't seem like it's a topic where any level-headed intelligent common sense debate can happen. It just instantly turns to "guns don't kill people" silliness. We all understand that guns are not animate objects (like that needs to be said), it's the fact that these assault weapons are accessible to humans that do kill people which are the problem. I have yet to see any sensible argument for civilians owning assault weapons. They aren't needed for hunting. They aren't needed for home protection. There has to be some limits on weapons, we don't want people owning bazookas, RPGs, howitzers, tanks, etc. just in the name of 2nd amendment freedom. And if the pro-gun camp stubbornness on this issue prevents any change, I can only imagine the laughter in ISIS camps at how stupid the Americans are as they plan their next attacks.

[Eviscero]

Why does the average person need a vehicle that can travel 120mph?

Running from the police after a mass shooting? Why do you hate cars so much?

[Stormdash]

Why are fully automatic and select fire rifles essentially banned in that case?

Not least of which because they've never been challenged on constitutional grounds. There is language in Heller that indicates the likelihood that certain restrictions like NFA title 2 would satisfy heightened scrutiny, but it's never actually been put to the test. I'm so tired of laypeople ignoring the operant premise of heightened scrutiny, that the limits on rights are not binary, they are a balancing test. The interest of the state and the scope of the restriction.

Pro gun folks need to stop bringin up cars, one is a tool for transportation, one that humans won't be able to drive in another decade or so, one is a tool for killing at range.

All things are tools for whatever the user applies them to. That lady that applied her car to 40 odd people a while back is no different than the shooter.

[Svifnymr]

The distinction between a "gun ban" or "banning some guns" isn't terribly interesting to me. Again, the term "ban" gets thrown around by pro-gun advocates as a scare tactic, so using it, in my opinion, is disingenuous.

The distinction is unimportant to you because you don't care. Someone complaining that Hillary wants to ban guns because she wants to pass an assault weapons ban, does not need the retort that 'well, you can still buy a non-assault rifle, so it's not a ban", because it ignores the issue being discussed.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously though, what does your average person need a weapon that's capable of putting several dozen rounds down range in less than a min for? Certainly not hunting, and if you care about home defense you'd be using a shotgun anyways, not a handgun that's going to be shoot through several walls (unless it hits some studs) and into your neighbors house.

223's properties in a home defense scenario are well established and for many people are more advantageous than a shotgun. Throwing a cone of pellets out is not the most accurate situation. You lack an understanding on actual penetration results...

[Deleted]

223's properties in a home defense scenario are well established and for many people are more advantageous than a shotgun. Throwing a cone of pellets out is not the most accurate situation. You lack an understanding on actual penetration results...

The problem is, though, that the next shooter will have that .223 with those well established properties, instead of throwing cones of pellets, and dozens of people will die again.

[Eviscero]

All things are tools for whatever the user applies them to. That lady that applied her car to 40 odd people a while back is no different than the shooter.

Also, just so we're clear on the facts, in that case 1 person died and 40 were injured. So, you know, not TECHNICALLY the same lethality... close though!

[vaeevictiss]

The bill, last I saw, had like 2 people backing it. I'm waiting on my third silencer, they were never bought as investments, so I have no vested interest in them being registered, but I just don't see it passing the Press-Mob.

which one? there were a couple in the works but it was HR 3799 that is the big one with a ton of support.

and i gotta have a laugh cause the rate of fire of the ar15 is like a magical being we really dont know about. Look around the internet...fuck, just looking at this thread you will see rates of fire from 70 rounds a minute to 20 rounds per second.

[Svifnymr]

My preference would not be a total gun ban, but at least an AR ban. But I've talked with gun folks today and had them even argue with me that they don't consider an AR-15 to be an assault rifle, which shows how entrenched the position is.

Because specific terms have specific meanings. An Assault Rifle is a term for a small caliber machinegun, with which to storm/assault a position. The small caliber is tied to the fully automatic part, as the smaller round leads to less recoil and needs more bullets to achieve actual casualties/ injuries.

The Assault Weapons Ban created a new category, Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon. The AR15 met that definition if it had a collapsing stock (shave 3" off your length) and a threaded barrel. It had no bearing on caliber or any other actual mechanical feature.

The gun is no more lethal than any semiautomatic 223.

[Stormdash]

Also, just so we're clear on the facts, in that case 1 person died and 40 were injured. So, you know, not TECHNICALLY the same lethality... close though!

I don't think you get how reality works. Not everybody hit with a bullet falls over dead, either. If she'd squared up on 40 people with nothing but a concrete wall between her and them and nowhere to get out, they'd be dead; if you open fire on a bunch of people in a confined space from which they could not retreat, they're dead.

[PhaelixWW]

Well yeah. Obviously. It's hard for something to be banned (i.e. legally prohibited) within a state, when it is in fact, legally obtainable. Particularly when there's tens of thousands of examples otherwise.

Pro-gun advocates throw around the word "ban" incorrectly all the time. "Obama wants to ban firearms. Hillary wants to ban firearms. De facto bans."

There are no such bans.

You really don't understand the English language very well, do you. The word "ban" can be modified in a number of different ways. The sentence "Hilary wants to ban firearms" is somewhat vague. If Hilary wants to ban some firearms, then that sentence could still be true. Certainly, if Hilary wants to ban all firearms, then the sentence is definitely true. But without the adjective "all" there, the extent of the ban is questionable.

Is it misleading to not use the word "some" before firearms? Perhaps. But I think the context generally makes it clear whether the person is talking about some firearms or all firearms. You're just shit-stirring when you intentionally fail to understand that.

And it can still be a ban even though some permits are issued. It's a de facto ban for the majority of the population of certain counties. Like I said, the only civilians in most of those counties who are issued CCWs are security guards. Even many security guards are denied CCWs.

I mean a Federal Court must have known the implication of their ruling, and one would think they wouldn't have ruled in such a manner if the outcome was blatantly unconstitutional.

Hah. The court fell back on the fact that the lawsuit only narrowly specified concealed carry. Despite the fact that they discussed open carry, and despite the fact that the court could have honored the spirit of the issue, they decided to play the delay card and block an interpretation on concealed carry while paving the way for a new trial on open carry. Of course, this postpones the whole issue by several years.

This happens a lot in appeals court.

Sounds like there are several issues in many of California's counties. Were they just waiting for the litigation to clear?

No, this has been the way California has been for a long time. California has been may-issue since 1924, and the current practice of most urban counties drastically limiting CCWs has been around for at least as long as I can remember.

Again, in my opinion, I favor may-issue, but certainly not a never-issue. Connecticut does it right, as I pointed out. Thoroughly screen applicants, and hand out licenses when everything is clear.

And that sounds nearly like shall-issue. From the wikipedia page on Connecticut gun laws:

Shall-Issue, with Limited Discretion.:

Connecticut's pistol permit law specifies that issuing authorities May-Issue pistol permits to qualified applicants, but the state's courts have generally ruled that permits must be granted on a Shall-Issue basis to applicant's meeting the state's qualifications for a pistol permit, as Connecticut does not require an applicant to "show good cause" for needing a permit. Issuing local authorities have limited discretion to deny a permit when he or she has personal knowledge of the applicant's character that would not otherwise be reflected on a background check. A denial on this basis would have to be justified with supporting evidence showing that the applicant is not of "suitable" character to be granted a pistol permit, but virtually all cases are thrown out if the applicant is not otherwise barred from owning firearms.

Honestly, that'd be just fine by me. I'd have no problems with that. Some ability for local LEOs to deny a permit request, but with oversight to make sure that it's not unwarranted.

Kinda the best of both worlds.

The "good cause" clause sounds like a good idea in theory, but it's open to some pretty blatant abuse.

[Svifnymr]

The problem is, though, that the next shooter will have that .223 with those well established properties, instead of throwing cones of pellets, and dozens of people will die again.

You realize a packed club vs a shotgun would still have resulted in many deaths over the hours? the Virginia Tech guy had a pair of handguns over a broad area.

[PhaelixWW]

Seriously though, what does your average person need a weapon that's capable of putting several dozen rounds down range in less than a min for? Certainly not hunting, and if you care about home defense you'd be using a shotgun anyways, not a handgun that's going to be shoot through several walls (unless it hits some studs) and into your neighbors house.

Actually, an AR-15 round (5.56mm) will penetrate less than a shotgun round (00 buck) when you're talking home defense.

- - - Updated - - -

You're clarifying this as though the little twerp doesn't ultimately want to prohibit any and every semi-automatic firearm.

Yeah, but someone else may read this and be enlightened. That's the hope, at least.

[Eviscero]

I don't think you get how reality works. Not everybody hit with a bullet falls over dead, either. If she'd squared up on 40 people with nothing but a concrete wall between her and them and nowhere to get out, they'd be dead; if you open fire on a bunch of people in a confined space from which they could not retreat, they're dead.

You're the one who said that case was no different than the Orlando shooter. Just setting the record straight on the minor differences.

The scenario you're describing is straight out of some campy horror movie, which is why it's literally never happened. But when it does start happening, even once, I'll be sure to revisit your point.