Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

If anything, increasing restrictions for private gun show sales so that they need a background check would reduce the resale of weapons and increase primary sales. It'd be good for the producers.

Private sales should not even exist. Since you are selling a lethal weapon not a paperclip and in some states with no background check required and even no taxation for the sale. Let only gun shops deal them, regulate it proper with registrated serial no. for guns and ammo count and you have a better track on what's out there and who might have it.

Still amazed gun shops didn't militate for it to be stoped, but I guess they did the math that the vast majority of gun owners upgrade and swap their weapons quite a lot so by private sale of the old gun they might buy the new one. But that can be easy done via the shop with a buy-back program.

[alturic]

So, I found this gem of a video.

Can someone from the anti-gun crowd please explain your stance after watching specifically from the 6 minute mark to the 8:30 mark:



Yet people are still trying to say the ban isn't specifically about aesthetics. If you give up those 2 minutes of you're life to watch that you'll see why it is exactly based around it.

[Reeve]

So, I found this gem of a video.

Can someone from the anti-gun crowd please explain your stance after watching specifically from the 6 minute mark to the 8:30 mark:



Yet people are still trying to say the ban isn't specifically about aesthetics. If you give up those 2 minutes of you're life to watch that you'll see why it is exactly based around it.

Have anti-gun people in this thread been saying the Assault Weapons bill is helpful? I certainly haven't. Handguns are the real issue in the US, but we aren't gonna be able to get rid of those.

[alturic]

Have anti-gun people in this thread been saying the Assault Weapons bill is helpful? I certainly haven't. Handguns are the real issue in the US, but we aren't gonna be able to get rid of those.

I'm not talking about the AWB of 94. I'm saying watch from 6 minutes to 8:30 and explain to me why a weapon (any weapon) should be banned because of what you see in those 2 minutes.

Unless, you are saying people who are anti-gun don't think an AWB is something they are for.

I'm merely asking the 1,167 people in the poll who have voted for an AWB the question.

[Reeve]

I'm not talking about the AWB of 94. I'm saying watch from 6 minutes to 8:30 and explain to me why a weapon (any weapon) should be banned because of what you see in those 2 minutes.

Unless, you are saying people who are anti-gun don't think an AWB is something they are for.

I'm merely asking the 1,167 people in the poll who have voted for an AWB the question.

I haven't seen that portion of the video and I won't until I get to an appropriate place where I can watch it, but the pro-gun folks have been doing a pretty good job educating the anti-gun folks on why pistol grips and telescoping stocks don't really make a weapon inherently more lethal. Plus, most gun homicides are committed with the easily concealable handguns, not rifles.

I'm not a fan of guns myself, and I'd like to see the culture of the US change to caring less about guns over time so that one day maybe we could reasonably ban them (it won't be in my lifetime), but I certainly don't think the bill being proposed in Congress right now is particularly helpful.

[Tinykong]

Yet people are still trying to say the ban isn't specifically about aesthetics

The assault weapon ban proponents feel that the asthetic/accessories do in fact increase the lethality of the weapon, ignoring that even if you remove those features, the gun still functions identically.

They believe that because a gun owner might store their weapons improperly, and they could be stolen and possibly used in a violent crime that potentially could be a mass shooting, that no one should be allowed to own these types of weapons, ignoring the fact that millions of these guns are used responsibly every year, and that a tiny fraction of a percentage are ever used in the crimes they are seekeing to deter.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Can someone from the anti-gun crowd please explain your stance after watching specifically from the 6 minute mark to the 8:30 mark

My stance is the same as it was before watching this little gem of a video. Certain modifications, when added to a rifle, increase the ability to use these rifles in a more effective manner.

It doesn't make the rifle itself more deadly, but it makes the operation of said rifle more effective.

Yet people are still trying to say the ban isn't specifically about aesthetics.

That's because it's not. A ban based purely on aesthetics would be something like changing the color, because that wouldn't effect performance or ability to operate.

If it were true that these modifications do not increase operational performance, then why do SWAT teams use rifles that look like this:



Instead of this:

[Rocko9]

Never seen SWAT use an M16-A1, but the Ruger Mini-14 isn't that great on accuracy if you shoot a couple of rounds fast. It's the same flaw the M14 had.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Never seen SWAT use an M16-A1, but the Ruger Mini-14 isn't that great on accuracy if you shoot a couple of rounds fast. It's the same flaw the M14 had.

I said that "look" like this. SWAT teams use assault weapon style modifications on their rifles for a reason. It increases operational performance.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Have anti-gun people in this thread been saying the Assault Weapons bill is helpful? I certainly haven't. Handguns are the real issue in the US, but we aren't gonna be able to get rid of those.

Yes, yes they have. Specifically the OP.

[Deleted]

My stance is the same as it was before watching this little gem of a video. Certain modifications, when added to a rifle, increase the ability to use these rifles in a more effective manner.

It doesn't make the rifle itself more deadly, but it makes the operation of said rifle more effective.



That's because it's not. A ban based purely on aesthetics would be something like changing the color, because that wouldn't effect performance or ability to operate.

If it were true that these modifications do not increase operational performance, then why do SWAT teams use rifles that look like this:



Instead of this:

It's bullshit when people say the attachments are cosmetic only, they certainly do aid in its effectiveness. However, when you strip it down to the minimum, it still fires the same round, just as quickly and is just as deadly as a bare bones "hunting rifle" of the same caliber.

[Rocko9]

I said that "look" like this. SWAT teams use assault weapon style modifications on their rifles for a reason. It increases operational performance.

Like what? Full auto at long distances?

[Deadvolcanoes]

It's bullshit when people say the attachments are cosmetic only, they certainly do aid in its effectiveness. However, when you strip it down to the minimum, it still fires the same round, just as quickly and is just as deadly as a bare bones "hunting rifle" of the same caliber.

I agree completely.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 11:17 AM ----------

Like what? Full auto at long distances?

Someone that's as knowledgeable about guns as you are should have no problem admitting certain modifications increase operational performance.

[Tinykong]

I like the grenade launcher attachment in that photo, really helps add some impact to the "military" label.

[Dabrix32]

I'd like to introduce a segment called "Honoring the Victims" it's where I notice from an article of gun violence. I re-print it but we honor the victims that guns have caused and time for us to self reflect maybe we just think about someone for head of ATF to enforce the Gun Laws.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A teenage boy fatally shot two adults and three children at a home near Albuquerque, authorities said Sunday.

The boy, who police believe to be about 15 years old, was arrested and booked on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings Saturday night at the home in an unincorporated area 10 miles southwest of downtown Albuquerque, Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman Aaron Williamson said.

The victims' identities haven't been released, and the boy's motive and connection to the five victims weren't immediately known. Williamson said investigators were trying to determine if the victims were related.

"We are trying to identify the victims," Williamson said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2516424.html

Not blaming you cause its mostly the liberal media's fault because they only want to demonize guns. But why is it we only hear about shootings when innocent people are shot? Why doesnt the news cover stories where a guy uses a gun to defend his family from a home invasion or a woman uses her gun to fend off a would be rapist or a carjacker? Im willing to bet those scenarios happen far far more than shootings yet they are never on CNN or MSNBC. Its disgusting that when guns are used in a positive way to prevent harm or even death it goes unnoticed so the people only have this false notion that guns only do harm.

[alturic]

My stance is the same as it was before watching this little gem of a video. Certain modifications, when added to a rifle, increase the ability to use these rifles in a more effective manner.

It doesn't make the rifle itself more deadly, but it makes the operation of said rifle more effective.



That's because it's not. A ban based purely on aesthetics would be something like changing the color, because that wouldn't effect performance or ability to operate.

If it were true that these modifications do not increase operational performance, then why do SWAT teams use rifles that look like this:

snip the pictures

Are you really looking for an answer to that question? I can list a few if you really are, from simple things such as a scope, to the launcher to the fully-automatic nature of it.

Here's something though, I don't think any mass shooting (in recent history) was done with actually looking into a scope or a launcher attachment and I'm 100% certain they weren't done with a fully automatic weapon.

CLEARLY a scope would inherently increase the effectiveness of most weapons. CLEARLY a launcher would increase the (using the word loosely) effectiveness of killing a bunch of people. CLEARLY a fully-automatic weapon would kill a bunch of people quickly.

You know, I didn't even bother to look, are scopes on the list of banned items? You also bring up how adding some components changes the way a gun operates. You know that almost 100% of weapons used in murders/homicides/mass shootings are semi-automatic, just like the weapons people want to ban, right? Unless you are for the banning of all weapons, they are no more deadly than another.

The point of the video was to show a simple hunting rifle which would be LEGAL after a "ban" is suddenly considered ILLEGAL by simply adding a pistol grip to it. If that doesn't drive home the point of aesthetics I don't know what else to say to you.

[Laize]

My stance is the same as it was before watching this little gem of a video. Certain modifications, when added to a rifle, increase the ability to use these rifles in a more effective manner.

It doesn't make the rifle itself more deadly, but it makes the operation of said rifle more effective.



That's because it's not. A ban based purely on aesthetics would be something like changing the color, because that wouldn't effect performance or ability to operate.

If it were true that these modifications do not increase operational performance, then why do SWAT teams use rifles that look like this:



Instead of this:

Said modifications increase ease of firearm use. Adjustable stocks, for example, allow for more comfortable shouldering of rifles/carbines.

Muzzle shrouds are to lower the volume of a gunshot from behind the gun (ie: you won't rupture your eardrums when firing without protection).

Forward grips are used because your hand is not meant to hold things outstretched horizontally (as you hold a regular rifle). The grip assists in a more natural (and, thus, more controllable) holding of the firearm.

These apparently need to be banned because, you know, heaven forbid you be comfortable while firing a gun.

And I'm reluctant to go into all the ways that the "SWAT" rifle is no different from the farmer's rifle.

The only apparent difference is the magazine, strap, sight and muzzle shroud.

[alturic]

I said that "look" like this. SWAT teams use assault weapon style modifications on their rifles for a reason. It increases operational performance.

Once again, I don't think you realize SWAT teams use... assault rifles (please note: not "assault weapons") which can be fully-automatic. They use completely different weapons than what are legally (well heavily regulated) obtainable.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The point of the video was to show a simple hunting rifle which would be LEGAL after a "ban" is suddenly considered ILLEGAL by simply adding a pistol grip to it. If that doesn't drive home the point of aesthetics I don't know what else to say to you.

You're saying the pistol grip adds absolutely no functionality to the rifle? That it's completely aesthetic?

[alturic]

Not blaming you cause its mostly the liberal media's fault because they only want to demonize guns. But why is it we only hear about shootings when innocent people are shot? Why doesnt the news cover stories where a guy uses a gun to defend his family from a home invasion or a woman uses her gun to fend off a would be rapist or a carjacker? Im willing to bet those scenarios happen far far more than shootings yet they are never on CNN or MSNBC. Its disgusting that when guns are used in a positive way to prevent harm or even death it goes unnoticed so the people only have this false notion that guns only do harm.

We only hear about that when it can be spun into a racial issue.