Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Felya]

Why is this being argued? An assault weapon is a label put on semi-automatic guns that have a military styling, the only difference is the styling. They call them assault weapons so they can stigmatize them why would you support a misnomer?

Do you think it would improve it's image to call it a Military Style gun?

[Deleted]

A plane is a vehicle. Just like any other, an unintended bullet can immobilize it. An immobilized vehicle in the sky is different to one on the ground, due to gravity, not movies.

Most airplanes are pretty big, you have to get extremely lucky and hit a vital component, use a big gun or use a truck load of ammo to immobilize an airplane.

[Felya]

Most airplanes are pretty big, you have to get extremely lucky and hit a vital component, use a big gun or use a truck load of ammo to immobilize an airplane.

I'm saying something similar, but 'unlucky' instead of lucky.

Immobilizing is very hard, but hitting a passenger is very easy.

[Svifnymr]

.357 sig and minimal overpenetration ? That caliber is supposed to be one of the best barrier penetrators amongst semi-automatic pistol calibers.

357sig is like a lot of high velocity low mass rounds, loses it's energy very quickly depending on bullet selection.

[Thephayul]

I'm saying something similar, but 'unlucky' instead of lucky.

Immobilizing is very hard, but hitting a passenger is very easy.

No arguments here. god knows I wouldn't want to try and single out and hit a target in a crowded and confined space like that

[Deadvolcanoes]

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) recently sent a letter to the mother of a shooting victim, stating that "strengthening background checks is something we agree on."

He then voted to reject the recent gun legislation because it "would expand background checks far beyond commercial sales to include almost all private transfers — including between friends and neighbors."

...The fuck?

Source

[Åmbulance]

Heck, there were air marshals on the 9/11 flights WITH GUNS while the plane got taken over.

Please, for the love of god, show me this source.

[Felya]

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) recently sent a letter to the mother of a shooting victim, stating that "strengthening background checks is something we agree on."

He then voted to reject the recent gun legislation because it "would expand background checks far beyond commercial sales to include almost all private transfers — including between friends and neighbors."

...The fuck?

Source

I think it's funny that a state that proposed ID checks in bathrooms for biological gender and known for their immigration ID stances, would balk at gun registration. Seems about right...

[Svifnymr]

Do you think it would improve it's image to call it a Military Style gun?

You want to see something funny, there used to be one of Feinstein's speechs on video when she was campaigning against "pocket rockets" (small guns with big calibers, popular for concealed carry). There was also "Saturday Night Special" rants (lower priced guns, common among the poorer classes)...

Years ago, Brady Campaign/ Handgun Control Inc sent out a fax to agencies to "alert" them to the dangers of the FN 5.7, which was designed as an armor piercing round (though AP ammo is not available in the USA except for LE/Mil). So the local PD had a meeting to make sure officers knew to be careful if someone had an FN. "Wait, so if it's not an FN we're supposed to just let them shoot at us without worry?"

For Assault Weapons, they're trying to portray them as machine guns in waiting. Technically they do call them Military Style Assault Weapons, though again they publicize them as mean looking rifles rather than mentioning that there are handguns and shotguns on the list. Same way they have a jones on for Grenade Launchers and Silencers, neither of which is an issue and both of which are controlled since 1934.

But I'm rambling a bit, eating lunch.

[Felya]

No arguments here. god knows I wouldn't want to try and single out and hit a target in a crowded and confined space like that

Yeah, I think what I was responding to got lost a few pages ago. It wasn't as outlandish as I think it seemed there for a bit.

[Svifnymr]

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) recently sent a letter to the mother of a shooting victim, stating that "strengthening background checks is something we agree on."

He then voted to reject the recent gun legislation because it "would expand background checks far beyond commercial sales to include almost all private transfers — including between friends and neighbors."

We both know it's because he wants to pander to that parent on one hand and to the partyline on the other, but;
1) Strengthening background checks would be increasing availability of records of prohibited persons and auditing the records we have.
2) Expanding Background Checks would be applying current background checks to new venues.

[Porcell]

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) recently sent a letter to the mother of a shooting victim, stating that "strengthening background checks is something we agree on."

He then voted to reject the recent gun legislation because it "would expand background checks far beyond commercial sales to include almost all private transfers — including between friends and neighbors."

...The fuck?

Source

People are so mixed up. Besides the fact we have a supposed double-talking politician, we have an angry mother of a victim from Aurora and she's clamoring for background checks? Guess what would have done nothing to stop the Aurora shooting; background check reform.

[Thephayul]

You want to see something funny, there used to be one of Feinstein's speechs on video when she was campaigning against "pocket rockets" (small guns with big calibers, popular for concealed carry). There was also "Saturday Night Special" rants (lower priced guns, common among the poorer classes)...

Years ago, Brady Campaign/ Handgun Control Inc sent out a fax to agencies to "alert" them to the dangers of the FN 5.7, which was designed as an armor piercing round (though AP ammo is not available in the USA except for LE/Mil). So the local PD had a meeting to make sure officers knew to be careful if someone had an FN. "Wait, so if it's not an FN we're supposed to just let them shoot at us without worry?"

For Assault Weapons, they're trying to portray them as machine guns in waiting. Technically they do call them Military Style Assault Weapons, though again they publicize them as mean looking rifles rather than mentioning that there are handguns and shotguns on the list. Same way they have a jones on for Grenade Launchers and Silencers, neither of which is an issue and both of which are controlled since 1934.

But I'm rambling a bit, eating lunch.

Interestingly enough, they seem more worried about capacity then caliber, My pistol from what I understand is one of the ones they want gone. Because of its clip size, not its caliber. Which is just plain silly cause the dam thing will penetrate body armor.

[Felya]

We both know it's because he wants to pander to that parent on one hand and to the partyline on the other, but;
1) Strengthening background checks would be increasing availability of records of prohibited persons and auditing the records we have.
2) Expanding Background Checks would be applying current background checks to new venues.

What is wrong with either of those? If we have more records to audit about an assailant it's a good thing. You are saying that we cannot trust the same government that issues every ID we have, to do the same for gun registration? The point is to expend the current background check.

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 06:06 PM ----------

Interestingly enough, they seem more worried about capacity then caliber, My pistol from what I understand is one of the ones they want gone. Because of its clip size, not its caliber. Which is just plain silly cause the dam thing will penetrate body armor.

I don't understand. Your problem is not that your gun should be banned, but because it's due to it's clip size and not the armor piercing, that you think should be the reason?

[Thephayul]

What is wrong with either of those? If we have more records to audit about an assailant it's a good thing. You are saying that we cannot trust the same government that issues every ID we have, to do the same for gun registration? The point is to expend the current background check.

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 06:06 PM ----------



I don't understand. Your problem is not that your gun should be banned, but because it's due to it's clip size and not the armor piercing, that you think should be the reason?

Just was pointing out the falicies here. Who cares how lethal a weapon is as long as it has only "x" amount of rounds in it? I could almost see a point to it, if it was about the fact that armor is ineffective against it. But nope, it has the ability to carry more rounds then they are comfortable with.

[Deadvolcanoes]

we have an angry mother of a victim from Aurora and she's clamoring for background checks? Guess what would have done nothing to stop the Aurora shooting; background check reform.

These parents are not trying to stop shootings that have already taken place. That would be impossible. They're trying to prevent future tragedies from occurring; they're trying to prevent gun violence. And there's no doubt that background checks have the ability to stop future gun violence from occurring.

[Svifnymr]

What is wrong with either of those? If we have more records to audit about an assailant it's a good thing. You are saying that we cannot trust the same government that issues every ID we have, to do the same for gun registration? The point is to expend the current background check.

These things are part of the current debate, my point was merely that if you say you want to strengthen background checks it is not necessarily the same as voting against expanding them.

I don't understand. Your problem is not that your gun should be banned, but because it's due to it's clip size and not the armor piercing, that you think should be the reason?

I don't really see how you get that from his post, he doesn't say he's for the ban, just points out that they're more worried about the capacity than the ability. (Assumedly in reference to the FN 5.7 comment I made. The guns themselves are not in the AWB13 proposed, just the magazines.)

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 02:15 PM ----------

Just was pointing out the falicies here. Who cares how lethal a weapon is as long as it has only "x" amount of rounds in it? I could almost see a point to it, if it was about the fact that armor is ineffective against it. But nope, it has the ability to carry more rounds then they are comfortable with.

Studies have shown that the 12th bullet is the evil one, whispering dark secrets into the minds of man.

[Thephayul]

These things are part of the current debate, my point was merely that if you say you want to strengthen background checks it is not necessarily the same as voting against expanding them.



I don't really see how you get that from his post, he doesn't say he's for the ban, just points out that they're more worried about the capacity than the ability. (Assumedly in reference to the FN 5.7 comment I made. The guns themselves are not in the AWB13 proposed, just the magazines.)

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 02:15 PM ----------



Studies have shown that the 12th bullet is the evil one, whispering dark secrets into the minds of man.

Om then, disregard my comment. I thought that the new proposed limit was 7

[Todgruppe]

I don't really see how you get that from his post, he doesn't say he's for the ban, just points out that they're more worried about the capacity than the ability. (Assumedly in reference to the FN 5.7 comment I made. The guns themselves are not in the AWB13 proposed, just the magazines.)

One of the Cartel's weapon of choice is the Makarov 5.7. If that has any relevance?

Edit: Actually, I think it's Los Zetas who use them.

[Svifnymr]

Om then, disregard my comment. I thought that the new proposed limit was 7

only in new york

---------- Post added 2013-04-22 at 02:34 PM ----------

One of the Cartel's weapon of choice is the Makarov 5.7. If that has any relevance?

Edit: Actually, I think it's Los Zetas who use them.

Makarov's, afaik, are 9X18 (with some 380's). They were very common eastern bloc guns, used to be able to get them for $89 until Clinton made a deal with the russians for foreign aid.

The 5.7 is a very long round, so I don't think it'd fit in that design, though maybe there's something out there. The original design is armor piercing, designed to work against soft-armor targets. The FN P90 is in use by secret service and other agencies, it's a small, concealable rifle.

Realistically, IMO, the round is not a good self-defense round for most people, the ammo is expensive (and not armor piercing, as I mentioned) and actual stopping power isnt' there since the round was designed for multiple hits. Opinions vary of course, but I think it's more hype than proven effectiveness compared to other similar platforms.