Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Gumboy]

So are you saying that one dead, with two - three injured is nothing special, and shouldn't be bothered reporting on?

No point trying to argue anything regarding guns, as "mah ritez" will be said and that is that.

Read. The. Thread. Title. How is two people shot a "Mass shooting"? I mean if you want to make a random anti-gun violence post, go ahead, but using flat out lies in your thread title just makes your cause look retarded.

[Lancer]

So are you saying that one dead, with two - three injured is nothing special, and shouldn't be bothered reporting on?

No point trying to argue anything regarding guns, as "mah ritez" will be said and that is that.

Never said that now did I?

[Gumboy]

Never said that now did I?

It does not matter what you said/what you believe, they are 100% dedicated to complete gun confiscation.

Do I think we should have stricter gun control laws? You bet. Do I think threads like this makes intelligent gun control people look stupid? Yes, because these are the type of people that voters think of when they think "Gun control".

[Deleted]

You are the one that made this post, perhaps YOU should have a definition? Instead of linking some random rabid anti-gun reddit that says it is all rural gun owners fault for what gangbangers in the city do?

So what you are saying is you have no definition of the thread you created, you just wanted to make an anti-gun post and hope the liberal mods here let you get away with it, even though there is already a thread dedicated to this?

I linked a list of shootings. Each of them leads to news articles, as far as I could tell. I never said anything about whose fault it is, nor did I really care that the news article I found that list in was on CNN, or that the list is on Reddit. It's a list. Period. It has sources for the shootings. That's all it is.

The fact of the matter is that there have been at least 79 shootings, "mass-" or not, since January this year. I found that interesting. There's your definition.

Now, are you still trying to tell me none of those shootings took place since I linked to CNN or Reddit, or because I used the term "mass shooting"?

Mass shooting to me would be something like Columbine/Sandy Hook.

Columbine was 39 targets total by two shooters. Sandy Hook was 26 targets total by a single shooter. So, 25 targets wouldn't constitute a "mass shooting" then? Or perhaps that's close enough to the 26 of Sandy Hook to qualify. How about 20? 15? How low does the number have to go so that it can't be called a "mass shooting" anymore?

Also, I'm not the one who came up with the term used in connection with that list. I just used it since it was there. Just to make it clear.

Do I think we should have stricter gun control laws? You bet. Do I think threads like this makes intelligent gun control people look stupid? Yes, because these are the type of people that voters think of when they think "Gun control".

"Threads like this"?

All I did was post a list of shootings. I called them "mass shootings", because the site called them mass shootings. I injected no politics into the post. There was no bias. I simply made the statement that instead of just a couple that have gotten national news attention, there have been 79 shootings.

It was the news article, written by a self-proclaimed gun owner, which first alluded to "mass shootings", by the way;

Thanks to a civilian tip and good police work, we narrowly escaped another mass shooting.

A friend of mine predicted that the United States would suffer probably 10 such shootings in 2014. I didn't want to believe him, but I knew it would be true.

It turns out we will suffer far more than 10. We've seen a shooting where an assailant targets multiple people somewhere in this country every week this year, according to the website Shootingtracker.com.

I honestly have no idea why you're popping a vein over this issue. Apparently attacking the term "mass shooting" is a good way to try and convince everyone those shootings didn't happen. You do know that the first step is admitting there is a problem, right? Clearly there is a problem. Once we're all on the same page on that, we can start to discuss whether anything can or should be done about it.

I didn't post in this gun control thread originally because my intention wasn't to talk about gun control, but rather the interesting fact that there have been so many shootings already, and whether people even understand that. However, I see why the mods decided to merge my thread into this one.

[Deleted]

It does not matter what you said/what you believe, they are 100% dedicated to complete gun confiscation.

Do I think we should have stricter gun control laws? You bet. Do I think threads like this makes intelligent gun control people look stupid? Yes, because these are the type of people that voters think of when they think "Gun control".

Because thats exactly what I said, amirite? This game is easy

[Ghostpanther]

Gun regulation in the sense of requiring stricter background checks, closing the gun show loophole, requiring gun safety courses, and proper gun storage cabinets and boxes would do a world of good without infringing on anyone's rights.

Keeps more guns out of the hands of crazy people, keeps people from bypassing background checks, ensures that people know proper gun safety measures, and helps to keep guns from one owner out of the hands of children or the mentally ill.

All for the things you mentioned except for a couple, one would be the mandating you lock your guns in a storage cabinet. It is my home and it should be up to me how I store my guns. By law, you already are held libel for any unsafe stuff in your home if anyone gets hurt from your actions. I take measures to store my guns safely out of the reach of kids, but I do not want the governments telling me how to do it. And the point about stricter background checks? That would depend on what you define as stricter ones. I am against any restrictions which are like some states have. Like the reasons given for getting a carry and conceal permit can not be one like.." I would like one for self defense."

[Gheld]

The major problem with gun "control"? The lawmakers that are flat out obsessed with stupid "Assault rifle bans" when in reality things like backround checks and required safes+Stiffer punishments for ANY gun crime would do a lot more.

The problem is that lawmakers on both sides are completely stiff and unwilling to compromise. I mean honestly, you have people shitting bricks about proposed restrictions on 30 round magazines, but in a personal defense situation, if by the time you discharge a 10-15 round magazine your attacker is still alive, I can pretty much guarantee you that you aren't. Assuming that a shooter of average skill and fitness, can discharge a 30 round magazine, with reasonable accuracy in semi automatic firing in roughly 15 seconds, all I can ask is, who the fuck needs 15 seconds of covering fire? There's nothing bullet proof in urban society. Your would-be attacker isn't going to be hiding in a pillbox.

But I don't disagree entirely, I think the whole "assault weapon" term is applied very arbitrarily. As I said with my SKS vs. AR15 comparison. An SKS rifle is not considered an "Assault rifle" an AR15 is. Yet if you modify the SKS rifle to take a box magazine, it's probably going to end up being a much more effective "assault" weapon than an AR15 (longer barrel for accuracy, larger caliber for bigger holes)

What makes an AR15 an "Assault" rifle? Is it the pistol grip? There's plenty of rifles with pistol grips not called "Assault" rifles. Is it the availability of 30 round magazines? There's plenty of non "assault" rifles that you can get 30 round magazines for.

Clearly it's because it looks like the M16 and M16s are scary.

- - - Updated - - -

All for the things you mentioned except for a couple, one would be the mandating you lock your guns in a storage cabinet. It is my home and it should be up to me how I store my guns. By law, you already are held libel for any unsafe stuff in your home if anyone gets hurt from your actions. I take measures to store my guns safely out of the reach of kids, but I do not want the governments telling me how to do it. And the point about stricter background checks? That would depend on what you define as stricter ones. I am against any restrictions which are like some states have. Like the reasons given for getting a carry and conceal permit can not be one like.." I would like one for self defense."

I'm sorry, but if you have kids, but have guns in your house that aren't stored in a locked cabinet, with trigger locks installed .. that's just bad...

[Bullettime]

All for the things you mentioned except for a couple, one would be the mandating you lock your guns in a storage cabinet. It is my home and it should be up to me how I store my guns. By law, you already are held libel for any unsafe stuff in your home if anyone gets hurt from your actions. I take measures to store my guns safely out of the reach of kids, but I do not want the governments telling me how to do it. And the point about stricter background checks? That would depend on what you define as stricter ones. I am against any restrictions which are like some states have. Like the reasons given for getting a carry and conceal permit can not be one like.." I would like one for self defense."

Whether you get held accountable or not, if you have a child or mentally ill person living with you that get ahold of your gun and uses it to harm you, themselves, or others, you being accountable isn't going to undo the damage. Whereas you simply keeping your gun in a proper storage container with trigger locks will.

[Mayhem]

All for the things you mentioned except for a couple, one would be the mandating you lock your guns in a storage cabinet. It is my home and it should be up to me how I store my guns. By law, you already are held libel for any unsafe stuff in your home if anyone gets hurt from your actions. I take measures to store my guns safely out of the reach of kids, but I do not want the governments telling me how to do it. And the point about stricter background checks? That would depend on what you define as stricter ones. I am against any restrictions which are like some states have. Like the reasons given for getting a carry and conceal permit can not be one like.." I would like one for self defense."

so is it liabilty for the unsafe stuff or for your actions?

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny, I understood precisely what he said. He elaborated immediately after the statement in a few sentences. The meme, while funny, is nitpicking and nothing more.

are you talking about his famous sentence about dictionaries aren´t authorities on the definition of words?

the context is really all that matters

he used a definition for firearms that´s in no dictionary nor wikipedia and defended it with "well dictionaries are not an authority on the definition of words" the people have to use it first and then dictionaries are written

his problem right here is, the dictionary already is written and noone seems a need for rewriting the/adding another definition of firearm

you can´t just use your own definition of a word in an international discussion and not be seen ridiculous at the same time

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1239097-OFFICIAL-Gun-Control-Thread/page1213?p=24843113#post24843113

[Eroginous]

What everyone is thinking is the "gun show loop hole" which allows these traveling groups of people to sell guns under the banner of "you buy now, and get a check on your own" which as we all know is a load of shit.

The 'gun show loophole' does not actually exist. A 'loophole' is a legal exception written into a law or rule that allows for a situation to be exempt from the normal rules. An example of this is how corporate tax laws allow overseas capital earned by American companies to be exempt from tax in the US. The laws are explicitly written to allow for this, which is why it's called a loophole. Gun shows aren't some haven for illegal gun activity where licensed gun dealers can just ignore the rules and sell firearms to anyone they want to without penalty. No, according to the federal firearms regulations, any licensed firearm dealer (no matter how big or small), has to submit a background check for each persons buying a firearm. The rules are not any different just because they are at a gun show instead of a gun shop.

What you're seeing at gun shows are either a) blatant rules violations that could end up costing a dealer their licesnse, or b) private citizens exercising their rights to engage in the private selling of their personal stuff. It isn't a 'loophole' that allows private citizens to sell their guns, it's the fact that private citizens have a completely different set of rules to follow than businesses. Businesses who engage in the sale of guns are not private citizens, so there aren't any rules that apply equally to both private citizens and licensed dealers.

As it stands, the rules allow for private citizens to sell their personal firearms to one another without background checks (working as intended). This is not a loophole. This is not some exception written into business law or the federal firearms regulations to allow private citizens to circumvent the rules. It is a specific set of rules that apply to a specific situation involving a specific type of person.

The fact that anyone can go to a gun show and buy/sell/trade their private collection is also not a loophole. Where you buy/sell/trade your stuff is not important. It doesn't matter if you're doing it at a gun show, walmart parking lot, back alley behind an abandoned building, garage sale, or in the comfort of your own living room. It's all the same. Getting all hung up on the fact that it happens at a gun show is stupid and petty. It's unnecessary nit picking over a non-issue.

If a licensed dealer is selling firearms without background checks, he's already breaking the law and should be charged with a crime. If a private citizen is selling firearms without a background check, he's acting within the law and engaging in the rights he has as an American citizen.

The problem is that lawmakers on both sides are completely stiff and unwilling to compromise.

The problem is that the liberal left wants a utopian society where people don't have the capability of 'easily' killing each other with a mechanical device. This means no guns. There is no position on which guns rights advocates can compromise and still keep their second amendment rights. No matter what, adding more regulations means something is being taken away from the common man.

A lot of these proposed 'regulations' are nothing more than intentional inconveniences designed to make getting a gun so arduous that a common person is either unable to do it or loses interest. It's really no different than red states forcing abortion clinics to have admitting rights to local hospitals or limiting the number of abortion clinics that can be open. By making it incredibly inconvenient to get an abortion, women are losing rights to their bodies. Guns aren't supposed to be these highly specialized, super technical devices that only a small percentage of 'qualified' people are allowed to have. They are supposed to be accessibly by anyone who hasn't forfeited their right to own one (violent criminals).

he used a definition for firearms that´s in no dictionary nor wikipedia and defended it with "well dictionaries are not an authority on the definition of words" the people have to use it first and then dictionaries are writte.

As usual, you missed the point. You can look up common words in several dictionaries, and very rarely do they all contain identical definitions. Some will list contexts and uses that others don't. Sometimes, there are commonly used words that aren't even in a dictionary. I even posted a link of words that were only added to the dictionary this year (meaning they were widely used for a period of time without having a dictionary definition).

All of which you ignored to try and prove me wrong when I listed a very practical definition of what a firearm is. Mechanically speaking, a firearm is a machine that fires a projectile. You can get more specific and add that the propellant for the projectile is gun powder, or even add that according to the ATF only the lower receiver of a gun is actually considered a firearm, but those definitions aren't nearly as useful when trying to understand the impact a gun might have on society.

If someone has everything except for a lower receiver or a gun that does not use gun powder to fire its projectile, you're only splitting hairs by arguing the definition of what a firearm actually is. I'm 99% sure that if someone invents a hand held rail gun that has lethal firing capacity and can fire many times without a break, the definition of a firearm will change to include such a weapon, even though it might not fit today's definition.

Context is everything.

[Ghostpanther]

For one, I do not have any kid or mentally ill person living with me. And on the occasions I do have visits where kids are here too, I do put my guns in places no kids can have access to them. Saying they have to be in a lock container or locks on the triggers however is not something which needs to be done in all homes. For one thing, I sleep with my gun next to my bed...loaded. Keeping my guns in a locked container would do me little good if intruder breaks in. 2 - 3 secs can make the difference between life and death. So I would be failing to keep my self and wife safe.

- - - Updated - - -

so is it liabilty for the unsafe stuff or for your actions?

- - - Updated - - -

Both. Guns need to have a safety for one and also like my 357 mag, the hammer was modified by the gun maker to be safer not to accidently fire if you drop it or hit the hammer against something. And yeah, if kids are here present at my home, then I need to take measures to place the guns out of their reach or access to. People do have responsibilities when it comes to many things in your home to keep others from getting hurt. But there is few laws which govern what those are. Such as having a fire extinguisher. Now there is no law we must have those or a smoke detector. Where I live at least. But I do because it is safer to have them in my home. Hand railings on the deck. By our local law, you do not have to have them.

But I do because I care about myself and others falling off the deck. And if anyone gets hurt due to my failure to provide a safer home environment, I could be held liable. But I do not want the governments mandating what I should do inside my home to make it safer. However, after saying all that, I would not oppose a law which required gun owners to secure their guns in a locked room, closet or container if kids or mentally ill people are present. I could sleep with my gun next to me and have my bedroom door locked.

[TwoNineMarine]

@Ghostpanther

That makes me really reconsider getting one of those small pistol safes that are quick open with biometrics or something. I've shied away from them because they are all electronic (that I've seen) and I don't like the thought of my pistol being stuck in a box I can't access if the battery dies or something on it.

[obdigore]

@Ghostpanther

That makes me really reconsider getting one of those small pistol safes that are quick open with biometrics or something. I've shied away from them because they are all electronic (that I've seen) and I don't like the thought of my pistol being stuck in a box I can't access if the battery dies or something on it.

I feel like the fingerprint readers set into firearms is an acceptable solution to having a weapon next to your bed because you are living in constant fear.

I absolutely advocate full gun safe requirements if the firearms can be fired by anyone. Of course, I also suggest that handguns shouldn't be legal and only action (pump/bolt) long guns should be allowed. But hey, I'm a 'COMING TO TAKE UR GUNS' kinda guy.

[Mayhem]

If a licensed dealer is selling firearms without background checks, he's already breaking the law and should be charged with a crime. If a private citizen is selling firearms without a background check, he's acting within the law and engaging in the rights he has as an American citizen.

is a licensed dealer able to sell guns to himself the private person? yeah it´s a bit inconvenient

[Eroginous]

is a licensed dealer able to sell guns to himself the private person? yeah it´s a bit inconvenient

What?

I'm 99% sure any legitimate licensed dealer is going to follow the same rules as any private citizen buying a gun from a licensed dealer - background checks, waiting periods, ect. It would be extremely silly to lose your FFL because you failed to follow your own rules when buying a gun as a private citizen from an FFL.

[belfpala]

Fuck it. I'm starting a new punk band, "Liberal with a Gun."

I think it might sell 100 albums.

(There are two intended readings of that band name).

[Mayhem]

What?

I'm 99% sure any legitimate licensed dealer is going to follow the same rules as any private citizen buying a gun from a licensed dealer - background checks, waiting periods, ect. It would be extremely silly to lose your FFL because you failed to follow your own rules when buying a gun as a private citizen from an FFL.

the private person that conveniently happens to be a licensed dealer then can sell his privately owned weapons to whomever he wants... yeah them background checks sure work wonders

or is there something in place that needs a second person that is not a licensed dealer?

[Eroginous]

the private person that conveniently happens to be a licensed dealer then can sell his privately owned weapons to whomever he wants... yeah them background checks sure work wonders

or is there something in place that needs a second person that is not a licensed dealer?

If licensed dealer wants to sell his privately owned firearms (not to be confused with company property) what's the difference between that and another private citizen? Are you under the impression that a licensed dealer is going to all of a sudden have a huge collection of privately owned firearms just because he's a licensed dealer?

Fuck it. I'm starting a new punk band, "Liberal with a Gun."

I think it might sell 100 albums.

(There are two intended readings of that band name).

The funny part is that there are plenty of liberals who are in favor of gun rights and the second amendment. It's difficult to appreciate the viewpoint of the liberals who are in favor of increased gun control.

[Mayhem]

If licensed dealer wants to sell his privately owned firearms (not to be confused with company property) what's the difference between that and another private citizen? Are you under the impression that a licensed dealer is going to all of a sudden have a huge collection of privately owned firearms just because he's a licensed dealer?

hence my question, can a licensed dealer just sell himself weapons, therfor making company property, private property

[belfpala]

The funny part is that there are plenty of liberals who are in favor of gun rights and the second amendment. It's difficult to appreciate the viewpoint of the liberals who are in favor of increased gun control.

I still think it's a good name. I have my guitar out now.

Other topic: what's the difference between that and a private citizen? ughhhhh. Really? If you can buy a product from yourself at cost and resell under the table.... yeah. I don't know that it happens in the gun industry, but I know it happens in other industries.